And yet another X-com revival

[TheChosen]

This time from Firaxis Games

http://www.destructoid.com/turn-based-xcom-title-revealed-firaxis-developing-219094.phtml

So if we get lucky, there's gonna be two brand new X-Com titles this year: One more traditional and one offering something new. Good news for everyone I guess.

(in before "true sequel" and all that crap)

[The Fifth Horseman]

Best. News. EVAR.

[Panthro]

I've already put my money down for Xenonauts, but I'm sure I can find time to play this one too.

I do wonder how they're going to do it for consoles though, hopefully not at the cost of the PC version.

[Eagle of Fire]

I fear the worst. But as ever I'll wait to try it before having any final thoughts. It might actually be decent, who knows?

The biggest problem I foresee is that it will take something like two to three times the computer power of my now aging computer simply be able to run a frigging strategy, turn based game. Which alone is a reason to weep for humanity sanity when you consider that the original used to run on a computer which was about a hundred times slower.

[DarthHelmet86]

Let's see better graphics, better AI and no doubt a bigger and better world...maybe even more then one. Yeah don't see why that would need more PC power behind it to run at all. In before graphics don't matter, cause they do to me. They might not need to be the best ever, or even the most important part of the game, but if I am shelling out 80 dollars for a game I want it to look nice. I want a whole lot of over things as well but graphics is still important and always has been.

Looking forward to seeing what they do with this game, could be a nice dual set of games coming out. Or both could be the biggest flop of the year, oh well we shall see when it does make it out.

[Eagle of Fire]

Classic defense. Doesn't add up anywhere though, as always.

Strategy games are a niche genre in which having good graphics should be secondary. Giving too much attention to graphics actually can hinder the strategy game because the whole point of a strategy game is to be able to think thoroughly your next move (and also your next dozen moves if possible) to do the best possible action which lead to the best possible outcome. Taking time to think and being able to have the best grasp of the situation as a whole is a hundred fold more important than being able to see if your soldier didn't polish his boots this morning. And while I don't disagree with the point of having all of that at once would be wonderful, the fact that it never happen or that you need one of Nasa computer to run the game because of it doesn't add up.

Most strategy games nowaday don't understand that and it is clearly why the strategy genre have been neglected so much. As long as "modern strategy gamers" ask for graphics over gameplay for strategy games then there will be no good quality strategy game produced. O, with a bar inside it.

[hunvagy]

I'm starting to wonder what you mean under NASA computer actually. The strategy games of the last years I played on the rig I had before the one I own now. It was a simple single core AMD, and yet it could run King's Bounty and Civ IV. Both of which are very good games in my opinion. Oh and HoMM V, too. They had nice and stylized graphics, nothing too fancy *shrug* And Firaxis, despite a few cash-ins and flops (Colonizaition: Civ IV anyone?) has usually put solid things on the table. I personally liked their remake of Pirates. It may have had silly Sims as characters, but the gameplay itself was solid and fun. That is about all I want from this Enemy Unknown. Set in the lore we know and love, I should be able to build my base, send my people out in a Skyranger, and burn down a village or two :p

[Eagle of Fire]

Yup, that's what I want too. You however have to remember that there has been so many attempts to recreate X-Com fun, feel and atmosphere over the years which failed miserably that one has to wonder how hard it is to actually do recreate them?

But there is plenty of games I can't run and I also have a single core AMD. Of course, for gaming, a very strong single core is actually better than multiple cores unless you manage to find games which are optimized specially to be able to take advantage of them. Which is why it managed to run "modern" games like Spore and Sins of a Solar Empire pretty decently even with my aging rig.

One of the examples I can provide of strategy games I simply cannot make to work is Blood Bowl. Got this game for Christmas... It's not even a very recent game, I think it got out several years ago... And my computer is outclassed in every point from the minimum requirements.

It is a very simple War Hammer football adaptation in which you hit the players to win. Why do I need such a powerful computer only to see blood come out of the bits I tear out from the other players, I have no idea.

(And yes, I actually tried the game briefly at a friend place. It really shows nothing even remotely impressive to warrant so much resource usage.)

[hunvagy]

Yup, that's what I want too. You however have to remember that there has been so many attempts to recreate X-Com fun, feel and atmosphere over the years which failed miserably that one has to wonder how hard it is to actually do recreate them?

But there is plenty of games I can't run and I also have a single core AMD. Of course, for gaming, a very strong single core is actually better than multiple cores unless you manage to find games which are optimized specially to be able to take advantage of them. Which is why it managed to run "modern" games like Spore and Sins of a Solar Empire pretty decently even with my aging rig.

One of the examples I can provide of strategy games I simply cannot make to work is Blood Bowl. Got this game for Christmas... It's not even a very recent game, I think it got out several years ago... And my computer is outclassed in every point from the minimum requirements.

It is a very simple War Hammer football adaptation in which you hit the players to win. Why do I need such a powerful computer only to see blood come out of the bits I tear out from the other players, I have no idea.

(And yes, I actually tried the game briefly at a friend place. It really shows nothing even remotely impressive to warrant so much resource usage.)

