«

[TheChosen]

This time from Firaxis Games

http://www.destructoid.com/turn-base...g-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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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...