New X-Com incoming

[Wirdschowerdn]

Since I never played any X-Com game, I don't give a fuck about canon.

I judge the game on it's own merits.

 

[madbringer]

Is Apocalypse worth a try?

 

[Alex]

Morgoth, while this description does look good, it still doesn't satisfy me. First, as Silellak said, this has nothing to do with X-Com. You may say you don't care about that (since you never played the originals), but it is still a bad thing. Let me explain why.

Nowadays, games are different from the ones that got released 10 or 20 years ago. Whereas in the past games were divided by a myriad of "genres", each with specific values about what was good and what was bad, nowadays, games seem to be much less creative. Various of the older genres died or exist only as a specialization of some current genre, like action-adventure games (which usually mean you have an action game with a few puzzles here and there if you are lucky and Heavy Rain if you aren't).

The problem with this is that many gamers today either forgot or never understood what made games of the past good. Most people simply see it as if the games got upgraded. Whenever a feature caused too much bogging down of the game, it was "dumbed down" and removed, no second thought given to whether it could be used in interesting ways or not.

For example, my first dungeon crawlers were Might & Magic 4 and Dungeon Bash. Both these games had an automap feature. I never thought that a game could be more involved without the automap, but after I started playing Wizardry 6, I changed my mind. Actually mapping the place you are exploring can be a lot of fun, if time consuming. Specially if the game has some ways to interact with it (like that damn bell, yes, I am just starting).

I am not trying to say that older features are always good, or that they will always fit in with a certain game. In my example, I think that there is room for a wide variety of systems used for maps. One game could have an automap that depends on your skills, another might require you to draw maps, but use hints based on the dungeon's architecture to guide you, yet another game might be a frustrating labyrinth where you need to use every trick you can to find your way (like dropping objects, marking walls, talking and bargaining with the denizens, etc).

However, nowadays, you will rarely find any game that doesn't have an automap or some equivalent function. If a game didn't have some way to automatically map itself, or even if did, but wasn't always enabled (like, the game needing certain skills or items to access the map), most people would see it as a step back, I think.

And this is why I don't like it when companies uses the name of some older game, like X-Com or Fallout, to create games that have little to do with the past games. It feels like they are trying to bury the past even more, to convince the gamers even more that the games of the past are simply outdated, and that gaming of nowadays hasn't lost anything.

There has been a shift in design, and many of the values older games held have changed. Instead of trying to improve following these values, most games of today have dropped them in preference of more marketable gameplay. But as long as these games remain mostly forgotten, it will be hard for the newer games to improve.

Also, I am very cautious of what companies say about their own games that are in development. Not too long ago, I was sure that spore would be a very innovative and interesting new game and that Bioshock would be better than System Shock 2, with who had very complex behaviors you would need to manipulate in order to progress. I was wrong.

 

[Twinkle]

Oh god, shooting goo is heavan!

The preview doesn't answer the most important question about freaking shooter - the gunplay. Given 2K's track record and console roots it'll most likely have wonky aiming with maccel forced on, floaty movement, weapons feeling like toy guns, slooow, dumb enemies to accommodate gaypad users, ugly graphics, narrow vomit-inducing FOV, broken widescreen etc. In other words, it's almost guaranteed to suck.

Pseudo-realtime metagame stuff looks interesting, but it will probably boil down to which of the half-assed side missions you'll want to skip.

 

[Tails]

Is Apocalypse worth a try?

Trying yes, but you will probably get pretty disappointed about game specific changes and mechanics, turn-based/real-time combat and few other things. It has pretty cool ideas thought.

btw. there is a Apocutil made by the same game responsible for Xcomutil. In Readme there is mentioned something about fixing bugs:

FIX = Permanently Fix bugs in XCOM3. To apply all available fixes, simply
enter:

APOCUTIL FIX WRITE

But of course the readme don't mention what exactly is fixed. Did anyone tried this out?

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I can't stand X-Com, and I'm a huge SRPG fan. Every time I try it again I give up after a few missions because I perceive it as boring bullshit.

Ok, now the globe... no dammit I don't want to micromanage shit for 20 minutes I want to fight shaddap!