Heh, that one is .. crap >.> From an engine view at least. I have tried it a few times, but no matter how nice it looks, and how deep the strategy part seems to go, it is just too demanding. But there have been bad apples all the time, we shall see how Firaxis fares with the UFO license. In a way, it is back at its original creators (as Firaxis is mostly made up of Sids and Microprose's old employees). Maybe someone does remember what made UFO utter fun :)

[jonh_sabugs]

Sounds promising. As for PC usage, if it's devoted to mechanics I wouldn't mind. But then, I am a DF fan, so I am a bit biased...

[TheChosen]

First info and screens. Looking good so far, although its not spectacularly gorgeous.

http://www.gameinformer.com/p/xcom.aspx

I also find it nice that they're not ignoring the other new X-Com, making it a real prequel to this. Should be interesting to see how well those two mix up.

[jonh_sabugs]

Oh, turn-based combat, and other ideas from the original games, this sounds really promising. They do mention streamlining though, I hope it's not the kind of streamlining they put in Civ 5...

[Eagle of Fire]

[...]level up their soldiers and recruit new ones,[...]
Damnit... This and the screenshot under it lead me very strongly to think that this will simply be yet another horrible failed attempt.

We already had something similar years ago with the UFO serie...

:(

[Dave]

I'm happy to hear the news, but the screenshots didn't impress me much.
But maybe it's too early to judge.

[DarthHelmet86]

Seems very interesting, unlike the rest of you I thought the screenshots looked rather nice, though not happy it is getting a console release. Strat games never work well on the consoles, but I hope the PC version will be well optimised...if it is getting one that is.

Streamlining and removing uninteresting features, hmmm it's an odd one X-Com was pretty streamlined so I don't know what they are talking about removing this will have to wait and see till we find out the actual things they are removing or changing before I can judge. Maybe it is the removal of the research system, or maybe the options about the stances your men are in?

I can't wait till I see a gameplay video to see how it plays.

[The Fifth Horseman]

There's more information on bases (and it also gives some insight into the management part of the game), as well as an example of gameplay in a disturbingly familiar environment. The graphics feel a little too bright and colorful, though.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/02/03/interactive-ant-farm-exploring-xcom-s-hq.aspx
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/26/advanced-tactics-exploring-xcom-39-s-combat-part-1.aspx
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/28/advanced-tactics-exploring-xcom-39-s-combat-part-2.aspx

[Panthro]

I want to like it, but I can't help but feel like they have streamlined some of the stuff I actually like.

I'm really not keen on the movement system (you get two actions, so it's either Move+Move, Move+shoot or shoot+shoot). Time Units allowed for far more flexibility, and I will miss them.

It also doesn't look quite right, but perhaps I just need to see it in action. I much prefer the look of Xenonauts.

[Japo]

I don't like the D&D-like elements, and it reminds me of Commandos: soldiers seem to belong to rigid classes--Assault, Heavy, Sniper...

[Eagle of Fire]

Yeah, me neither. But then again I already mentioned it earlier in this thread.

The 2 moves option indeed sound a lot like D&D. Except that in D&D you cannot transfer a move option into an action option.

[TheChosen]

Previews are coming, and its looking gooood.

http://www.destructoid.com/preview-saving-men-and-mankind-in-xcom-enemy-unknown-223234.phtml

EDIT: And now with a video: http://youtu.be/3uHHmTSDCvA

[DarthHelmet86]

That article has kinda got me really interested in this game now. I can understand people being a bit miffed about the TU thing, but really to me it seems rather a fair point. I am often confused or vague about how far my unit is going to be able to move, or do. And really either move a long way (a double move now) move a short bit then shoot once (a move and shot now) or just stand there and shoot as much as I can (double shoot now.) so to me it still fits my playstyle.

The units are sounding really cool as well, the idea of snipers, assaulters and heavy units and whatever else is there adds a bit more strategy to who does what. And the more detail about who the unit is and the possibility of a bit of attitude as they get more used to being in X-Com sounds cool too.

I think I will be buying this one no matter what really. Unless something drastic happens.

[The Fifth Horseman]

kX9r0S77Vh0

[DarthHelmet86]

Still looking really interesting to me, I think they did the game a disservice by showing it in the bright forest, in the darker city it looks much better. This going into the must buy pile indeed.

[Japo]

We added cover to the game.

Cool! (Of course failing to do so would have made the whole game a failure, as much as I'm willing to forgive it to the original.)

It looks really good. Class-based soldiers are the only thing I've heard that I don't like.

[DarthHelmet86]

I think the class based soldiers is one the best additions. To me it makes it even more "Oh god my Sniper is down, I really needed him too" rather then "Oh look Goon 5 just got blasted better move Goon 6 to that spot.".

[Eagle of Fire]

That is because you really have no imagination. :p

When I play the original Xcom I never consider my squaddies expendable. Training them properly take the heck of a long time and if I lose a lieutenant or a general I'm going to get pissed.

What's the problem with the games which try to imitate Xcom is exactly that: they only try to imitate it. The original game was incredibly well mixed as far as gameplay goes and the imitators like to remove that but still sell the game as the "follow up" or the "spriritual successor".

