UFO: Aftershock English demo!

[Slaughter]

UFO: Aftershock is just a week away from release, and today Cenega released the official English demo. You can find a list of mirrors here (281 mb).

 

[Dove]

Cool, thanks.

 

[Slaughter]

You can find information on the first reviews of UFO: Aftershock here. They are sort of positive...

 

[Roshambo]

Downloaded it. Bleh...another half-ass X-COM rip-off that shoves RTS into squad-based tactical gameplay for the "enjoyment" of passively watching the game play itself for you. Craptacular.

 

[Slaughter]

If you can't stomach real-time with pause there's no way you'll like this game, that's for sure. Personally I prefer turn-based, but like the S.A.S. system as well.

And ALTAR has a good reason for "ripping off X-COM". When they developed Aftermath they took over the project that the Gollops (creators of X-COM) were working on, and Dreamland was a spiritual successor to X-COM.

So far UFO: Aftershock has gotten 4 out of 5, 88% and a silver award and 90% and a gold award. I'll hold my judgement until I try the full game myself, but it's promising.

 

[Roshambo]

If you can't stomach real-time with pause there's no way you'll like this game, that's for sure. Personally I prefer turn-based, but like the S.A.S. system as well.

Yeah, too bad the fuckwits who made the game forgot exactly who would be interested in the game; not the BioWare kiddies, those who remember and enjoy X-COM. The same people, who en masse, snubbed the previous rip-off into getting a lower score because it was essentially little more than a cheap clone with crackhead combat.

And ALTAR has a good reason for "ripping off X-COM". When they developed Aftermath they took over the project that the Gollops (creators of X-COM) were working on, and Dreamland was a spiritual successor to X-COM.

Sure, it's okay for them to rip it off, and then only give a shallow, shitty substitute that offers little of the original gameplay that people have come to expect from an X-COM game and those who want to feebly follow along on the coat-tails of better games and use the name (UFO was the Euro name for X-COM).

It is just like the shitheads who name-drop Fallout everywhere. Either offer Fallout gameplay, or X-COM/UFO gameplay, or don't bother inferring it and they can shut their attention-whoring mouths. Well, actually, the X-COM fans are used to and expect most spin-offs or rip-offs to inherently suck ass because they miss the point in lieu of shallow marketing idiocy. At least that still hasn't changed.

So far UFO: Aftershock has gotten 4 out of 5, 88% and a silver award and 90% and a gold award. I'll hold my judgement until I try the full game myself, but it's promising.

I don't care what the media cattle and BioWhore kiddies grade the game. As a strategy game, it inherently misses the point. Considering 99% of the game will likely be spent in combat, I don't care if people are sufficiently paddling around the shallow end of the gene pool to happily moo as the game plays itself for them, like the last shitty half-ass rip-off (Enforcer was a spin-off, Aftermath was simply a cheap rip-off). That still doesn't make this game any better than the last shitty rip-off of theirs. It is a bit prettier, so I guess that is where the media cattle came up with the higher score, though it still didn't help much. It also doesn't help when the media cattle are this clueless. IGN is also wholly clueless, though I am not surprised at all, since they don't have anyone on their staff who understands the concepts between TB and RT. In fact, most of their staff solely consists of untermenschen that are only capable of re-wording press kits.

However, Cenega kept in touch with the fans, listened, and now they believe they are in the process of restoring the series to its former glory

IGN are such press kit whores. Nice lie, folks. Now whose was it originally, the press kit whores, or the developers who claimed to have listened to X-COM fans THE LAST TIME AND OBVIOUSLY LIED ABOUT IT.

UFO Aftershock is supposed to be a true sequel, although many of the elements that made the series popular remain. It blends a mix of real-time and turn-based action with its combat, but it's equally about global management. Playing as one of three factions, you'll build bases in one of many different territories around the world. Your goal is to rid the globe of your silly, misguided opponents.

A true sequel? Now this is ballsy to claim, but fail at. It is also amusing to try and call it a sequel when it isn't the same game. Damn, the lies just keep piling up on the IGN shitstack.

For you newcomers to the series, the combat is a mixture of real-time and turn-based. At any given time, you can pause the action and give your team orders. After resuming the action, everyone will dutifully follow your commands. You can disable certain options for the auto-pausing, so you can pretty much run the gambit from pure-turn-based to pure-real-time.

Damn...and here we thought only EGM printed such glaring stupidity as Baldur's Gate having TB combat. TB does NOT mean "Pause".

As long as the lying idiot developers keep forgetting what made X-COM great and keep dryhumping X-COM:Apocalypse, the game will always get a lower rating than something of more obvious quality from over a decade ago - like most cheap rip-offs deserve. Enough people remember the real games, and the real sequels to X-COM, and how there hasn't been one since TFTD.

