Help
I dunno what to say really. I got my copy of the mag yesterday and I'm still astonished. Especially considering that the same person reviewed the original UC and ought to know that sequels are not about re-inventing the wheel. Oh well.
It is a one page review with a 56% score (compared to the 65% of the original UC).
Basically, he says...
....besides fractionally more fetching visuals, better multiplayer facilities and a new campaign playable as either a commander or a fighter ace, progress is depressingly insubstantial. All the stuff that really needed work - the accessibility, the planetside action, the FP mode, the shipboard ambience - those elements are as ropey as ever.
And...
...there are still no self-contained tutorial missions. The acronym-peppered interface is as unhelpful as ever. Heck, you don't even get a printed manual unless you stump-up an extra $10.
And...
It's: Ambitious. A lousy shooter. A decent space sim.
Its Not: Expensive. Restrictive. Very different from UC.
Page 1 of 1
UCAWA Review - PC Gamer (UK)
#1
- Supreme Cmdr
-
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 16,472
- Joined: 06-October 98
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Florida
- Interests:Keeping commanders in line!
Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:43 AM
#2
- Supreme Cmdr
-
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 16,472
- Joined: 06-October 98
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Florida
- Interests:Keeping commanders in line!
Posted 13 October 2005 - 08:51 AM
Below is my letter to Tim Stone (reviewer) and Ross Atherton (EIC) at PC Gamer UK.
quote:
Tim,
I just got my November issue and saw the review. I almost choked when I read
that. Scores are irrelevant, so that didn't bother me much. Though the fact
that 56 is the reverse of 65 (the UC score), I can only imagine that the score
was just another take on this ludicrous review.
What did bother me particular were the following excerpts which clearly show
that this was nothing more than a rush job. You basically assumed that UCAWA
was 'just like UC' and didn't invest the time to actually delve into ALL the revisions
and new additions to the game.
...besides fractionally more fetching visuals,
Thats just wrong. I'm not sure if you were running on a sub-standard rig or what, but
so far we've had no complaints about the visuals. Not from our gamers nor the media.
In fact, the visuals when compared to the previous UC game, are worlds apart. Literally.
better multiplayer facilities and a new campaign playable as either a commander or a fighter ace,
erm, wot?!? Did you miss the 16 Instant Action scenarios?
progress is depressingly insubstantial.
No point in even pondering on this. I'll just attach the game's dev VCF which we updated
religiously throughout its development.
All the stuff that really needed work - the accessibility, the planetside action, the FP mode, the shipboard ambience - those elements are as ropey as ever.
OK, why does the 'accessibility' need work? You guys consistently give the X series higher scores without
a single peep about how insane its interface and accessibility are. Yet, its the same old song and dance
when it comes to the BC/UC games. If the people buying these games don't find anything
wrong with the accessibility, why is it an issue? Why should sequels go back and re-invent the wheel
and fix was was - clearly - not broken? Seriously. In fact, at the IGDA hosted launch party for the game,
I spoke about this very aspect and why sequels sometimes fail.
The FP mode is one of the most revised aspects of the game. I fail to see what exactly you found wrong
with it. Then again, you failed to say why it needed work. Its not a dedicated FPS - and was never billed
as that. The FP mode is just another aspect that gives the gamer total immersion.
As for shipboard ambience; I have no idea what you're going on about there.
...there are still no self-contained tutorial missions.
Why are they needed? They tutorials are just like anything game's tutorial.
Are there ANY self-contained tutorials in Falcon 4.0: Allied Force? A game you - foolishly - listed as an
alternative to a space sim?!?
The acronym-peppered interface is as unhelpful as ever.
The interface remains unchanged. Why? Because it is a sequel. It wasn't broken before and there was no
need to change it and alienate gamers who were already used to it.
Heck, you don't even get a printed manual unless you stump-up an extra $10.
Thats funny. Really funny. How many triple-A games are released with piss-poor 'printed' manuals.