What made Xcom so great is exactly the fact that you could "purchase" an infinite amount of squaddies. You could send a squad of green squaddies to literally get butchered and you kept the good ones to add to the main squad if you wanted to. And all soldiers could do the same basic things as another one because... Well, they're soldiers!

When you have a class based game then you need to level them up properly because that's part of the challenge... Then you need to keep those trained soldier alive because it would be a pain (and sometimes downright impossible) to raise new fresh recruit to the same point... Which also in turn mean there is no point in having an infinite pool of recruits coming in... Which mean you get a game like UFO: Aftermath serie which only look like Xcom but is boring as hell in comparison.

Anyways... Whatever floats your boat I guess. I really don't care to be frank. What bother me is when they use the original name in their marketing plan and associate it to the new game to sell you something you would not want in the first place if you actually know the original game...

[DarthHelmet86]

It's different and I don't like it. :rolleyes:

[Eagle of Fire]

Then stop bothering us about it and pay that extra 30 bucks they'll charge you for marketing while I continue to play a gem level 20 years old game. :rolleyes:

[dosraider]

.....What bother me is when they use the original name in their marketing plan and associate it to the new game to sell you something you would not want in the first place if you actually know the original game...
And that's a bit the whole problem, isn't it?
Reminds me of DoomIII, the game itself is a little above average in SP but really rocks playing in COOP.
Nevertheless, it never is able to fill the shoes of Doom itself.
Too high expectations probably?

They would better change the name of such games, and don't refer to old glories.

In fact it's kinda logical, those old glories were developed to run on low specs -(compared by todays hardware)- computers, if you rewrite them and use the modern graphical/computing powers of our hardware you can't avoid to write something completely different.

Of course they want to .... Wait a sec ....
*one sec*
What I'm doing here? I always avoid this kind of topics. :mhh:
..... runs away from here .....

[DarthHelmet86]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..no wait...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA. :lol:

Want to check what thread you are in there again, a thread about the new game. Sure I will just stop talking about it cause you said so. :perv:

Where did you pull that 30 dollars comment from? Even with out the X-Com title this same game would cost the same amount to buy. The title itself isn't even going to trick many people, how the hell could a simple title make someone buy something they wouldn't like? I was going to go in to lots of detail in my last post why this is a stupid argument but I couldn't be bothered with you. But here we go, explain to me how the X-Com title can in anyway lure anyone in but people who know the original games, and those people are the most likely to be critical of any changes to the franchise. Just look at the other X-Com game that is being thrown around and yelled about.

You keep playing your 20 year old gem (just watch out for the flaws in the cutting would hate for that gem to crack), I will keep playing all my old games and my new ones and enjoy them all when deserved.

[The Fifth Horseman]

We'll see how it turns out. It may be that the class thing is more of a restriction on the equipment the soldier can use than a full-blown skill tree system.
Then you need to keep those trained soldier alive because it would be a pain (and sometimes downright impossible) to raise new fresh recruit to the same point... Which also in turn mean there is no point in having an infinite pool of recruits coming in... The same holds true in the original, at least if you keep your soldiers alive long enough. Ditto for Apocalypse.

[Eagle of Fire]

Yeah. But Apocalypse is already not too close to the original.

For the original I disagree. I always end up with at least two squaddie bases (one on each side of the world for faster tactical interventions) and of course this mean I have to train that second squad just like the first one. Beside training don't mean I need to get them all to full stats, that would take way, way too much time for very little gain. I simply get some casualties once and again and I still need to replace those casualties with fresh recruit anyways.

The thing is, that you like to use it or not you actually have the choice. If you meet a specific situation you can always send a squad of fresh recruits to get butchered (or not) and as long as one or two survives with the Skyranger you're fine. In games in which you have levels for your squaddies not only it doesn't make sense not to send the exact same team all the time to get them to Godly stats but the end result is that you don't have a choice whatever happen because at a certain point the enemies will be so strong the rookies don't stand a chance.

In the original you can down any enemy with a fresh recruit. Some fresh recruit even have a decent aim so it's not even a matter of luck.

And that's a bit the whole problem, isn't it?
Reminds me of DoomIII, the game itself is a little above average in SP but really rocks playing in COOP.
Nevertheless, it never is able to fill the shoes of Doom itself.
Too high expectations probably?
Yes, that is called "hype". A very potent marketing ploy.

Spore anyone?

They would better change the name of such games, and don't refer to old glories.
My opinion exactly. Since about 10 years, probably more too.


Also... I'm going to ignore stupid and pointless comments always made by the same person(s)... No point losing time to reply to those in a productive conversation really.

[Japo]

I think the class based soldiers is one the best additions. To me it makes it even more "Oh god my Sniper is down, I really needed him too" rather then "Oh look Goon 5 just got blasted better move Goon 6 to that spot.".

No classes doesn't mean no differences. The difference is between a class-based system and a skill-based one. In all XCOM games soldiers had different skills are some were better for some roles than others. But it was still up to you to decide what each one would equip, and you had total flexibility.

We'll see how it turns out. It may be that the class thing is more of a restriction on the equipment the soldier can use than a full-blown skill tree system.

That's precisely what I mean. A class-based system is based on restrictions. But I have no use for restrictions, even in the best scenario that I would have taken a similar decision.