Gather a team, watch them all walk slowly, scour the map slooooowwwwly for 15 minutes, removing the fog of war while trying to find the goddamn grays... oh is that a gray out there? Too bad you had no mean to see him coming and he's killed one of your men in one shot.

The pacing SUCKS and it's just a tedious exercice in frustration. Jagged Alliance 2 is 20 times better in this regard.

 

[Silellak]

I can't stand X-Com, and I'm a huge SRPG fan. Every time I try it again I give up after a few missions because I perceive it as boring bullshit.

Ok, now the globe... no dammit I don't want to micromanage shit for 20 minutes I want to fight shaddap!

Gather a team, watch them all walk slowly, scour the map slooooowwwwly for 15 minutes, removing the fog of war while trying to find the goddamn grays... oh is that a gray out there? Too bad you had no mean to see him coming and he's killed one of your men in one shot.

The pacing SUCKS and it's just a tedious exercice in frustration. Jagged Alliance 2 is 20 times better in this regard.

 

[poocolator]

Guh--
Guhh--
Guh--
Guffaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

 

[Achilles]

@ Alex: Excellent post!

I can't stand X-Com, and I'm a huge SRPG fan. Every time I try it again I give up after a few missions because I perceive it as boring bullshit.

You really need to rethink your gaming standards. That or a lobotomy.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I can't stand X-Com, and I'm a huge SRPG fan. Every time I try it again I give up after a few missions because I perceive it as boring bullshit.

Ok, now the globe... no dammit I don't want to micromanage shit for 20 minutes I want to fight shaddap!

Then try Laser Squad on C64, which is a pure tactical combat game. X-Com was supposed to be Laser Squad 2, but the Microprose has forced the whole strategic game thing because of the success of Civilization. I have enjoyed it, though as I like strategic games too.
I can see how it can be boring if someone buys it for tactical gameplay only, though.

It would be a very short game if it would be played from a squad/platoon leader's point of view.

Gather a team, watch them all walk slowly, scour the map slooooowwwwly for 15 minutes,

I'm pretty sure that there are animation speed settings in X-Com games.

removing the fog of war while trying to find the goddamn grays... oh is that a gray out there? Too bad you had no mean to see him coming and he's killed one of your men in one shot.

Yeah, that's the point of the game - the aliens are technologically and biologically superior, including superior perception. This game is a meatgrinder.
IIRC smoke grenades help a bit.

The pacing SUCKS and it's just a tedious exercice in frustration. Jagged Alliance 2 is 20 times better in this regard.

Why get frustrated? Just enjoy the slaughter. Remember, it's not JA2. You don't have to care for every soldier. You can always buy more of them if you don't go bankrupt because of losing too many Skyrangers and you keep bringing alien weapons home and selling them.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Morgoth, while this description does look good, it still doesn't satisfy me. First, as Silellak said, this has nothing to do with X-Com. You may say you don't care about that (since you never played the originals), but it is still a bad thing. Let me explain why.

Nowadays, games are different from the ones that got released 10 or 20 years ago. Whereas in the past games were divided by a myriad of "genres", each with specific values about what was good and what was bad, nowadays, games seem to be much less creative. Various of the older genres died or exist only as a specialization of some current genre, like action-adventure games (which usually mean you have an action game with a few puzzles here and there if you are lucky and Heavy Rain if you aren't).

The problem with this is that many gamers today either forgot or never understood what made games of the past good. Most people simply see it as if the games got upgraded. Whenever a feature caused too much bogging down of the game, it was "dumbed down" and removed, no second thought given to whether it could be used in interesting ways or not.

For example, my first dungeon crawlers were Might & Magic 4 and Dungeon Bash. Both these games had an automap feature. I never thought that a game could be more involved without the automap, but after I started playing Wizardry 6, I changed my mind. Actually mapping the place you are exploring can be a lot of fun, if time consuming. Specially if the game has some ways to interact with it (like that damn bell, yes, I am just starting).

I am not trying to say that older features are always good, or that they will always fit in with a certain game. In my example, I think that there is room for a wide variety of systems used for maps. One game could have an automap that depends on your skills, another might require you to draw maps, but use hints based on the dungeon's architecture to guide you, yet another game might be a frustrating labyrinth where you need to use every trick you can to find your way (like dropping objects, marking walls, talking and bargaining with the denizens, etc).