 

[Slaughter]

Yeah, too bad the fuckwits who made the game forgot exactly who would be interested in the game; not the BioWare kiddies, those who remember and enjoy X-COM. The same people, who en masse, snubbed the previous rip-off into getting a lower score because it was essentially little more than a cheap clone with crackhead combat.

Aftermath surely wasn't a fantastic game. That being said, a game inspired by X-COM doesn't have to be turn-based to be enjoyed by X-COM fans. Most would prefer it, but many still like or stomach S.A.S.

Sure, it's okay for them to rip it off, and then only give a shallow, shitty substitute that offers little of the original gameplay that people have come to expect from an X-COM game and those who want to feebly follow along on the coat-tails of better games and use the name (UFO was the Euro name for X-COM).

Well, they didn't manage to copyright UFO for some reason. X-COM is the name of the franchise, and that's the end of it. There is little doubt that ALTAR wanted to appeal to the X-COM fans with the name they gave the game, and even though I agree with you that Aftermath wasn't too good a tribute, the game WAS a spiritual successor to X-COM.

It is just like the shitheads who name-drop Fallout everywhere. Either offer Fallout gameplay, or X-COM/UFO gameplay, or don't bother inferring it and they can shut their attention-whoring mouths. Well, actually, the X-COM fans are used to and expect most spin-offs or rip-offs to inherently suck ass because they miss the point in lieu of shallow marketing idiocy. At least that still hasn't changed.

Whether you liked Aftermath or not, it does offer quite a few of the elements that X-COM had. There is global scale strategy, including research and manufacture, and small squad tactical combat. There are interceptions, base attacks, a global scale alien invasion and so on. Aftermath was the closest things to the X-COM games that has come since Apocalypse.

That being said, ALTAR "dumbed down" Aftermath in many areas, and not going with turn-based was a bad idea in most X-COM fans opinion. But even if it wasn't turn-based, quite a few X-COM fans came to like the S.A.S. system, or at least stomach it.

In Aftershock, ALTAR has listened to the feedback from the fans. They refused to change back to turn-based, as they think S.A.S. is a better system, but in most other areas they have done what the fans wanted.

Aftershock includes base management, the ability to enter buildings, partially destructible buildings (Silent Storm is pretty much the only 3d strategy game that has done "fully" destructible, and creating something like that engine is a development in itself), customisable weapons, diplomacy (quite simple though), prone, better AI (still not fantastic I guess, but neither was X-COM's), resource management and so on. Even though you can't start the time in the strategic part of the demo, surely you can see the improvements over Aftermath?

I don't care what the media cattle and BioWhore kiddies grade the game. As a strategy game, it inherently misses the point. Considering 99% of the game will likely be spent in combat, I don't care if people are sufficiently paddling around the shallow end of the gene pool to happily moo as the game plays itself for them, like the last shitty half-ass rip-off (Enforcer was a spin-off, Aftermath was simply a cheap rip-off). That still doesn't make this game any better than the last shitty rip-off of theirs. It is a bit prettier, so I guess that is where the media cattle came up with the higher score, though it still didn't help much. It also doesn't help when the media cattle are this clueless. IGN is also wholly clueless, though I am not surprised at all, since they don't have anyone on their staff who understands the concepts between TB and RT. .

It's quite sad to read what the media post about Aftermath / Aftershock, that's for sure. Only a very few of them get all the facts straight, and the CNet site you link to is a good example.

Quite a few things have changed in the tactical part in Aftershock however. You can now enter buildings, and cover and crouch / prone matters now. There are new fire modes (snap and aimed), in addition to single and burst of course. You can shoot through walls now, or blow them to pieces, and you can snipe from the roof of buildings. Because of the rag doll effect you can shoot enemies down from roofs or bridges, and people get up again after being stunned if you do not finish them.

Anyway, my point is that there are quite a few changes to the tactical part, even though the strategic one has the majority of changes. You may not notice the tactical changes all that much in the demo, as they are small maps where you mostly meet one enemy at the time, but they are there.

In the end you'll not like this game regardless of the improvements over Aftermath, simply because it isn't turn-based. Fair enough, but that isn't so for all X-COM fans. Many might prefer turn-based, but they still think S.A.S. is fun, and care deeply for many other elements of X-COM besides the combat system.

As long as these idiots keep forgetting what made X-COM great, the game will always get a lower rating than something of more obvious quality from over a decade ago - like most cheap rip-offs deserve.

We'll see, but doing things better than X-COM (or Fallout) is no easy feet, and personally I prefer that someone try. But then again, I do not REQUIRE turn-based to enjoy it.