This is a matter of taste and I know class-based systems are very popular in RPGs. I myself have always preferred skill-based systems, such as The Elder Scrolls, over class-based ones such as D&D. But I know that a lot of people think otherwise.

I don't even know to what extent the soldiers in this game are class-based or not, I've only heard talking about "heavy", "sniper", etc. If they've really gone for classes, they must have done so also to simplify as they themselves say, as a strategic wizard for people who would assign the sniper role at random, instead of looking for the best accuracy skill rating--to put a stupid example. After all, that's what class-based systems are for in RPGs, a template: you don't have to think about the life of a character and what he's done and learned during his life; you only have to pick a class and that will pigeon-hole his character and abilities, regardless of any minor traits you can add later as a thin veneer.

[TotalAnarchy]

Just an idea here, but in the original X-COM the ones fighting the aliens were a special taskforce. It is very weird that such a taskforce wasn't specialized from the get-go, since that's how they are organized in the real world.

Anyways, we're talking about games now. And considering the tactical shooters I've played, most of such taskforces are organized into such classes. And they worked. They were great games! The point of this discussion. I don't see it. Dividing player-controlled party into classes adds another layer to the strategic thinking. That is a proven fact.

[Japo]

TA, I agree with everything you said, except for "a proven fact", you probably meant "my opinion".

[TotalAnarchy]

TA, I agree with everything you said, except for "a proven fact", you probably meant "my opinion".

Ok, look here. Take a D&D party with Barbarian, Druid, Bard and Sorcerer. Take a D&D party with 4 Barbarians. Compare them in the same situation.

[The Fifth Horseman]

Which technically is what a beginning player's team ended up like in X-Com until he learned the ropes. (dual wielding, hahahaha... :p )

Which gives me the sudden image of classes only really affecting rookie troops and only slightly exceeding the others in their chosen field.
(Hmm. That could work for a game...)

[Japo]

Ok, look here. Take a D&D party with Barbarian, Druid, Bard and Sorcerer. Take a D&D party with 4 Barbarians. Compare them in the same situation.
Hm that's not an alternative to a class-based system, it's a class-based system where you've picked only one class for everyone. You can't even think outside of the box, you'd need to play an RPG that uses a different system to understand the alternative.

Take a RPG where characters aren't defined by a simple tag like "barbarian" or "druid". Good examples that I can think of are The Elder Scrolls and RuneQuest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneQuest) and its progeny (Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer...)

Not being restricted by templates doesn't mean I can't customize and specialize something as I like, only that I have flexibility to do it. If I write all my letters from half a dozen templates, all of them will look a lot like one of them; if I write every one of them from scratch, it doesn't mean I'll end up with the same exact text every time, of course, on the contrary each letter will be unique and fit its particular purpose. Your barbarians example illustrates perfectly how restrictive classes are, and how anything you do to define your character after picking a class amounts to nothing.

This is what I fear they may have done with XCOM. In previous games you ended up remembering the names of each soldier and his unique set of skills and flaws, on top of the role and equipment you have chosen for him depending on those and on your needs. If they go for a full-blown class system, you will only have to remember that you have two level 1 "heavies", two level 2 snipers, four level 3 grunts, etc.

I'm all for simplification if you don't lose too much. Maybe substituting moves for TUs has been a good idea; I'll have to see if it works. But classes I just don't like. Again I know it's a matter of taste.

[DarthHelmet86]

The Grunts in X-Com don't have any skills, they have a set of stats. Some of them are a bit healthier, some a bit more accurate, some braver. They are pretty much all the same at the start, one hit kills with a low chance to hit anything. Equipment does more to make them survive longer and while they do get better in their stats they are still all the same in the end, easy to kill and easy to replace. The classes being suggested have skills, the Sniper can grapple up to the roof tops, the heavy weapons guy can carry heavy equipment and cause big explosions. I haven't heard them say they are removing the stats, just adding in a class to them as well...so they still have the same personality you liked with just a bit more in there as well. Unless of course they have removed the stats, then I will hit things.

So far all we know about the classes seems to be, some of them have special skills and they no doubt use certain kinds of weapons. We can argue all day how it stops me doing things or how I think it actually opens up gameplay options and draws you into caring more about your units rather then Goon 1. But we just don't know what else this class system is, it could simply be that certain classes get special skills and special weapons and that is it, or they could get full skill trees (something I doubt). They should all have stats as well, but if they don't then I will agree that a large portion of the game has gone, lost forever and ruining the game in the process but let us wait and see.

Also if you think all Barbarians are the same you haven't really seen what you can do with them, or any class in D&D. Yeah you will always be a Barbarian but you will be your special kind, with your special skills, with your special flaws. ;)

[Eagle of Fire]

Dividing player-controlled party into classes adds another layer to the strategic thinking.
Nope, you got it all wrong here. In truth, it reduce strategic thinking by adding more layers to the tactical thinking.

Take that sniper who have specialized equipment to go to rooftops. In a strategical game you would have access to the equipment itself and be able to choose whomever will use it. You want a rocket launcher (heavy) squaddie at the roof? Get there all the same. Probably way slower (would need to be restricted by weight to be balanced) but still, if it strikes your fancy just do it.

