Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 161 to 185 of 185

Thread: Is it really XCOM?

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by _Pax_ View Post
    Also if you want close remakes of the original Xcom, check out the "UFO: After____" series (Aftermath, Aftershock, and Afterlight). Very very evocative of the Xcom classics.
    Seems you didnエt even come close to understand what all these people are complaining about. Its the unique feeling and freedom that such a Turn/TU based Game gives you. There are legendary games like Ufo and JA2 that keep people talking and hoping for more than 18 years now.
    And donエt get me wrong, i donnエt mind about x-com games suitable for casual gamers or console kiddies who cant do "simple math with whole numbers" (liked that one) Itエs just that after being disappointed so many times now i was really hoping that there could be a worthy successor to UFO EU and TFTD when Firaxis is doing it. For me the original game mechanics with new Graphics an new story and a new techtree would have been enough. But it seems that is not what we can expect. In fact I fear this could feel like a Tentaculate sucked the brain out of UFO. but theres still a little hope an Iエll leave up to the demo version to prove.

    by the way - iエm also quite unhappy with the limited squad size. If there are only so few in your team, loosing one has such a massive impact that this wonエt happen all too often. Wether due to simplified game design or as a result of load/save rather than tactics. This was a point in the original game that made you really feel as commander of a military mission. Sure, you liked all your Soldiers, but after all theyエre Soldiers, and thereエs always the Risk of loosing one. And you have to make those decisions in order to fulfill your mission. But thereエs no greater reward than succeeding with getting all of your Soldiers back home at the end of the mission - Because of your Tactics and cautious orders and not as a result of the game design.
    There are great games with small squads - Incubation for example, you have to give it a look if you didnエt already - but thats not what a x-com game should be like. X-com games are about finding a way to solve your mission with the lowest number of casualties and not puzzling until you find the one possibility to kill hundreds of aliens with no casualties. Fighting a war means casualties.
    Last edited by killapete; 02-16-2012 at 03:12 PM.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    U.S. Northeast
    Posts
    3,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    Ecstatic, actually. Original creator, looking to make a sequel? Pegging the budget at a million dollars means, he's serious ... and if he gets the money, it'll be better than an amateur-hour slapdash thing.

    And yes, when the actual kickstarter page is set up, I will put my money where my mouth is. Possibly to the tune of four digits' worth of it.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    U.S. Northeast
    Posts
    3,841
    Quote Originally Posted by killapete View Post
    Seems you didnエt even come close to understand what all these people are complaining about.
    Way to enter a conversation: with a baseless, and way-off-target, straw man attack.

    Its the unique feeling and freedom that such a Turn/TU based Game gives you.
    No, by and large the comments made have been to the effect of utility, not aesthetics/"feel". I would never argue with someone who said "it just feels better", other than to say "to you, but not necessarily to the net guy in line."

    And donエt get me wrong, i donnエt mind about x-com games suitable for casual gamers or console kiddies who cant do "simple math with whole numbers" (liked that one)
    You should be more careful when using such large doses of sarcasm and hypocrisy like that.

    I'm no "console kiddie", nor am I a "casual gamer". My list of favorite games includes a lot of strategy titles (SMAC/SMAX, MOO2, MOM, the whole Civilization franchise, SotS1, SoaSE with expansions, GalCiv 1 and 2, Stars!, Space Empires 4 and 5). I've even been active, albeit somewhat peripherally, with the modding community for SE4 (for example: "mQNP", or "mount-based Quasi-Newtonian Propulsion" is something that I came up with, and later mod-makers of all stripes have often adopted for their own works).

    And I certainly COULD do all the math.

    But you know what? I didn't enjoy it. At all.

    Itエs just that after being disappointed so many times now i was really hoping that there could be a worthy successor to UFO EU and TFTD when Firaxis is doing it.
    Have you actually tried UFO: Afterlight, or the previous two installments in that trilogy? Because aside from not really using TUs, the feel of them is quite remarkably the feel of X-com, at least to me.

    For me the original game mechanics with new Graphics an new story and a new techtree would have been enough. But it seems that is not what we can expect.
    Not only is it not what we can expect, it was never reasonable to expect it. That's simply not the way remakes or sequels generally tend to work.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by _Pax_ View Post
    Ecstatic, actually. Original creator, looking to make a sequel? Pegging the budget at a million dollars means, he's serious ... and if he gets the money, it'll be better than an amateur-hour slapdash thing.