However, nowadays, you will rarely find any game that doesn't have an automap or some equivalent function. If a game didn't have some way to automatically map itself, or even if did, but wasn't always enabled (like, the game needing certain skills or items to access the map), most people would see it as a step back, I think.

And this is why I don't like it when companies uses the name of some older game, like X-Com or Fallout, to create games that have little to do with the past games. It feels like they are trying to bury the past even more, to convince the gamers even more that the games of the past are simply outdated, and that gaming of nowadays hasn't lost anything.

There has been a shift in design, and many of the values older games held have changed. Instead of trying to improve following these values, most games of today have dropped them in preference of more marketable gameplay. But as long as these games remain mostly forgotten, it will be hard for the newer games to improve.

Also, I am very cautious of what companies say about their own games that are in development. Not too long ago, I was sure that spore would be a very innovative and interesting new game and that Bioshock would be better than System Shock 2, with who had very complex behaviors you would need to manipulate in order to progress. I was wrong.

I started gaming in 1998, so yeah, I missed out on X-COM. My first game I got was Commandos. It was tough as ass, but it amde me a gamer, and back then it was the norm to make games hard. But back then, I also was a school boy that still had the energy and joy to discover all these great games.

Now I'm not anymore. I still like my challenge in games, but what really puts me off are overly complicated and crowded UIs, and sadistic and time consuming methods to let you finish your quests.

If Firaxis can remake XCOM in a modern fashion without dumbing it down, I'm all for it.
But right now, this is 2K Australia what we're talking about. They made the excellent SWAT 4 expansion and FFvs3rdReich. I trust those guys, whether they slap XCOM on the box or not.

But as always, if you don't like what they're doing, just ignore it.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Bullshit hype is bullshit.

I'm 100% certain that very little of what they gush over in that preview is actually going to be in the game.

 

[laclongquan]

The damn problem of XCOM type of game is that it's a contradiction in terms.

It's squad combat, meaning you will have a few characters in heavy use. But you cant put definite face/personality/story behind any one. So you cant get attach emotionally with them. yet the game require you use them efficiently. Contradiction!

The progress of the game link to progression of either fighting more dangerous enemies with the passage of time, or liberate more countries. yet nothing attach to such events, such countries, to make it memorable. Take BG@ series, for example. The progress of weapons and type of enemies linked to the progress of story/mainquest. Or Fallout (and FT): linked to different countries. Yet in XCOM and the likes there's no such memorable things.

So all in all, it's pretty damn hard to get into such games for long.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The damn problem of XCOM type of game is that it's a contradiction in terms.

Only in that it's a strategic/economic/tactical level game.

It's squad combat, meaning you will have a few characters in heavy use. But you cant put definite face/personality/story behind any one. So you cant get attach emotionally with them. yet the game require you use them efficiently. Contradiction!

No. The strong point of X-Com is that sometimes you lose whole squads of soldiers - like in real military campaigns, not like in a game about a set of 30 memorable characters that destroy whole armies. You can "attach emotionally" to soldiers that survive many missions and losing them sometimes hurts.

The progress of the game link to progression of either fighting more dangerous enemies with the passage of time, or liberate more countries. yet nothing attach to such events, such countries, to make it memorable. Take BG@ series, for example. The progress of weapons and type of enemies linked to the progress of story/mainquest. Or Fallout (and FT): linked to different countries. Yet in XCOM and the likes there's no such memorable things.

That's what the whole research thingie is for. Exploring alien secrets, alien races, alien craft, and alien weapons was pretty enjoyable for me.

So all in all, it's pretty damn hard to get into such games for long.

Maybe for you. There are still many players that play X-Com 17 years after its release.

 

[laclongquan]

your mileage may vary! I just explain why I dont get much interest in playing that type of game.

The only game o f that type I ever finish is Afterlight, you know, Xcom on Mars. Wonder of wonder, it's limited in manpower, and while robots are plentyful I didnt use them much. But I finished that game though.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Have you tried the original X-Com? It doesn't have any limitation on number of agents and you can afford to lose hundreds of them during the whole campaign.
I never liked the ideas from later games that pretend to be spiritual successors of X-Com like limiting the number of available soldiers, personalizing them, making them immortal, etc.