If you restrict everything to specific classes then you already have a fixed template in mind from which you cannot derogate. That's the exact opposite of strategy...

[Tomekk]

Nope, you got it all wrong here. In truth, it reduce strategic thinking by adding more layers to the tactical thinking.

Take that sniper who have specialized equipment to go to rooftops. In a strategical game you would have access to the equipment itself and be able to choose whomever will use it. You want a rocket launcher (heavy) squaddie at the roof? Get there all the same. Probably way slower (would need to be restricted by weight to be balanced) but still, if it strikes your fancy just do it.

If you restrict everything to specific classes then you already have a fixed template in mind from which you cannot derogate. That's the exact opposite of strategy...

I honestly don't get the point... if you want to send the guy with the rocket launcher onto the rooftops, what's stopping you? >.> Adding classes basically means you know what people are good at and use them accordingly in games. But we've yet to see how it works in the new X-Com, so we could still all be wrong. *shrug*

And to elaborate on the D&D standpoint... in 3ed it basically just tells you what that character does. Sure, you can give your sorceror a battle-axe and fullplate, but then he'll be completely useless with them because's it's not what the character is trained/profficient with.

[Japo]

The Grunts in X-Com don't have any skills, they have a set of stats. Some of them are a bit healthier, some a bit more accurate, some braver. They are pretty much all the same at the start, one hit kills with a low chance to hit anything. Equipment does more to make them survive longer and while they do get better in their stats they are still all the same in the end, easy to kill and easy to replace.

The distinction between skills are stats is purely conventional, and I don't think it's useful to discuss here. When I mention those words in this particular discussion you can consider them synonyms. I don't even known if they'll change the stats scheme for this XCOM game, as you say.

Recruits in XCOM1 are indeed pretty much all the same, to the extent that accuracy 40 is the same as accuracy 70; so not at all. A guy with accuracy 120 is easy to replace--in two years' time; so no.

But I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the new game and character classes, not advocating XCOM1. So the argument goes nowhere if you argue that XCOM1 was worse, I won't contest that opinion. That game was great but it did have its flaws. It was very frustrating that recruits were supposedly the Earth's elite, but the best of them could barely shoot a wall in front of them. They probably did it so that improvement should become such an important element of the game, and so that experienced soldiers were so very valuable. It will probably be the same here for any class at level 1.

It's remarkable how the people who like class-based systems complain that XCOM1 was about interchangeable grunts, and people who favor skill-based systems played XCOM1 very differently. Classes are clearly a wizard for when you don't want to bother yourself customizing, and skill-based systems in all kinds of games have always been more involved and flexible.

The classes being suggested have skills, the Sniper can grapple up to the roof tops, the heavy weapons guy can carry heavy equipment and cause big explosions.

But that's the problem. This is so clearly a matter of taste, the very things you like are turnoffs for me.

Again I don't know what they've done for this game, so I could be more pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised, but the more I hear the worse I fear. Say for example the tactical situation at hand advises additional heavy firepower than I had anticipated during debriefing. Say one of my non-heavies (even the sniper, God forbid) is staying next to a dead alien holding a rocket launcher. I know he will be bad at using it, but will the game forbid him to try at all?

Another example, say the tactical situation is such that I just have the aliens ambushed and it's advantageous for me to wait and snipe them away, instead of risking any assault. Will non snipers equipped with normal rifles gain any advantage from climbing to a rooftop, depending on their (even if undeveloped) skill? Are they even able to climb to a rooftop, even if more slowly or whatever, if they don't have the sniper birthmark?

This reminds me of a pseudo-tactical game I played, I think it was Commandos 3. Only a specific class of commando was able to climb. Military commandos who can't climb at all?! You heard right, buddy. And of course he was useless at anything but "thieving" skills. A commando who can't shoot, at all?! Makes sense!

It's a dumbing down, every mission will be about getting your sniper at one or other rooftop and so on and so on, not planning according to different tactical situations, but playing the same mission again and again, subtracting from the game's replay value. You won't be able to adapt to varied tactical situation, and if the game is designed along these lines of course you wouldn't need to.

[Panthro]

The classes/abilities thing and levelling system is based around you having 4-6 soldiers on any mission (not sure how many you will be able to have at base, and getting 6 soldiers on a mission will require some sort of research upgrade).

From the interview on RPS, it made it seem like the "grapple" ability was sniper-specific (hopefully not though), with the heavy weapons guy getting the rocket launcher and so on. As your soldiers level up, you get to pick new abilities for them, hopefully these will be worthwhile. Abilities also have cooldowns.

Not sure the changes suit me, but I've already pre-ordered Xenonauts anyway.

[Eagle of Fire]

I honestly don't get the point... if you want to send the guy with the rocket launcher onto the rooftops, what's stopping you? >.>
The game?

Look, nobody's going to go into specifics from a comment coming out from a game in development. It is however very easy to add two and two, especially considering all the gaming experience we have. If the system is class based then it would be extremely surprising that some class abilities cross over different classes and even if it would then the original class would be so much more powerful or potent with that particular skill there would be no point in using it with the other classes. That's always how a class system work because those classes represent heavily specialized troops who are trained to do only what they been trained to do.

