X-com: Interceptor Review

8.7

Format PC

Developer Mythos Games

Publisher Microprose

Genre Unknown

1 Comments

X-COM meets X-Wing in Earth's latest confrontation with the aliens. Could this really be the best of both worlds? Sort of, says Chris Anderson

What a prospect: an all-action space combat sim tagged on to the traditional X-COM resource management and research engine. With this concept in mind, the creators of Interceptor have set out to capture the hearts of strategy and action fans alike. For this they must surely be commended.

But, being the evil rotters that we are, we shall set Interceptor the highest of all challenges for this review. We shall put the resource management and research side of Interceptor up against X-COM: Apocalypse, the most recent (and best) episode in the X-COM saga, which sports a technically impressive and highly addictive resource management and research model. The space combat portion of Interceptor we shall judge against (sharp intake of breath) Privateer 2: The Darkening, which we reckon to be the greatest space combat game of all time. Thus begins our three-way mini-shoot-out: Interceptor versus a formidable doubles team of Privateer 2 and X-COM: Apocalypse. May the best team win. Or something.

Round 1

Research has always played a major role in the X-COM series, and Interceptor proves no exception to the rule. At the beginning of the game, your ships will have weak laser weapons and unreliable missile systems. This is not such a problem early in the game as the battles are fairly easy to win. But as the game progresses and your opponents get better (and increase in number), you'll need advanced weapons to keep ahead of the game. This means research, and the good news is you'll find this a lot less complicated in Interceptor than you may have done in Apocalypse. There is no longer any need to recruit large numbers of scientists and build living quarters for the extra personnel (all the time keeping an eye on the skill level of the individual scientists). Researching in Interceptor is a simple case of building data downlink modules at your bases and choosing which subject to research at each base. Up to three downlink modules can be installed at each base (the more modules you have, the faster your research is carried out), and you'd be well advised to build a couple of bases as soon as you can afford it, simply for research purposes, or your research will be carried out at a snail's pace.

There's still just as much stuff to research in Interceptor as there was in Apocalypse, but it's a far less painful and laborious exercise. Some of you may appreciate this, which is why we're going to give Interceptor the benefit of the doubt over Apocalypse for the research and management side of the game. Round 1 to Interceptor.

Round 2

Very difficult one to judge, this. MicroProse have taken a bit of a gamble by losing the tactical combat section of the game (which largely contributed to the success of the series in the first place) and replacing it with a space combat sim. We've got to be honest here and say that, visually at least, the combat section of Interceptor is not going to win any friends. It's certainly no match for the drop-dead gorgeous graphics in The Darkening. Even with 3D acceleration enabled, Interceptor's graphics look flat and unconvincing, the dark unwelcome void of open space coming across as, er, a flat black thing with white dots on it. The actual combat isn't particularly exciting either, lacking the intensity of The Darkening or X-Wing, and displaying a distinct lack of imagination in the way the missions have been designed (defend outposts, attack stray aliens, base-defence etc).

It's difficult to identify with your soldiers, too. In the first three X-COM games, you really concentrated hard on keeping your soldiers alive so they could gain experience and perform better in the next battle, and felt a real sense of loss when one of your favourite units kicked the bucket. In Interceptor, the soldiers do get better with experience, but you get the feeling it's all going on in the background. When one of them dies, the normal reaction tends to be 'sod it, I'll get another one', thus taking away the feeling of kinship with units you've kept alive for some time. On the plus side, there's a genuine feeling of excitement when you've researched a particularly neat piece of kit and know you're going to be using it in the next battle. Bigger and better lasers and missiles are the order of the day, and getting hold of these in Interceptor is a much more satisfying experience than in The Darkening because of all the work you've done to get them. Oh, and the explosions are nice. Round 2 goes to The Darkening, then, by quite a long shot.

Round 3

The most important round of all, in which we assess Interceptor's merits as an all-round gaming experience against those of Apocalypse and The Darkening. In fairness, Interceptor's developers have handled the transition of the X-COM universe from fully-fledged strategy to action-strategy hybrid competently and with much attention to detail. There's much more to do in Interceptor than in The Darkening, and the switch to space combat will make a refreshing change for those who have played the previous games in the series. Admittedly, Interceptor is slightly flawed as an action game, and hardened X-Wing and Wing Commander aficionados will scoff at the simplicity of it all, but as an all-round experience, the feeling you're living in a real universe with composite parts that all complement each other is still as strong as it's ever been.

The ultimate test of any game has to be whether or not the reviewer goes back to the game after the review. I'll hold up my hand and admit that I won't stop playing Interceptor until I've finished it - however long it takes - and I can't give it a stronger recommendation than that.

Who wins the shoot-out? I've changed my mind about all that. I mean, it's not really fair to pitch two games against one, is it?