No, he wasn't. Gollop Brothers are the creative minds behind the original games.
I don't remember him saying that he worked on UFO Defense in that video, he was enthusiastic about working on it now.
I was referring to Sid Meier, not that guy. Even then, he isn't listed among UFO Defense crew. John Broomhall was the composer. He says "I was there at Microprose" but that doesn't necessarily mean he worked on the particular project.
Wait, I'm confused - has there been an XCOM: EU-ralated video with Sid Meier in it that I haven't seen?
Yes, you can find it in related videos. Can't recall which exact one though. Sid Meier himself talks excitedly about making an X-COM game. Was a great scene.
Really? I'm going through the Game Informer stuff, and I can't find it. There's the one with the designer, the art guy and the producer, the one with the art dude on his lonesome, and the recent one with the sound designer. Was this something from outside GI?
Now his position is only specified for the first title. But he is unlikely to have remained in the same post from 1992 to 2001.Roland Rizzo has been working with the XCOM series since the beginning. Originally in the QA department for the first X-COM title
In any cases, the point is that he was part of the original team. He was there when the first game was being created. He heard the discussions on why each game features ended up as they did. He has insider information on what have shaped the original classic to it final form. That is true for the original and even more so for the sequels. Even those we have never heard about.
Now I would say that is quality personal for a remake. As far as bringing us back the original feel of the game is concerned. Now he is only in charge of the sound. But a is still something.
"Why Firaxis Loves X-COM" video. Then those people were:
Jake Solomon: Lead designer
Garth DeAngelis: Producer
Greg Foertsch: Art Director
No, that wasn't the video. It's the one revealing the game first-time IIRC.
Well, QA isn't really involved in the design process. I very much doubt he 'heard the discussions on why each game features ended up as they did' or 'he has insider information on what have shaped the original classic to it final form'. He could have been a beta tester and those send feedback, not participate directly in the creation.
He didn't really need to be an insider to grasp the idea behind music in the first place, the problem in remakes generally arise from people who say "they were a fan of the original" yet are totally oblivious about why something was done the way it was. Getting the 'idea' comes from both experiencing the original thoroughly (not just watching a "let's play") and analyzing its successes. For example, he mentions Terminator movies as an example, I'm a devoted fan to the franchise and I can understand what he's referring to. Since I went through them a lot of times and actually spent time thinking what made them so good. Music for example, wasn't built on western classic orchestras like it's nowadays and also back then for big budget movies like Spielberg and Lucas was making. Even for the second Terminator, Brad Fiedel supported the sound effects with electronic and instrumental music 'effects' that by themselves made no sense. As mentioned in the video, "you couldn't sing the tune". But in the scene, they exploded! They amplified the visuals, T-1000 stabs steel and that's accompanied by a violin shriek, it made you feel like you were getting stabbed in theater, not Linda Hamilton. Little stuff like that can elevate a movie or game from great to legendary-tier. It's also why some of X-COM music can still send shivers down one's spine.
I found it: XCOM Coverage trailer. It's listed in related videos.
The original X-COM was not designed with multiplayer in mind so of course it is difficult to see how adding multiplayer would benefit the game. If they intend for this new X-COM to have a multiplayer component they will be designing the game in such a way to make it fun and viable. Whether they succeed or not we can all judge for ourselves.
This is all hypothetical of course. I haven't heard anything about multiplayer modes or plans... do correct me if I'm wrong.
Fascinating. We may have stumbled onto a video that's been uploaded but not technically released, yet. Watching now.
Maybe you could search for small, medium or large map and the computer would match you up against someone through some global ranking. To get really advanced you could have a certain number of points per rank that lets you outfit your troops with different equipment, be different races, etc. I think it could be really awesome, and once the battlescape mechanics are already in place maybe even not that difficult to implement? It really shouldn't get in the way of the single player so DLC/sequel?
multiplayer in a stragety game? Maybe in something like company of heros but definetly not in xcom...my brain is doing flips just trying to imagine what it would be like...
TBT is very, very suitable for multiplayer. I have a circle of friends that every once in a while do Fallout Tactics multiplayer sessions. It's great fun and doesn't negatively affect single-player the least bit.
I can live without multiplayer if they get the rest of the game right. But multiplayer could be a great addition for a sequel. I'm not sure what the nature of the multiplayer would be like. Guys each controlling their own agent in missions? Multiple X-COM organisations? Some players controlling the aliens?
I think like warcraft first they need a popular profitable game to generate interest... maybe then they will do a mmorpg XCOM where they pursue aliens into space somewhat like EVE online...
MP should be completely seperate from SP. Also I would rather have them put their resources into the SP version first, and down the road release DLC or an xpac for the MP portion. The issue with the MP portion of XCOM is balance. In the beginning/middle bit of the game the aliens almost always have better gear and more soldiers than you (soldier count can vary, for this I'm looking at terror and base assault/defense missions). It works with an AI because they can hinder them in some way to help give you a chance. But I mean just imagine a true player controlling the aliens in the demo mission. Assuming load-outs are similar to original EU load-outs, then a single alien grenade (which nearly all aliens have) would have completely wrecked the human side while by the gas pumps (not that you would need the pumps to explode, but more explosions is always nice!). Plus the person controlling the aliens could have easily moved both the mutons and sectoids as a single unit in order to try and flank/pin the human player.
So really the MP needs to be it's own thing much like in warcraft/starcraft. Otherwise one player is just going to be out-manned and out-gunned straight from the start. And I would rather have the company focus on the SP portion first before attempting to tackle that problem.
For this type of game, I'd rather there be no MP, and instead be a strong focus on SP, especially AI.
Agreed. Too many games have MP to the detriment of SP.
I'd also go for better AI (replayability) rather than MP. too many whiners in MP games nowadays anyways. nerf this, buff that. I want, I want... sometimes solitude can be a very nice way of relaxing
WHAAA-T? that doesnt even make sense! yeah its sad, but they're selling out that total war title a bit. good that i only stick to ROME and EMPIRES (although i LOVED the first shogun, couldnt get into the second on though). cant believe they reacted to this in that way... why not make the hills smaller, or less available in MP then? did they also remove the exhaustion, while running up a hill?CA decided to remove the archers' range advantage when on higher ground
Turn based Geoscape, there should be enough room to on the globe to host 4 player coop game, each faction can either coexist with one another or be on their own. The possibilities are endless here:
- Joint operations where on a mission each player controls & bring their own soldiers to the fight or can share with the owner of the mission (depends who landed at the crash site first) If 6 man squads are the limit than players can split the units 50/50 or if possible, the Ai can adjust the amount of alien squads and the arriving player party can bring the whole 6 man unit.
- Players/Factions can share resources, science and tech.
- Even battle each other for the loot.
In the end the most proficient alien slaying faction wins. Or you work towards a common free Earth deal"
Back in the day during X-Com Enemy Unknown reign, my buddy and I use to split our units 50/50 go to the opposite ends of the map and try to take each other out, Aliens of course would end up hunting us at the same time, which made things more interesting. Only problem was the Fog of War that would allow us to see each other units. Nevertheless it was a blast!
The problem is that its such an expansive (and long) game, that the number of people that would take full advantage of it is very very limited. Unlike Civ, you can't 'turn up the speed'. They probably looked at the number of people that would do it, and how much effort it would take to implement, and decided its not worth it. To play out a single game would take forever. The only thing feasible would be to design 'quickbattles' as multiplayer.. but not the entire game.
Would most of us vote 'yes' to delaying the release date a couple months in order to implement a feature almost no one would use? Of course not. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't generate a signficant difference in sales.