The game's manuals are on PDF format on disk. Those who want a printed manual, can pony up
for one if they don't already have the printed manual from Universal Combat. In fact, we only
did a limited run of printed manuals and they all sold out in the first week. I never thought that
anyone who already had the UC printed manual would want the UCAWA version. I was wrong.
Anyway, I am sorely disappointed by this review. There is nothing that I can do about it, but I
felt that I must send this email to voice my disappointment and displeasure. I think that somewhere
along the way, you've lost sight of the goal. Yet, we wonder why more and more gamers are
taking PC Gamer reviews with lesser and lesser grains of salt. This review was just wrong and
categorically unfair.
cheers
DS
Tim,
I just got my November issue and saw the review. I almost choked when I read
that. Scores are irrelevant, so that didn't bother me much. Though the fact
that 56 is the reverse of 65 (the UC score), I can only imagine that the score
was just another take on this ludicrous review.
What did bother me particular were the following excerpts which clearly show
that this was nothing more than a rush job. You basically assumed that UCAWA
was 'just like UC' and didn't invest the time to actually delve into ALL the revisions
and new additions to the game.
...besides fractionally more fetching visuals,
Thats just wrong. I'm not sure if you were running on a sub-standard rig or what, but
so far we've had no complaints about the visuals. Not from our gamers nor the media.
In fact, the visuals when compared to the previous UC game, are worlds apart. Literally.
better multiplayer facilities and a new campaign playable as either a commander or a fighter ace,
erm, wot?!? Did you miss the 16 Instant Action scenarios?
progress is depressingly insubstantial.
No point in even pondering on this. I'll just attach the game's dev VCF which we updated
religiously throughout its development.
All the stuff that really needed work - the accessibility, the planetside action, the FP mode, the shipboard ambience - those elements are as ropey as ever.
OK, why does the 'accessibility' need work? You guys consistently give the X series higher scores without
a single peep about how insane its interface and accessibility are. Yet, its the same old song and dance
when it comes to the BC/UC games. If the people buying these games don't find anything
wrong with the accessibility, why is it an issue? Why should sequels go back and re-invent the wheel
and fix was was - clearly - not broken? Seriously. In fact, at the IGDA hosted launch party for the game,
I spoke about this very aspect and why sequels sometimes fail.
The FP mode is one of the most revised aspects of the game. I fail to see what exactly you found wrong
with it. Then again, you failed to say why it needed work. Its not a dedicated FPS - and was never billed
as that. The FP mode is just another aspect that gives the gamer total immersion.
As for shipboard ambience; I have no idea what you're going on about there.
...there are still no self-contained tutorial missions.
Why are they needed? They tutorials are just like anything game's tutorial.
Are there ANY self-contained tutorials in Falcon 4.0: Allied Force? A game you - foolishly - listed as an
alternative to a space sim?!?
The acronym-peppered interface is as unhelpful as ever.
The interface remains unchanged. Why? Because it is a sequel. It wasn't broken before and there was no
need to change it and alienate gamers who were already used to it.
Heck, you don't even get a printed manual unless you stump-up an extra $10.
Thats funny. Really funny. How many triple-A games are released with piss-poor 'printed' manuals.
The game's manuals are on PDF format on disk. Those who want a printed manual, can pony up
for one if they don't already have the printed manual from Universal Combat. In fact, we only
did a limited run of printed manuals and they all sold out in the first week. I never thought that
anyone who already had the UC printed manual would want the UCAWA version. I was wrong.
Anyway, I am sorely disappointed by this review. There is nothing that I can do about it, but I
felt that I must send this email to voice my disappointment and displeasure. I think that somewhere
along the way, you've lost sight of the goal. Yet, we wonder why more and more gamers are
taking PC Gamer reviews with lesser and lesser grains of salt. This review was just wrong and
categorically unfair.
cheers
DS
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1