About that sniper on top of buildings, it really make sense for Snipers because Snipers fire very slowly but very accurately from a long range. By going up in height you gain range and safety. A heavy weapon user would not want to do that because he don't have range; what he needs is to get where he needs to be fast and then dish out an extreme amount of lead at the right place. That's his job. Would you picture someone with a rocket launcher jumping from roof to roof with an autogun you need to set up on its feet before you can fire or with a bulky two handed reloadable rocket launcher plus tons of ammo in his backpack?

Well, neither do we and if it is class based neither will the designers. So you simply won't have access to this option would you like to try it. End of discussion.

Now, don't think I don't like class based games. I like those kind of games just as much as I like stat based games... But Xcom original is completely stat based and that is completely different than class based. It is like trying to create a half RTS, half RPG game. It just won't mix well.

[DarthHelmet86]

Half RTS/half RPG where do I know that from...oh that's right Warcraft 3 yeah your right that game never did well at all. :suspicious:

Commandos is a poor game to compare this too, it was more of a Puzzle game. You worked out the right way to use the right units in the right places at the right time. But not all of them were soldiers Japo, the Spy was French Resistance from what I remember, so just an ordinary guy who was good at pretending to be German...possibly due to having to do so during the invasion or cause he was a con artist. Though that is just semantics, the game itself wasn't anything like X-Com in anyway, it was a pre-set battle with pre-set enemies doing pre-set things and you took pre-set units. Beating a level was essentially cracking a puzzle it just got dressed up to look like a strategy game.

And yeah it wont be good if they lock out all the weapons for the classes, and I hope they don't, just allow them some special skills with those weapons and some penalties using others. The grappling hook allows the Sniper to get onto the roofs, as long as there is a door leading to the roof anyone else can get there too, they just need to walk themselves up there. If they do the classes right they will be adding an extra layer of personality and game play to the each unit, one Sniper need not have the same skills as the next one. And if they do it wrong it will make this a lesser game, but wont immediately make it a bad one.

[Eagle of Fire]

Half RTS/half RPG where do I know that from...oh that's right Warcraft 3 yeah your right that game never did well at all.
Yeah right. Warcraft 3 is one of the worse games I ever played. The fact that it sold well certainly is no proof of how good a game is. That's retarded corporation thinking and that's also why we have such bad games right now.

[Tomekk]

Warcraft 3 isn't bad... you just need to be prepared to play a hotkey mash too :p

And if it sold well it means that many enjoyed it and decided to buy it, which kind of means they thought it was good... now, I don't know what your definition of good is (apart from it has to be atleast 15 years old), but that sounds pretty solid to me.

[DarthHelmet86]

If it sold well that kinda hints that lots of other people liked it and enjoyed it. Don't give me bullshit about corporation thinking, that is just a lame excuse to avoid that fact that other people like different things then you. I don't overly enjoy the game, but I know plenty of people who do and who I know are highly critical about why they do and don't like things.

And are you ever going to get around to answering how using the X-Com name could in anyway trick any one into buying it or liking it. Since the names lure is towards people who played the original games and are likely to be highly critical of anything different to the game, even unfairly so the only thing it can do is raise the risk of a larger backlash against the game (note the other X-Com is getting that as is stuff like the new Syndicate).

[Eagle of Fire]

And if it sold well it means that many enjoyed it and decided to buy it, which kind of means they thought it was good...
You just answered it yourself right there in the same sentence.. If you think it is good and are going to buy it whatever happen it doesn't make the game any better in reality.


If it sold well that kinda hints that lots of other people liked it and enjoyed it.
No, it kinda hints to nothing at all except that the company which made the game made tons of sales. Why would it hints at anything else? Since when do how much you spend your games change the entertaining value of said game? I rate plenty of flash games on the net to as low as 2 on a 1 to 10 scales and even though they are free I still consider them trash. Same for those which I gave 8, 9 or 10: they are free but they are still very good. What's the point of sales? None.

Don't give me bullshit about corporation thinking, that is just a lame excuse to avoid that fact that other people like different things then you.
No, it is more like a lame excuse for you not to like what other people think differently than you. I'm simply stating facts and you don't seem to like it...

[DarthHelmet86]

Oh I love your posts they make me so happy that I have a working brain. There is no objective way of judging if a game is good or bad, there are plenty of subjective ways. And if enough people all seem to agree a game is good it must be in some way good, at least to them. What has sales got to do with anything, well lets see Warcraft 3 is not a free game therefore people who like it have to pay for it. So if it has a large amount of sold copies it must be well liked by a large amount of people see cause they went out of their way to pay for the thing so they could enjoy it. For a free flash game you would judge this on HITs not sales, since you know a good game would get more hits then a crap one. Or if neither of these ways of figuring out if others like a game work for you, you could check user reviews about the games. Of course games I find bad can sell well and games I love can sell poorly...want to know why? Cause not everyone has the same taste in games that I do and they can find enjoyment in games I can't. That is the only thing a game needs to do for it to be good, does the player get enjoyment out of playing it.

