«

[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]

[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.

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.

[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.

[dosraider]

Originally Posted by Eagle of Fire

.....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.
..... runs away from here .....

[DarthHelmet86]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..no wait...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA.

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.

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.