    And yes, when the actual kickstarter page is set up, I will put my money where my mouth is. Possibly to the tune of four digits' worth of it.
    Yeah, I'll probably put up some money too. A niche-but-modernised Wasteland is quite a tempting funding target. Maybe if it does well enough it'll encourage Fargo to bring back the idea for Meantime.

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sandy Ego, California
    Posts
    1,903
    Well, I for one will buy it and try it. I loved the original and have waited for a long time for a serious update. I'm not sure this is it, but I'll give it a shot. And I'll also keep playing Xenonauts and UFO:AI. But there is enough talent and money behind this Firaxis team to give me hope that their interpretation of the classic may be worth having and playing too.

  6. #166
    I loved Ufo Defence, TFTD AND Apocalypse.

    Why love Apocalypse? Yes, it was different. Yes, some of the aliens looked like Donald Duck. Yes, it was very hard - especially defending the city from UFOs was way harder than in UD and TFTD since big guns took down expensive buildings even when fired with care and consideration.

    But in the end, it was about the same thing as The Original: turn-based action and geoscape base-planning versus enemy with superior tech, numbers and nothing to lose. The feeling of beating the kakka out of invading aliens or perishing was there. Games like UFO:aftermath, aftershock and afterlight do not share the X-com-feeling. They are not turn-based nor strategies involved to achieve victory in Geoscape-mode are less intelligent or fun than in original X-com.

    I really wonder why the heck it is so hard to remake the original? Just add new graphics, modern physics and some bass to explosions, add water and stir. Voila!

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by marsujenherra View Post
    I loved Ufo Defence, TFTD AND Apocalypse.

    Why love Apocalypse? Yes, it was different. Yes, some of the aliens looked like Donald Duck. Yes, it was very hard - especially defending the city from UFOs was way harder than in UD and TFTD since big guns took down expensive buildings even when fired with care and consideration.

    But in the end, it was about the same thing as The Original: turn-based action and geoscape base-planning versus enemy with superior tech, numbers and nothing to lose. The feeling of beating the kakka out of invading aliens or perishing was there. Games like UFO:aftermath, aftershock and afterlight do not share the X-com-feeling. They are not turn-based nor strategies involved to achieve victory in Geoscape-mode are less intelligent or fun than in original X-com.

    I really wonder why the heck it is so hard to remake the original? Just add new graphics, modern physics and some bass to explosions, add water and stir. Voila!
    i feel the same !!!

  8. #168
    I am also interested to see what the game ends up like. I am not expecting much as most 'update classics' stink. Having Firaxis on board does improve matters slightly (but I dont like what they have done to Civilisation - too much combat not enough civ development). I loved the strategy and especially the suspense that you got with the first three XCOM games (more the first two that Apocalpse), but with the present attitude to gaming that every game has to be a fast shootem up fest with great graphics and nothing under the hood resembling gameplay, I am not expecting this game will be up to much. But we will see. As with all games these days though I will be waiting for the online reviews and forum reports before I buy. I am very careful buying games these days with all the DRM that makes games impossible to sell them. Its stopped me buying on impulse so if this ain't a great game I wont be buying.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where d'you think? Sectoid Squishing!
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by marsujenherra View Post
    I loved Ufo Defence, TFTD AND Apocalypse.

    Why love Apocalypse? Yes, it was different. Yes, some of the aliens looked like Donald Duck. Yes, it was very hard - especially defending the city from UFOs was way harder than in UD and TFTD since big guns took down expensive buildings even when fired with care and consideration.

    But in the end, it was about the same thing as The Original: turn-based action and geoscape base-planning versus enemy with superior tech, numbers and nothing to lose. The feeling of beating the kakka out of invading aliens or perishing was there. Games like UFO:aftermath, aftershock and afterlight do not share the X-com-feeling. They are not turn-based nor strategies involved to achieve victory in Geoscape-mode are less intelligent or fun than in original X-com.

    I really wonder why the heck it is so hard to remake the original? Just add new graphics, modern physics and some bass to explosions, add water and stir. Voila!
    How many games have tried to 'remake' the original? How many of them have got anywhere close? There's a lesson in there somewhere...