You are not some great god of judging games, in fact you are one of the worst subjective judges I have ever seen. You write entire games off without ever playing them and use dodgy or bullshit reasons as to why games you have played are bad. You haven't stated any facts, just subjective opinions that you assert as facts with no evidence or support for them other then "I said so." lame arguments are lame so get some better ones.

And you still haven't answered my question, avoiding it cause you know once again you made a faulty argument and can't back it up perhaps?

[Eagle of Fire]

so happy that I have a working brain.
That is certainly not my opinion.

And you still haven't answered my question, avoiding it cause you know once again you made a faulty argument and can't back it up perhaps?
Nope. You certainly can't understand simple logic. Your own premise is faulty and this is why I don't want to lose time arguing with you.

In fact, all I perceive from you on this board is that you like to attack me whenever I talk about something. That certainly don't make me inclined to start flame wars on faulty premise.

[Tomekk]

Honestly, you kinda ask for it repeatedly by constantly having a tone of "I know this better than you" in each of your posts... :palm:

http://overpixelated.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/picard-facepalm2.jpg

[Eagle of Fire]

Honestly, you kinda ask for it repeatedly by constantly having a tone of "I know this better than you" in each of your posts...
Sorry for knowing that 1+1=2...

[DarthHelmet86]

EoF my premise is the one you presented, you have just rebutted your own argument by calling it stupid thank you so much for finally just admitting it. I am not attacking you, you are just an egomaniac you can't accept that your high and mighty opinions are just that opinions, you have presented no facts and provided no evidence for your claims. I think you need a few more of these :picard: to help get it through to you that we are all facepalming when you post.


:palm:

[Eagle of Fire]

I'm really getting tired of all your nonsense.

No, you haven't rebutted anything. You haven't even came close to saying the same thing as me. In fact I'm wondering how you can say that keeping up a straight face since any first grade schooler would spot the difference.

It only give me proof about the fact you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[DarthHelmet86]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, sure you come back with some actual arguments rather then assertions of your opinions as facts and we can talk about them. So far all you have done is sprout nonsense then not back it up when it is challenged. You keep telling yourself you "won" while the rest of us talk like adults.

What bother me is when they use the original name in their marketing plan and associate it to the new game to sell you something you would not want in the first place if you actually know the original game...

Prove how that can be true, when the people who would be interested in the game due to the name are people who know the originals. If they don't know the originals they don't care about it being related to them.

[The Fifth Horseman]

Can we all simmer down and discuss each other's opinions like, y'know, responsible adults?
Before I come to opinion that the thread is beyond salvaging and nuke it from the orbit?

[DarthHelmet86]

I tend to agree with TA that we should close the thread for awhile till we get some more solid info in it, or a few days have passed so we can get back to talking about the actual game.

[Eagle of Fire]

You keep telling yourself you "won" while the rest of us talk like adults.
No. That's what you like to entertain yourself thinking that I think so. What I actually think so is really something like "what kind of stupidities which are not really related to the current discussion I'll have to read again coming from that guy I don't even respect enough to remember the name of".

Since you don't actually seem to grasp the basics of marketing and that you seem intent to catch me into a flame war I'll simply make a point of not actually explaining anything to you. That's actually way funnier for me to keep you in your ignorance than to try to explain anything you likely won't even try to understand anyways.

Can we all simmer down and discuss each other's opinions like, y'know, responsible adults?
I'd like to do that but I'm afraid you need two responsible adults to achieve this. I don't see this coming form the other party.

[jonh_sabugs]

There is a good point about sticking a known brand to a product: it draws a lot of attention to it, so it's a major marketing move. If the game was named 'Random Alien Killing in Random Landscapes', it would probably be largely ignored or thrown in the same bin as most other games around. Labeling it XCOM does grant it a lot of exposition. It's like Apple products, for instance. If you launch a crap-pad thingie, it gets mostly ignored, even if it's reasonably good. You draw an apple in its back and it's a instant hit.

So, I think it's not safe to ignore the very real possibilty that, sometimes, exploiting a known brand is purely marketing, and not necessarily translates into quality (heck, sometimes it's completely crap).

[DarthHelmet86]

John_sabugs what people do you think will be attracted to the title X-Com, New gamers who have never heard of the original series or people who know the original series? New gamers don't know the series, the name might as well be Alien Shooter 4 to them, people who know the older series are more likely to be critical of the newer game.

Cynically everything a game studio does is marketing, even back in the day it was all about marketing. Retooling an older game for a newer age is a lot easier then making a whole brand new game, it saves you money and already has a fan base to buy into it. But it also brings in it's own problems, gamers are more likely to be overly critical of any changes to the original game and unfairly judge the new game or outright hate it before they know anything about it. Marketing people know this they aren't idiots...well some of them are.

So far everything I have seen about this new X-Com has shown that Friaxis is not just doing this as a marketing ploy to lure people in. The people who made it seem to be genuine fans of the original games and want to bring the series back from the dead so more people can enjoy it and hopefully more games can be made from it. If this is successful I wouldn't be surprised to see it get it's own sequel, perhaps a retooling of Terror from the Deep and that is something I would love. Sure the game might not end up being perfect but what game is, the originals sure weren't, they had their flaws just like every game does.