 

[Tails]

Ok, now the globe... no dammit I don't want to micromanage shit for 20 minutes I want to fight shaddap!

Erm what? it don't take even 5 mins to set up the Geoscape stuff on beginning (Even in first game it won''t take 10 mins, since everything is so easily accessible) or in later game unless you transfer shitloads of item between bases. Later on you can send Interceptor patrols (or not) and just make time go faster.

Gather a team, watch them all walk slowly, scour the map slooooowwwwly for 15 minutes,

removing the fog of war while trying to find the goddamn grays... oh is that a gray out there? Too bad you had no mean to see him coming and he's killed one of your men in one shot.

Aliens like your Soldiers can see up to 20 squares during the day. In night, Aliens get no penalty but your soldiers will able to see only for 8 squares. That's why you should use Flares (even Incendiary ammo) during the night. You can always use some Soldiers as scouts with Pistol+Flares and other to snipe down spotted Aliens.

The pacing SUCKS and it's just a tedious exercice in frustration.

No, you just suck at game.

 

[yaster]

He's stating he doesn't like management phase. He prefers more linear, mission after mission kind of gameplay. Less strategic and more focused on tactical aspect. More in vein of Tactics Ogre or Gorky17. He is simpleton like that, what can you do? It's not like it is a crime - though he could back off with using big words to justify it.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Exactly. It's not a crime to say "I don't like the strategic/management stuff which is why I do not love X-Com". But when one is retarded enough to try to assert that X-Com sucks in general, especially when using faulty logic and outright lies, it is required to rip into the moron.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I don't see how you can hate X-com for having to micromanage shit, gather a team, walk around maps and be shot by superior ennemies... and yet love JA2.

 

[laclongquan]

Snicker!

Giggle!

Guffawww!

Oh god! It's been a long time some anon accuse me of being simpletons.

I miss this! I really miss this!

For all you smug out there, I object to the very idea that we could throw away hundreds of soldiers. It's not my style. I got attached to my meatshield, all the better if they got two blimps in front, but in general I got attach to them. The very idea that throw away a full squad just to win a mission! Revolting! I could reluctantly agree that in some case, unavoidable all, we must throw away 1, at most 2. The demand of service and duty and all that jazz. And that's after 10 reloads and no way avoid it.

Preserve my army, that's my motto.

And in that style of playing, I need them faceless boys and girls have faces, stories, quests if need be, personality will be wonderful. Blankface privates are big nono. And in that demand of mine, Xcom and its siblings doesnt satisfy.

As to micromanage, do you know what? It's damn hard to accuse that of a diehard fan of Caesar3, Pharaoh, Patrician3, Romance of 3 kingdoms, Alpha Centaury, hell JA2 if you care to argue about it, Startopia. Especially Patrician 3, a game of accountants. You can play soso in that game but if you dont have a brain for micromanage and math you are never got any good at it.

The point is, I dont get offended. I am amused!

Snicker!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

O_o

 

[madbringer]

Is Apocalypse worth a try?

Trying yes, but you will probably get pretty disappointed about game specific changes and mechanics, turn-based/real-time combat and few other things. It has pretty cool ideas thought.

Hm, well, i wanted to pick this one for my first serious X-Com experience, i heard it's the easiest/most accessible one. I remember waaaaaaaaay back when, i played the demo of the first one, but that didn't give any fair insight into the game itself, it was just one random mission. Then i played the full game and ended up quitting, confused and enraged, as my whole team got raped in the ass by alien rednecks.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think UFO1 was easiest. Amount of soldiers in X-Com3 is limited and there are some nasty weapons like guided missile launchers.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Yes, it's quite good. Pretty similar to the original for research, manufacturing, tactical turn based combat on ground, real time ufo fighting in the air... The big difference is you only have one main base and limited soldiers. It's more like JA2 in this aspect, you keep your 15/20 guys alive and get to know them all by name.

If you want to give it a try, make sure to install Bman mod to make the best of it.