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by SectoidSquisher View Post
    How many games have tried to 'remake' the original? How many of them have got anywhere close? There's a lesson in there somewhere...
    Well I might be wrong, but I only know about one game that really tried to remake the original (fan projects don't count) and that's Ufo : Extraterestrials.
    And (after tons of patches and mods) it actually comes pretty close.

    I don't see why it should be impossible to remake the original game, the true problem is that it probably wouldn't sell as well.

    Now I'm still open to the new Xcom, but after replaying the classical X-Com once more I realised they are pretty much going to cut out everything I liked about the original (except TU's I never liked those).

  11. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by SectoidSquisher View Post
    How many games have tried to 'remake' the original? How many of them have got anywhere close? There's a lesson in there somewhere...
    That games in the PDS genre, especially actual X-Com series games, need to stick closer to the formula? The bits that suck and ruin the "magic" always seem to be the bits they changed (with the possible exception of the things that simply add another layer, like the weapon customisation in Afterlight, or stuff that just expands what's already there, like the "X-Com but more so" changes in Apoc)... :P
    Last edited by Brian Damage; 02-25-2012 at 07:49 PM.

  12. #172
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    That games in the PDS genre, especially actual X-Com series games, need to stick closer to the formula? The bits that suck and ruin the "magic" always seem to be the bits they changed (with the possible exception of the things that simply add another layer, like the weapon customisation in Afterlight, or stuff that just expands what's already there, like the "X-Com but more so" changes in Apoc)... :P
    I'm sorry, you're never going to get the "hard remake" you want from a mainstream commercial game- even the indie remake is varying quite a lot from some of the formula. A lot of the mechanics that people insist are necessary are simply considered outdated in modern game design and can be expanded on better from a different foundation. That's not to say anyone's exactly got it right yet- every game in this genre has had its problems, including the XCOM ones. (UFO Defense was poorly balanced, becoming much too easy in the late game, TFTD was plagued by bugs in a time when patching was impractical, and had an opaque tech tree in the days before the internet, they both suffered engine limitations on items you could bring/equip and the tedium of re-equipping soldiers at the start of every mission, and APOC was so different it turned off many fans of the series)

  13. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by 54x View Post
    I'm sorry, you're never going to get the "hard remake" you want from a mainstream commercial game- even the indie remake is varying quite a lot from some of the formula. A lot of the mechanics that people insist are necessary are simply considered outdated in modern game design and can be expanded on better from a different foundation. That's not to say anyone's exactly got it right yet- every game in this genre has had its problems, including the XCOM ones. (UFO Defense was poorly balanced, becoming much too easy in the late game, TFTD was plagued by bugs in a time when patching was impractical, and had an opaque tech tree in the days before the internet, they both suffered engine limitations on items you could bring/equip and the tedium of re-equipping soldiers at the start of every mission, and APOC was so different it turned off many fans of the series)
    "Sorry" yourself. I'm seeing little rays of hope from little things that I'm spotting here and there lately - studios wanting to shake off the yoke of publishers and the need for mass appeal; the fact that people were saying we'd likely not see another X-Com strategy game any time soon, either, that the FPS was the closest we were ever going to get, and that the release of that game was the only chance we'd ever have at a strategy game... and that they turned out to be completely wrong; the fact that there are certainly big name studios out there that want to move back to older-style gameplay... Heck, for years we've been despairing of ever getting a new X-Com game. Then, we were despairing of ever getting an X-Com strategy game. Maybe the future will surprise us a third time...

