«

[Eagle of Fire]

That article is such a great example of the reason why we don't get good strategy games anymore: those who make the games and those who review them simply don't know what a good strategy game is anymore.

Simpler is dumber. Strategy games are exactly the opposite. How come those two points don't mesh well? I wonder?

You can move and take an action, or you can move far and take no action. This is pretty much the same choice I face 95% of the time in a wargame. The difference is that XCOM:EU expresses it simply as a "run, or take a smaller move and shoot."

Sure. That's exactly the same thing but said differently. Way to make a point...

[TheChosen]

Ugh. I should have known better and not to participate in this discussion. Nothing but old gamers complaining about new things.

[Eagle of Fire]

Just make a valid point and I'll agree with you. There is, however, a reason why I stopped purchasing PC Gamers: all their brilliant strategy reviewers left a long time ago.

Along with common sense in regard to anything else than action, RTS or FPS games too.

[DarthHelmet86]

Played the game at all EoF? I have and am really liking it, a few things bug me like the aliens getting a free move when you first spot them though that is only an issue when they move into my field of view then get an extra move on top of their finished turn. But the game is fun, a lot of fun and it feels good when you manage to defeat a hard map and take little damage.

Not to mention it gets harder and harder as you go on, Abduction site choices lead to the player needing to think about both reward, difficulty and panic levels. Do you go for the mission that hooks you up some more money, but let a country max panic and possibly leave the X-Com program? Or do you take that harder mission and hope you get out of it with your unit intact? Then you will start running into harder units and upgraded units, thought that sectoid was getting easy well know they will be mind screwing you every turn and taking over units.

Sure it isn't the first game all over again, but that isn't a bad thing some of the stuff removed has made the game better. Not to mention the first game isn't the perfect game it has its faults as well and wouldn't sell well in today's market even amongst people loyal to the franchise. I know I will sink a lot more hours into this game then I ever did in the old one.

[Eagle of Fire]

No, and I don't plan to. From what I heard so far, I expect this game to be like Xcom3. Meaning not related to Xcom at all but a decent game by itself. (I hope)

I'm not willing to waste money on such a premise. I'm either going to wait until I find it in a rebate bin or if I can try it for free somewhere. I don't see either happening soon, nobody I know want to try this game either.

[Doubler]

I think it could've done with a lot less focus on the largely unnecessary story which definitely makes the game feel less dynamic than the original, and some of the gameplay has been streamlined to the point that it's lost any depth it had. Inventory management for example is a very dull affair now with little to no room for experimentation.

Despite that I definitely like the game a lot, and it does really evoke an XCOM vibe for me

[Eagle of Fire]

I've seen a few copies of the new Xcom at my local WallMart the other day. Somehow I didn't think it would get around so much as a hard copy.

When I looked at the cover art and the resume, one thing which struck me quite fast is that there is no actual screenshot or even a real description of what the real game is like. The only relevant observation you can find is XCOM labeled quite big on the box and a story which strangely sound like a copy of the story of the original.

To be frank, would I have not known better (and that my computer would be able to run the game, but that's a completely different story) I would have been quite tempted to purchase the game only to see if it is any good. Since I know better though, it is obvious that the game only have the hype which is remotely related to the original.

And that's exactly the kind of hypocrisy which I denounce when I say that some new developers (actually most of them now) make new games under the old franchise names. Because they actually make way, way more sales with a mediocre (when compared to the original you actually love) game this way.

[hunvagy]

Firaxis is hardly new developers. Anyway, the new X-Com is just that. A new X-Com. It's not "Enemy Unknown remade with slightly better graphics for 2012 using the same sourcecode as a decade ago". Demographics have changed, and even though I know I'm not going to get this game, because it's not what I was looking for, I understand that old UFO fans like it, but have some bones to pick with it. It is still miles and miles better then the planned FPS (Which thank god disappeared into development limbo).

[Eagle of Fire]

You are right. And the same can be said about Xcom Interceptor too. But that only strengthen my point.

At least this new game is a strategy game like its true predecessors. I guess it is already something.

[hunvagy]

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

You are right. And the same can be said about Xcom Interceptor too. But that only strengthen my point.

At least this new game is a strategy game like its true predecessors. I guess it is already something.

Oh gawd, not THAT game xD Microprose forgot it can make sims by that point I'm afraid But yeah, it is a strategy game, and at least they were intelligent enough to give the title to a dev that only dabbles in strategy games. From what I saw, it has the Firaxis influence, making it more accessible from the original. They did the same thing with Pirates, and the delivered product was a really enjoyable title. Maybe there is hope for the X-Com franchise to shine again, too.