[jonh_sabugs]

Does it matter who will be attracted? They stamped the name in, and it got a lot of attention. The market is played, the game got a lot of showcase, the numbers will be high whether the game is good or not. People who heard of the earlier games as legends will be very curious. Other people will have watched the ads and got on the wagon. Yes, the use of the brand is, more than anything, a marketing device.

I don't think the criticism you portray has much of an impact really. Take famous brands, like Civilization. Civ V was (and is) under a lot of fire from the older fanbase. And what? They are a minority, they can make a lot of fuss on their forums, but they will have no real impact in the end, the tons of new players attracted to it more than make for it. Civ 6 is probably on schedule already, with similar game mechanics, aiming at an even larger audience. No one is saying marketing people are idiots, it's quite the opposite, actually. They see this situation and know exactly how to exploit it, which is my point.

As for the people on Firaxis (developers mostly) being genuinely interested in a true sequel (whatever that means) is a mixed thing for me. I do believe many of them feel like this, but in the end who know how much this impacts the game. Companies have all kind of priorities, passion for game is usually low on them. Anyway, I was just reinforcing my point about brands as marketing devices, I have no idea how much it is the case for this particular XCOM game. I honestly hope it turns out to be a great game. It has been a while since I felt like a child when playing a new game, something I can still say for some older games.

[TotalAnarchy]

I think the idea that the franchise must remain the same in order to preserve itself as a franchise is preposterous. Not only were old games guilty of the same sin of changing mechanics and experience, like in the case of Dune and Gabriel Knight (and sometimes even under the same developers), but the very fact of releasing a second game in a series should be taken as an attempt to earn money upon the original success. Thus, X-COM: Terror From the Deep was already guilty of this.

Not to mention franchising is a business method through and through...

[Eagle of Fire]

Not only were old games guilty of the same sin of changing mechanics and experience, like in the case of Dune and Gabriel Knight (and sometimes even under the same developers), but the very fact of releasing a second game in a series should be taken as an attempt to earn money upon the original success. Thus, X-COM: Terror From the Deep was already guilty of this.
It is true that this kind of marketing already existed in the past (even though it appeared way, way less often back then) but allow me to tell you that you are taking very, very bad examples. They even go against what you are saying.

For example, the reason behind Dune and Dune 2 was because the publisher asked two companies to present them something with the only premise of the Dune story. Dune was quite hip at that time, with the novel(s) and the movie(s) and all. When both companies displayed their end result, the published decided that both were very solid proposals and eventually decided to publish both. The adventure game finished production faster and was dubbed "Dune", and what eventually started the RTS genre been sold as "Dune II" simply because it came out later.

In this case it is not really a marketing ploy but rather a publisher who had the "nice problem" of having too much good content rather than the opposite which happen all too often. And that little story is commonly known in the gaming sphere AFAIK.

As for TftD, it would probably be my prime example on how I'd like series names to be handled. TftD is so much alike UFO: Enemy Unknown that when it got out I considered it to be nothing more than a clone. If you look at all and compare UFO and TftD you'll notice that the exact same engine is used. The only difference is that you're evolving primarily in the water instead of on land, some graphics were refreshed to warrant the new game and some very minor changes in the code were made which prevent some weapons to be fired above water. Everything else is the same.

What you could say about this example is that TftD should have been sold as an extension rather than a stand alone game. That was the nicely executed marketing ploy in this case. But take TftD as an example of companies who use the name only to sell something completely different to a bigger volume? Sorry, that's pretty much the opposite of your argumentation.

[TotalAnarchy]

What you say is solid. Of course I can bring out other examples of both correctly exploiting a franchise and of shamelessly using a title for further easy profits, like the case of the Alone in the Dark original trilogy. But that's beside the point.

What I wanted to underline in my post is that we shouldn't dismiss that easily new entries in a franchise. Who knows it might surprise us, and the new game might be more faithful to the original than it gave the impression in the previews. :p And if it will be crap, you can find that out from other people and not buy it, even better pretend it doesn't exist. After all fans don't decide which games are allowed to be released or not (just look at the trainwreck that is the racing game FlatOut 3 (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/flatout-3-chaos-destruction)). Publishers decide if they want to milk money or not out of a franchise. And if it comes to this the least we can do is to hope it will be a good game.

I myself am from a different generation than you. For me what I call nostalgic games are Quake III: Arena, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Syberia, Battlefield 1942, a bit of Sonic Adventure etc. Frankly I was utterly disgusted when they decided to change the focus of Call of Duty from WWII to modern warfare and they started saying the same will happen with Medal of Honor (which it did eventually). It was really the biggest sin inflicted to a solid franchise, so it's not that I can't sympathize with longtime X-COM fans. The new CODs are ok games, I've tried most of them, just not something that gets me overly excited. Nowadays, I stopped caring when they release another one. Eventually they'll release all of them in one bundle here for 6 dollars and you can finish them in one weekend for the lolz.

What's interesting though, is that for those people who crave for that original experience that started their favourite series, patience sometimes really works. This is true for Sonic fans, which got Sonic 4, or for Rayman fans, which recently got Rayman Origins.