    Even if we can't argue Solomon around to reverting some of the watering down and removals (and I'm not so sure of that; I don't feel that he'd be so strenuously trying to get us to accept his pet mechanics and design choices if he didn't perceive that there was a chance, however slight, that the reaction to them might force him to modify them or change them back), I feel arguing for more classic, or at least more flexible, gameplay during the creation of the game and perhaps driving the point home with some well made mods afterwards could result in a more satisfactory sequel - especially if we can tempt newcomers with deeper oldschool-X-Com-style gameplay and encourage them to request it for the next game - I mean, hey, it's not as if APs or an inventory are necessarily unfamiliar to the newly-targeted RPG players or any action player who's found a liking for VATS mode in the recent FPS-style Fallout games, or limited ammo is scary to the reached-for demographic of action fans or roleplayers who have ever played a game with finite arrows :P. I think there'd be enough people to make it profitable, especially with the lesser budget I think a game like this most likely has. As for being outdated, it's funny you should call them that when the new game's using a similar movement system to a jillion and one tabletop battle games and RPGs from the last twenty years, game systems that wish they had the flexibility and data tracking capabilities of a computer program (and even then some of them allow more flexibility than XCOM:EU simply by allowing you to fire before you move, by default); and the further I go back the more computer games I remember that had unlimited ammo and/or limited inventories :P. Funnily enough, I've always favoured the ones with the comprehensive mechanics - Raptor: CotS is still one of my favourite Shoot-Em-Ups, f'rinstance, and the older Strike games are still fun now. Even some platformers these days meter basic ammo while having different types - Terraria, for instance, would simply not be the same game without it. No, I think an enhanced version of TUs and a shinier, efficient version of the lost mechanics would have been the step forward :P. I think their replacements have emerged from a combination of over-thinking the mainstreaming of this game, and author-appeal, rather than any sort of modernity.

    I've never asked for a hard remake - I want a game that adds more detailed fluff, tidies up and enhances the interface, fixes the balance and maybe adds a few things on top (I'm fine with the extra layer of diplomacy, for instance). I just don't want a game that throws away perfectly good mechanics that I massively enjoyed and consider to be a quintessential part of the experience because of a rusty interface and/or in favour of something that fits one man's rather narrow view of what X-Com should be and results in a game that I'm quite certain will disappoint me. Oh, and I've never claimed the old games were perfect, but the elements that added to their appeal in general could definitely be used to create an advanced and accessible modern X-Com, features that go without saying nowdays - TFTD's one-click doors, Apoc's statted scientists and persistent loadouts (and yummy, yummy interchangeable armour :P). Incidentally, I've always been pretty sure UFO was poorly balanced towards the end mostly because even the developers weren't aware of the infamous difficulty bug (it seems likely to me that it affected the testing process - I feel they would have fine tuned the harder difficulty modes had they known. "Easy", of course, would have stayed easy. Ish :P).

    I suppose that above all, I don't see the point in getting all depressive and blase about the state of the industry - heck, as a programmer I know that the purpose of a state-as-in-state-machine is to be changeable :P. Things change, and I'll bet publishers are already cocking a curious eye in the direction of indy-level projects and kickstarters. I almost feel I can nearly glimpse a future where even owned studios are occasionally allowed to do more hardcore, niche "good will" games by the smarter publishers, both as a way of improving opinion and pleasing fans and as a way of preventing developer burnout by allowing them to take a year or two off in between big projects to unwind with a much less restricted game on a lower-risk lower budget. Might even help to justify not laying off masses of people in between games. You never know. Or we could just see one or two publishers maintaining smaller niche studios, because the mainstream market is glutted, so why waste more money there? Either way, I don't think it'll happen anything like as quick (if it happens at all) without gamers making some noise. Uncharacteristically optimistic, I know, but there you are :P.

    PS: I feel Xenonauts mostly adds to the formula with a smoother interface and by only really streamlining things in such a way that they're not intrinsically changed, at least too much. It mostly hits the sweet spots of "This is old, but upgraded" like a classic car with nice tires and advanced suspension, rather than the "nice, but limited" of a scooter with a flashy paintjob that resembles the aforementioned car's. The only things I'm unhappy with are the lack of a blaster-launcher equivalent and human psionics, and the flat terrain (but hey, just like with Firaxis' game, modding! At least for the first two.). But even missing those, and in Alpha, it still feels more like X-Com than any recent clone, and looks a hell of a lot more acceptably faithful to the mechanics at the moment than Firaxis' game, it just doesn't have the universe and aliens I've grown to love (though I think the... Sebilians? I think they're pretty cool :P). With continued vocalisations and constructive criticism from the more hardcore X-Com fans, I think things on the PDS genre front can only get better in the future.
    Last edited by Brian Damage; 02-27-2012 at 08:38 AM.

  14. #174
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    257
    I'm not talking about return to difficulty or even experimenting with whether there are good things to be found in some classical mechanics, I'm talking about things like a detailed inventory grid in a tactical game, or people who don't want any sort of training/levelling mechanic layered on top of combat. Xenonauts is doing training, XCOM:EU will be doing levelling. There's more examples, but you're never going to have a 100% faithful remake, I'm sure we both know that's not how games work- ideas move on, even in retro-style games.