 

[Roshambo]

Aftermath surely wasn't a fantastic game. That being said, a game inspired by X-COM doesn't have to be turn-based to be enjoyed by X-COM fans. Most would prefer it, but many still like or stomach S.A.S.

So, then, why would they tell the X-COM fans that have been wanting another game like it, that this is a sequel or even try to imply the same title?

Well, they didn't manage to copyright UFO for some reason. X-COM is the name of the franchise, and that's the end of it. There is little doubt that ALTAR wanted to appeal to the X-COM fans with the name they gave the game, and even though I agree with you that Aftermath wasn't too good a tribute, the game WAS a spiritual successor to X-COM.

Just like Daikatana was a spiritual successor to Quake and Fallout: POS was the spiritual successor to Fallout.

Cheap rip-offs are NOT spiritual successors.

Whether you liked Aftermath or not, it does offer quite a few of the elements that X-COM had. There is global scale strategy, including research and manufacture, and small squad tactical combat. There are interceptions, base attacks, a global scale alien invasion and so on. Aftermath was the closest things to the X-COM games that has come since Apocalypse.

These are the same excuses that were made for FOT and many other games. Just because a game feebly tries to copy a theme, that doesn't make it a spiritual successor, that makes it a CLONE. There is a reason why Fallout is considered to be the spiritual successor of Wasteland.

It isn't because of the general theme. That is like calling Baldur's Gate the spiritual successor of Gold Box.

That being said, ALTAR "dumbed down" Aftermath in many areas, and not going with turn-based was a bad idea in most X-COM fans opinion. But even if it wasn't turn-based, quite a few X-COM fans came to like the S.A.S. system, or at least stomach it.

So? That excuses the fact that most X-COM fans couldn't give a shit about the new incarnation, nor those who do understand and enjoy the real mechanics of squad-based tactical gameplay.

In Aftershock, ALTAR has listened to the feedback from the fans. They refused to change back to turn-based, as they think S.A.S. is a better system, but in most other areas they have done what the fans wanted.

Yeah, they listened to the fans when they called bullshit on calling the earlier wad of shit a spiritual successor to X-COM and offered nothing of the gameplay, then they add a bit more of the gameplay and completely miss why TB was used in the first place.

So, no, they did NOT listen to the fans aside from see how else to cheaply pass this game off onto them.

Aftershock includes base management, the ability to enter buildings, partially destructible buildings (Silent Storm is pretty much the only 3d strategy game that has done "fully" destructible, and creating something like that engine is a development in itself), customisable weapons, diplomacy (quite simple though), prone, better AI (still not fantastic I guess, but neither was X-COM's), resource management and so on. Even though you can't start the time in the strategic part of the demo, surely you can see the improvements over Aftermath?

I don't see any improvement over X-COM: Apocalypse, the piece of shit the developers have been basing this garbage on. I have to call bullshit at listening to the fans, because they essentially just went along X-COM:A's design but just in different widgets. If they want to claim listening to the fans and also claim this game to be a sequel, then they pretty well can bother to do so.

It's quite sad to read what the media post about Aftermath / Aftershock, that's for sure. Only a very few of them get all the facts straight, and the CNet site you link to is a good example.

Quite a few things have changed in the tactical part in Aftershock however. You can now enter buildings, and cover and crouch / prone matters now. There are new fire modes (snap and aimed), in addition to single and burst of course. You can shoot through walls now, or blow them to pieces, and you can snipe from the roof of buildings. Because of the rag doll effect you can shoot enemies down from roofs or bridges, and people get up again after being stunned if you do not finish them.

Oh...wow... *golfclaps* Let me know when they manage to get the rest of the combat aspects of X-COM right and fully in before they try to call it a sequel. Until then, I will still consider this to be a shitty rip-off.

Anyway, my point is that there are quite a few changes to the tactical part, even though the strategic one has the majority of changes. You may not notice the tactical changes all that much in the demo, as they are small maps where you mostly meet one enemy at the time, but they are there.

I think you said it best yourself; they still don't have it fully on and to the point of X-COM, because they are morons that don't understand how to properly develop a game and put their personal preference over the game's design. Maybe they might get a clue and learn that the combat might be a little easier to develop and manage if it were in a time base that lends best to such type of gameplay. TB is really a no-brainer in this genre, folks. Trying to call something from ANOTHER genre (Action/RTS with strategs-style overworld management), classified due to its combat methods (RT+P combat), a tactical/strategy game, is just silly. It is even more silly to call it a spiritual successor when it isn't anywhere close. In fact, 1011's project, UFO 2007, I believe it is called, despite being on hiatus, sounds a lot more interesting than this rip-off clone. So do a lot of other efforts started by people who were OFFENDED so much by the dishonesty of this development team with the claims, that they went off to make games that actually WERE like X-COM.

