James Carman (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} hrimhari) wrote,@ 2005-08-01 23:47:00 |
|
UFO
Anyone remember the old strategy/tactical game UFO: Enemy Unknown? Americans may remember it as XCOM: UFO Defence, the name it was published under when imported into the States.
Well, I've been playing it recently, and been getting addicted. It has all the micromanagement and involvement of Civ games, with some really cool and detailed squad-based combat. You hire soldiers, you outfit your bases, you shoot down UFOs, you storm them with your goons, you watch them get blown away hideously. It was neat.
Most importantly, for me, it was turn-based. That's something of a dirty word nowadays, but for me, it's exactly what I want. Real time with pause to issue orders is a nice compromise, but anyone who's played more than a half-hour of any RTS in existence will know how difficult it is to do more than one thing at a time when as soon as you unpause, both things start happening. In UFO, you could coordinate two elements sweeping the exterior of a UFO, while three other teams blew holes in the side and roof and entered separately, sweeping rooms clear. Do that on real-time? Heck no. Not without letting the AI handle half of it, and AIs suck as a rule.
The game was followed by two sequels, each of which I liked. The first sequel (Terror from the Deep) was very, very difficult (and the art really suffered) but was still fun. The second sequel (Apocalypse) took the focus down to a single city, with even more detail than the previous ones. I liked it too, although much of the art, again, was silly.
It was with much sadness that the sorta-sequel UFO: Aftermath was so incredibly bad. It went real-time (though with pause-ordering), but that wasn't the problem... as anyone who's played the demo can tell, they removed all the detail. Now you just say 'I want a base there. Make it a military base.' That's it. You hire on soldiers, which is good, and they have skills that you can increase. That's good. I approve. But the micromanagement is gone. This would be acceptible, except that when you get into combat, you die at a hideous rate. I tried doing the easiest mission available in the demo. Five minutes in, after losing a guy per alien (I tell them to attack, alien launches a burning oil attack that kills a guy before I have a chance to react - 100% accurate, 100% fatal, at long range) I cry and go home.
Fortunately, thanks to the marvels of UFO 2000 (a winXP-compatible version of the original UFO), I can still get my fix.
But now, there may be hope. In September, we'll be seeing a new UFO-style game, this one set on an alien world, earth's first colony, which has come under alien attack. It uses many of the same concepts, and even terminology (UFOPAEDIA), as the old games... I have hopes for it. Clicky
I've just had enough of being disappointed by games. I know I'm getting cynical and jaded in my old age, but I'm tired of seeing the same old crap trotted out again and again by totally unimaginative producers. This has always been the case, yes - I'm just seeing it more nowadays. I think it's becoming more common - a problem likely caused by games themselves getting more complex, particularly graphically. This means they have longer developments, require more people, and more budget. This means intercession of soulless conglomerates. So the good games that escape out into the world are there almost by accident rather than design.
Anyone remember the old strategy/tactical game UFO: Enemy Unknown? Americans may remember it as XCOM: UFO Defence, the name it was published under when imported into the States.
Well, I've been playing it recently, and been getting addicted. It has all the micromanagement and involvement of Civ games, with some really cool and detailed squad-based combat. You hire soldiers, you outfit your bases, you shoot down UFOs, you storm them with your goons, you watch them get blown away hideously. It was neat.
Most importantly, for me, it was turn-based. That's something of a dirty word nowadays, but for me, it's exactly what I want. Real time with pause to issue orders is a nice compromise, but anyone who's played more than a half-hour of any RTS in existence will know how difficult it is to do more than one thing at a time when as soon as you unpause, both things start happening. In UFO, you could coordinate two elements sweeping the exterior of a UFO, while three other teams blew holes in the side and roof and entered separately, sweeping rooms clear. Do that on real-time? Heck no. Not without letting the AI handle half of it, and AIs suck as a rule.
The game was followed by two sequels, each of which I liked. The first sequel (Terror from the Deep) was very, very difficult (and the art really suffered) but was still fun. The second sequel (Apocalypse) took the focus down to a single city, with even more detail than the previous ones. I liked it too, although much of the art, again, was silly.
It was with much sadness that the sorta-sequel UFO: Aftermath was so incredibly bad. It went real-time (though with pause-ordering), but that wasn't the problem... as anyone who's played the demo can tell, they removed all the detail. Now you just say 'I want a base there. Make it a military base.' That's it. You hire on soldiers, which is good, and they have skills that you can increase. That's good. I approve. But the micromanagement is gone. This would be acceptible, except that when you get into combat, you die at a hideous rate. I tried doing the easiest mission available in the demo. Five minutes in, after losing a guy per alien (I tell them to attack, alien launches a burning oil attack that kills a guy before I have a chance to react - 100% accurate, 100% fatal, at long range) I cry and go home.
Fortunately, thanks to the marvels of UFO 2000 (a winXP-compatible version of the original UFO), I can still get my fix.
But now, there may be hope. In September, we'll be seeing a new UFO-style game, this one set on an alien world, earth's first colony, which has come under alien attack. It uses many of the same concepts, and even terminology (UFOPAEDIA), as the old games... I have hopes for it. Clicky
I've just had enough of being disappointed by games. I know I'm getting cynical and jaded in my old age, but I'm tired of seeing the same old crap trotted out again and again by totally unimaginative producers. This has always been the case, yes - I'm just seeing it more nowadays. I think it's becoming more common - a problem likely caused by games themselves getting more complex, particularly graphically. This means they have longer developments, require more people, and more budget. This means intercession of soulless conglomerates. So the good games that escape out into the world are there almost by accident rather than design.