    And I'd absolutely argue that Xenonauts has intrinsically changed quite a few areas- no direct use of alien equipment, a completely different interception game, and hell, the setting being cold war, too. That's just off the top of my head. The difference being that you like Xenonauts because it keeps some core mechanics that XCOM:EU is innovating/iterating on, even though they're both significant departures. (and when we get our hands on both of them, we can have a proper discussion about which mechanics are better if you like) If Xenonauts is the game you want, that's cool, but I don't think you're being very honest with yourself if you're arguing it's a faithful remake- it's very definitely its own game, as much as APOC or the UFO:After games were.

  15. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by 54x View Post
    I'm not talking about return to difficulty or even experimenting with whether there are good things to be found in some classical mechanics, I'm talking about things like a detailed inventory grid in a tactical game, or people who don't want any sort of training/levelling mechanic layered on top of combat.
    I've never said I'm entirely against the leveling mechanic and its attendant perks, just that I can take or leave the latter, and if it has to be there I'd just prefer that it was done in a way that didn't interfere with the extant mechanics too much - passive perks that enhance TUs/AP/movement etc, accuracy, and so on. Maybe enablers like squad sight could be left in, too. As for the grid, you already know I'd prefer to keep it and update the interface, and that I think it can coexist with a modernised design.

    Xenonauts is doing training, XCOM:EU will be doing levelling.
    Xenonauts has training as an option, but then, so did Apoc. Soldiers still gain experience on the battlefield. I'd like our soldiers to have organic stats, so I hope the perks in XCOM:EU are the only thing we pick out of the two. That does make me wonder how they're going to handle the interaction between different ranks when it comes to morale, though - I can't exactly see it being how it was in the original, with higher ranks bolstering the morale of lower ranks, and their deaths having more of an effect, if only because it seems to me like the focus on "everyone doing their bit" may end up with a bunch of guys who are all nearly the same level, and with level and rank looking like they're one and the same, things like the one-sergeant-per-five-soldiers rule are probably out because they'd act as a stopper on progression. Knock-on effects, again.

    There's more examples, but you're never going to have a 100% faithful remake, I'm sure we both know that's not how games work- ideas move on, even in retro-style games.
    Again, I'm not asking for a 100% faithful remake. You're knocking down a straw man. If it came to it, I'd be reasonably happy with, say, something that was more easily readable but gave equivalent flexibility to the TU system in combat, allowing us the same wide choice in movement and action, without having to level up everyone first - if anything I'm asking for an enhanced remake with systems containing equal flexibility to the original games, and I simply don't think Firaxis' game is going to do that, even with the perks. I'd just like this game to be slightly more towards the Pirates! side of things than it is. Any one of the changes they've made might have induced nothing more than a momentary pause and a shrug, but, putting them all together, this game looks less and less like something I want to call "X-Com", or even "XCOM". And no, games don't have to deviate wildly for the sake of "newness" to be popular, if anything they just have to improve their presentation while adding features - I'm reminded of the very faithful yet updated remake of Bionic Commando, which was more popular than the much looser sequel/re-imagining it was created to advertise. It kept the gameplay of the original while adding granularity (a health bar), layers (the little dude can now fling things with his cyber-arm) and features (challenge rooms, force feedback and multiple weapons per level) while enhancing everything else (better graphics, deeper boss battles). Interestingly, the sequel, Bionic Commando Rearmed II, didn't do so well, apparently because it "didn't feel as special" (probably due to the removal of the top-down sections and the addition of generic jumping when the original did just fine with the arm-swinging mechanic) and felt like it was "watered down". I'm entirely aware that game mechanics and interfaces evolve, and I've been arguing for just that, while disagreeing that what we're getting is an evolution (I feel it's a step back). Whether you're making a remake, a re-imagining or a sequel, there's moving on and updating a system, and there's replacing it with something lesser out of a misplaced notion that it can't be made accessible, or because you're dead set on adding your own mechanics that crowd out the original gameplay until you can only fit in a rough approximation of it. It's like the difference between Bionic Commando: Rearmed, Metroid: Zero Mission or the Serious Sam remakes and things like Dragon Age 2, Jagged Alliance BIA or that "remake" of The Bard's Tale.