One of those will qualify to be a spiritual sucessor to X-COM before these twin turds ever will. They can't be because they are NOT like X-COM except by superficial comparison.

In the end you'll not like this game regardless of the improvements over Aftermath, simply because it isn't turn-based. Fair enough, but that isn't so for all X-COM fans. Many might prefer turn-based, but they still think S.A.S. is fun, and care deeply for many other elements of X-COM besides the combat system.

Well, if 90% of the game is going to suck ass as it is slowly brought up to a point and kludged into some bastardization of X-COM's combat aspects, there really isn't any reason to like it, right? S.A.S., or whatever the morons want to flower up RT+P to claim it "innovative!", might be fun for some cattle. I DON'T CARE. I don't care about pleasing the lowest common denominator, even though the lowest common denominator would probably tire of the other aspects of the game. Thus the combat system is fucked and there is a double conflict of interest in the game's design, and therefore the fanbase is considerably more limited from that. I don't give a shit what someone "likes", that has no place in game design coherency. "Likes" only have place in shallow media hype.

Speaking of the combat system, remember the shitty AI from Aftermath? Still shitty, and it might behoove the developers to understand why, resource-wise, TB is FAR superior to RT in any form.

We'll see, but doing things better than X-COM (or Fallout) is no easy feet, and personally I prefer that someone try. But then again, I do not REQUIRE turn-based to enjoy it.

Funny that you would miss the point of the game style and genre, to the point of ignoring the point that the combat system designed as such still misses the point of said game style and genre. It is more action than strategy at this point, more like FOT than X-COM, and that is precisely why this is not a spiritual successor to X-COM. It is more like FOT's spiritual successor. Or, rather, if FOT and Baldur's Gate had an illegitimate child that aliens took up into their spaceship (with "UFO" spray-painted upon the side) for an anal probe.

I also don't care about a British newspaper with less clue of the game industry than Maxim, or something from the German gaming media.

I do have to give the developers one thing...at least they can code in pathfinding, unlike BioWare's work

 

[Briosafreak]

Hey Slaughter is this UFO turn based game still going or was it called off?

 

[Slaughter]

Hey Slaughter is this UFO turn based game still going or was it called off?

Yep, still coming. It was delayed, so I think current release estimate is Q1 2006. You can also find links to other interesting X-COM inspired games here. You might have heard of most, but it's worth a look. Also have a look at this.

@Roshambo: I'll answer you later. No time right now.

 

[Bloodlust]

For one time,i have to fully agree with Rosh.
If there is a franchise with more embarrasing and cheap rip-off sequels than fallout,that is the X-com series.

UFO 2000 (playable)
From their site: "UFO2000 is free and opensource remake of tactical part of 'X-COM: UFO Defense' game. It currently has no geoscape and economics, but it has the feature many X-COM fans dreamed for - multiplayer support"

This mod is really brilliant (and quite addictive actually ) .I've spent endless hours with my buddies with this.
It uses the exact same tactic side of the X-com1 (but the graphics are at higher resollution) for multiplayer battles.Two player support,with fully customizable squad for each player.Last one with an alive soldier wins.
Still missing some elements,like panic/unconsious,fatal wounds and psi-attacks,but it's playble and enjoyable even without them.

Anyone willing to challenge me?

 

[Briosafreak]

I have StrategyCore on my bookmarks but i never saw that page before

Hey Bloodlust i`ll take that offer when the game gets a bit more time of development ok?

 

[Slaughter]

I have StrategyCore on my bookmarks but i never saw that page before

Hey Bloodlust i`ll take that offer when the game gets a bit more time of development ok?

Well, StrategyCore is a merge between UFOAftermath.co.uk, X-COM.co.uk and S2HQ.com. Sadly we haven't had time (or been too lazy) to add all the old content into StrategyCore. We're adding bits and pieces when we can, but it takes time. You should check out the X-COM content (and Aftershock if interested) in our latest newsletters. Some good stuff there

Oh, and until we can port it over properly, we have a backup of S2HQ here.

@Bloodlust: Yeah, UFO2000 is quite excellent

 

[Briosafreak]

Strange how i had the place bookmarked and never saw so many things in it

Regarding Afterschock i`ll pass, for me X-Com stuff has to be TB that`s for sure. It just doesn`t feel right, it isn`t the same goodness, even if the game appears to be well made, so i`ll pass this one.

 

[Bloodlust]

Hey Bloodlust i`ll take that offer when the game gets a bit more time of development ok?

It's very stable right now and most major features are imported.So,any time you want,Brios...

 

[Slaughter]

Just wanted to mention that the first patch is out for the retail version of UFO: Aftershock. More information can be found here.