    And I'd absolutely argue that Xenonauts has intrinsically changed quite a few areas- no direct use of alien equipment
    No, but we're likely going to get a direct equivalent, in that we'll be making earth versions or derivatives. The end result is the same - research gives you a better weapon. Incidentally, I think XCOM is also doing this, if the "alien weapon fragments" on the research screen are any indication.

    , a completely different interception game,
    No, an advanced interception game. The difference being, Xenonauts interception is what you'd get if you added a dimension and the ability to rotate to the original game's mechanic while decoupling the viewpoint from the plane and instead of having to have a separate screen for each interceptor, allowed them to all coexist on the same display. In fact, if anything it feels like a de-abstraction, to me, as the whole aggressive/cautious element now becomes part of how you control the planes rather than a behaviour setting.

    and hell, the setting being cold war, too.
    That's not really a mechanic, and therefore I don't really mind it, especially since it's outside the X-Com series. All in all, like I say, Xenonauts doesn't change things too much, and I see the things that are changed as being enhancements, mostly, rather than replacements, or fluff-based flavour elements.

    That's just off the top of my head. The difference being that you like Xenonauts because it keeps some core mechanics that XCOM:EU is innovating/iterating on,
    I would say replacing. Innovating would imply they're "new and improved" (and even if they've never been seen in the X-Com series before, I consider the limited move-action and watered down inventory and ammo to be a step back for the genre in general), iterating would, I feel, be something more like my AP idea, or an enhanced movement interface, or allowing people to plan their path out to avoid "Wasted TU" situations or in the case of the inventory and ammo, templated and persistent loadouts.

    even though they're both significant departures. (and when we get our hands on both of them, we can have a proper discussion about which mechanics are better if you like)
    I think I can already see how that will go. I'm quite certain I'll prefer the flexibility of the older style system as opposed to the enforced rigidity of heavily-restricted movement and actions (though frankly I'll be very surprised if they don't add "action-move" as an option before testing's through, and maybe even action-action), not having an in-battle inventory (so no more freeform smash-and-grab, no more chucking ammo to the guy that needs it, no more rocketeer-and-squire combo, no more emergent stuff like grabbing brainsucker pods and isolating them in your backpack), not being able to choose when I can repeat-use my items and heavy weapons (no more spamming the rocket launcher at the cost of not having it when you reach the other side of the map), likely not being able to have more than one main base or significantly effect the main layout (so probably no more cleverly redundant bases, no more bases designed for defensibility), and having to make every mission as short as possible so that I don't miss anything on the geoscape. You, on the other hand, already seem completely fine with a fast-play-oriented, strongly rules-based, Tac-RPG-with-emphasis-on-the-RPG (as opposed to the simulator bent of the originals) XCOM; or in other words, you have no problem with an XCOM that, from my perspective, isn't properly XCOM. No, I'd rather spend the time discussing how to mod the game to be closer to its origin :P.

    If Xenonauts is the game you want, that's cool, but I don't think you're being very honest with yourself if you're arguing it's a faithful remake- it's very definitely its own game, as much as APOC or the UFO:After games were.
    No, it fits my criteria for faithfulness much more then XCOM: EU so far - I never said it was a direct clone, I said it was closer to what I see as an X-Com game than XCOM:EU. It advances, mostly, rather than replacing. Remember, I speak of the series as a whole, including what I see as the advancements therein, even including some of Apoc's mechanics. You're free to disagree.
    Last edited by Brian Damage; 02-28-2012 at 03:10 AM.

  16. #176
    I got the 1st XCOM game right after it came out (1994) and it blew me away immediately. I still loaded it up and played it with some frequency right up until a few months ago when I built myself a new Win-7 64-bit based machine (I'm sure there are ways to get XCOM to run on it but my attempts to sort that out have been fruitless so far.) I played a couple of the sequels but they just didn't measure up. TFTD may have been mechanically the same game but the sound was terrible (or perhaps it was just the re-released UFO-Gold version that was messed up sound-wise). Beyond that, as a scuba diver TFTD just felt stupid to me (throwing a grenade underwater??? lmfao!) Apocalypse I really could not get into at all - it just seemed awkward and cartoony, with the mood, suspense and soul of the original completely missing. Subsequent attempts to re-make or improve the formula fared no better.

    What I'm getting at is that ALL the ingredients of the original, every one of them, had to have come together in a really uniquely special way for it to become the beloved mega-classic that it did, and changing ANYTHING other than the graphics and perhaps adding some extra plot and context material is a seriously risky proposition for any developer if they wish to retain the original following. Rather than rambling on and on about a multitude of concerns others have already voiced (a great many of which I share) I値l just say this: if I buy this game (and I am determined not to let that be a certainty prematurely) it will not be on the merits of the original because it seems that there will be enough changes to make this a different game rather than just an update of the classic. I am not going to assume beforehand that it is even a good game (or a bad one for that matter). It値l have to stand on its own merits. I知 really sorry for planning to use the first wave of buyers as guinea pigs, but I知 just not going to shell out for this until I see some really solid post-release feedback that it痴 worth it. And I知 certainly not going to buy it just because of the XCOM label (the venerable Firaxis and Sid-Meir associations notwithstanding).

  17. #177
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,852
    Okay let me point out something about TUs and the move action system. Are you ready? It's going to blow your mind. Blow. Your. Mind. Ready?

    They're virtually identical systems. At least in function if not exactly in form.

    TUs are used to make your people do stuff.

    Move
    Look
    Crouch

    Pick up
    Reload
    throw grenades.

    Okay so how is the move-action similar?

    Move (you have a set radius if you still want to take an action (TUs allowed you to compute the same thing!) That is to say you could move and reserve actions. The M-A system just tells you this is how far you can move and still make a reasonable action.

    Crouch. Meh, I don't know. Cover seems to take the place of crouching... which I'll take cover... crouching still feels too open. Though I think I saw the sniper crouching on the gas station roof. So who knows?

    Look: Kind of obvious.

    The action covers things like:

    Shooting.
    Reloading (eats up your action)
    Item use.

    Now I'm going to admit. You probably can squeeze just tiny bit more out of the TU system, but it's a trade off. With the M-A you have a lot less mismanaging of the system. You don't lose your carefully calculated shooting position to the fact your forget to factor in a turn ten moves down the line.

    I believe the developers when they said they put in TUs and found the move-action system better. I don't think they changed the system a light thought.

  18. #178
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Except from what we've been told/shown you can go move-action, or move-move. You can't fire first and then move, as you could with TUs (at least without a nonsensical perk that we have one vague reference to), you can't fire twice, and even if you could, TUs allow a choice between quick inaccurate shots at multiple targets, or fewer more accurate shots - the closest we get to that is the Sniper class' "snapshot" perk, which is a specially programmed case and only removes the necessity to trade your move for a shot, and I'd rather perks gave us new abilities or stat boosts rather than simply enabling us to do things that we were able to do by default in the original game, anyway (with the possible exception of squad sight). Also, the phases seem entirely separate, so you can't move a little way, then fire, then finish your move. No, with the current data and in its current form, I do not consider this system equivalent to TUs at all. I'd be happier if the move was metered rather than one monolithic phase, or even better, if they met us halfway with a decent action point system with, say 3-6 APs tradeable for small slices of movement or varyingly-priced shots.

    But, y'know, we've been through all this on these forums before.

  19. #179
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    381
    I liked Apoc the least, myself. From what I've seen of this game it's looking very impressive. It looks like it's going to retain the feel of a classic with a few modern twists to streamline things a little - without drastically changing core gameplay (ala the new JA thing).

    The shift away from TUs is probably my only real concern since I like the exact management of my character's every move but one needs to see more gameplay footage, or better yet, actually play the game, to really know for sure.

    One very big positive is that the people making the game seem to have a clue and seem to have experimented a lot to see what works. We'll just have to wait and see if it works for us!

    Quote Originally Posted by heniv View Post
    Why can't people get it into their thick skulls.

    TUs however fun it use to be, is an outdated game mechanic. It will unlikely show up in a up-to-date game.
    Gonna have to disagree with you also. I think it's more about UI and presentation. For ex, in Silent Storm the TU system was done really well. You had real time for movement out of combat and pure TU based during combat. But the UI let you clearly know TU costs and you could see TU cost for movement before committing moves so the only way you'd put yourself in a bad position was if you rushed or did it intentionally. The other benefit in SS was that your troops got perks similar to talents and some of them could reduce TU costs for actions, so you had a lot of flexibility over time and could develop specialists at certain actions.

    Side note, I wish Nivel put out more games like Silent Storm, or that more devs would make more strategic tactical squad based games period. If this game delivers (and it's looking amazing so far, so much better than so many wannabes over the years) maybe it'll get the ball rolling on more such titles.

  20. #180
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    108
    All I am going to say is do not bash apocalypse dammit. I have played them all, Ufo, tftd, apoc, interceptor, enforcer, ufo-aftermath/aftershock/afterdark, ufo extraterrestials and a bunch of others and by far my favorite is apocalypse (and I was just playing it yesterday before I heard anything about this remake!)

    Why is it my favorite? Many reasons, feeling connected to the world cause you can see everything happening in the city, being able to properly engage realtime in both air and ground, marketing with the companies... and lets not forget megapol :P those guys kick ass taking on those ufos :P and having the cult of sirius as another enemy working to undermine you.

    I am totally stoked for this game and to me it looks everything like the xcom remake I have been waiting for.

  21. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    110
    I think the fans are all approaching this game with raised eyebrows and clenched fists from the beginning

    I also think this is a very good thing.

    If you ruin our X-Com, we'll remember it forever.
    Put your silly pride aside, thinking you can somehow 're-imagine' what absolute geniuses created in X-COM.
    Just copy it 1-for-1, and make it bigger, prettier, and attach the jagged-alliance 2 combat system.
    :> Do not change a freakin thing. Just add. and be smart about that too.

    everyone thinks they're a creative/marketing genius these days, eh. respect ur elders and betters

  22. #182
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where d'you think? Sectoid Squishing!
    Posts
    3,528
    Cobblers. You want another remake? Then get Xenonauts. As for 'respecting elders and betters', the guys making Xcom EU also grew up with UFO Enemy Unknown. I can't think of another game where people would be happy with exactly the same style from twenty years ago, but with better graphics. It's 2012 for God's sake.

  23. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    110
    What's Xenonauts? is it a really faithful remake?

    sweet, if it's good then I have no need of this new 'x-com'


    EDIT:

    OMG! IT'S TRUE! HOPING FOR SOMETHING LIKE XENONAUTS IS EXACTLY WHY I CAME TO THIS FORUM!

    Goodbye
    'dumb it down', 'screw modders by not releasing SDKs', 'release crap games because of corporate ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ deadlines', 'sell your grandma for profit', 'listen to market analysts instead of fans', '2 months between patches with game critical features broken', '80% of the development budget goes to marketting and graphics' 2K/firaxis

    and hello wonderful
    'gamers-for-gamers', 'mod supporting', 'let pre-paid customers play all the pre-release builds', 'enjoy quality rather than maximize profit'
    indie devs

    Further edit:

    Though of course I'll buy X-COM if it turns out to be good. What can I say, I love anything X-COM
    Last edited by Lightzy; 03-06-2012 at 05:57 PM.

  24. #184
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,852
    I'm just going to say one thing: You can't go home again. Anyone who doesn't understand this is probably going to not like Xcom: Enemy Unknown (2012).

  25. #185
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Funnily enough that saying comes from a situation in a novel in which a man falls out of favour with the place he originated from and the people there who you'd think would support him, due to his distorting the nature of said place when referencing it to newcomers. But it seems to me it's most often used to refer to not being able to go back to a confined life after experiencing something better. Which is exactly why I don't like the move-action system - after playing X-Com, and playing similar move-action systems in roleplaying games, I feel TUs are less confining.

    (You know, if you wanted to get really technical, you could say that this new move system is actually X-Com coming home again, since the pre-existing genre of tabletop wargames that inspired X-Com and games like it tend to use similarly rigid mechanics, but I preferred the flexibility that computerising them allows. Meanwhile, the rest of the new game seems to have made a definite shift from wargame to RPG, complete with tabletop/computer RPG mechanics, when you look at it on the level of numbers of feet on the ground, focus on individual abilities and character customisation, and class systems. Put it all together and you've got the main thing I don't like. If I want an RPG I'll buy one with fixed characters and whatnot - I like the X-Com series for large-squad action with a smattering of RPG stats, coupled with the larger scale metagame.)
    Last edited by Brian Damage; 03-06-2012 at 09:33 PM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •