X-COM Firaxis - XCOM: Enemy Unknown + Enemy Within Expansion

[Cassidy]

"YOU MUST PLAY THE GAME FIRST OR YOUR OPINION IS INVALID"

Yeah and I must eat shit to validate my opinion about eating shit, right?

CLEARLY stated idkfa unlimited reloads being lauded as improvement and that "frustrating micromanagement" will be cutted off: connect the dots. Action Points mechanics cutted off, no stats... no!!!!! Those statements and preliminary screenshots say nothing about how the game will be, see no evil hear no evil. You need to put your hand in fire to know it burns and that it is fire, right? Perfect logic for everything in life. for idiots and cretins

I don't give a fuck about this project as everything indicates it will lead to the type of game I don't enjoy, but I'm tired of apologist bullshit that seems to have taken over the Codex. And then if you play the game all the way just to confirm what you already knew it means you enjoyed it... like a certain quote on how nowadays you can't post opinions on games reads.

Considering the same 2k is also doing the FPS, this sounds like nothing but a very dishonest means to trick to those who actually enjoyed XCOM by disguising a game for casuals as sticking to the roots as an attempt of not alienating any side and making a side cash together with the main. Would Bethesda suddenly turn better if they, besides Fallout 3, remade Fallout with a combat system having the same tactical depth of Final Fantasy? Turn-based alone does not mean the game will be good. Hell, Heroes of World War 2 is a real-time strategy game focused on squads that, from the mere statements APs and ammo management are too "hardcore" for their crowd, is definitively more tactical and interesting than this new "XCOM".

Even if it turns out "good for what it is", which is very unlikely, I wouldn't buy it out of principle. The same publisher pulling a FPS and a supposed "remake" of the same franchise feels like a mockery and laugh at the face of the old fans idiot enough to buy the latter.

 

[someone else]

People that lack thick skin and take the Internet as FUCKING SERIOUS BUSINESS should move to RPGWatch.

Yeah and I must eat shit to validate my opinion about eating shit, right?

CLEARLY stated idkfa unlimited reloads being lauded as improvement and that "frustrating micromanagement" will be cutted off: connect the dots. Action Points mechanics cutted off, no stats... no!!!!! Those statements and preliminary screenshots say nothing about how the game will be, see no evil hear no evil. You need to put your hand in fire to know it burns and that it is fire, right? Perfect logic for everything in life. for idiots and cretins

I don't give a fuck about this project as everything indicates it will lead to the type of game I don't enjoy, but I'm tired of apologist bullshit that seems to have taken over the Codex. And then if you play the game all the way just to confirm what you already knew it means you enjoyed it... like a certain quote on how nowadays you can't post opinions on games reads.

Considering the same 2k is also doing the FPS, this sounds like nothing but a very dishonest means to trick to those who actually enjoyed XCOM by disguising a game for casuals as sticking to the roots as an attempt of not alienating any side and making a side cash together with the main. Would Bethesda suddenly turn better if they, besides Fallout 3, remade Fallout with a combat system having the same tactical depth of Final Fantasy? Turn-based alone does not mean the game will be good. Hell, Heroes of World War 2 is a real-time strategy game focused on squads that, from the mere statements APs and ammo management are too "hardcore" for their crowd, is definitively more tactical and interesting than this new "XCOM".

Even if it turns out "good for what it is", which is very unlikely, I wouldn't buy it out of principle. The same publisher pulling a FPS and a supposed "remake" of the same franchise feels like a mockery and laugh at the face of the old fans idiot enough to buy the latter.

y so serious?

 

[Cassidy]

y so serious?

Sometimes I enjoy making rage posts just for the sake of it.

M:

 

[Drakron]

We know nothing about it except the things you didn't read that lay out the core of the rule system.

And were are those "core rules" outlined?

In the interview it said "level up their soldiers and recruit new ones" so there is some kind of screen with your soldiers stats, I am not going on a limb when say they will have statistics will I? Sure they might not have then as Skyway Skyrim but I just dont know.

Oh, it says "soldiers have different stats than they did in the 1994 original" so there are stats, lets see what else ... well nothing, I do get the whole "Main base" being implied because of the wording but there not really much being said on the interview and that is what I have access to, perhaps if you guys say were the fuck are you getting your info I might share your opinion but since I DONT I can only do with what I have.

Edit:

Gone to the forums, found this ...

•Destructible environments

•In the scenario they showed, one member died. Because of this the other squadmates didn't get an experience bonus

•Without the bonus, the sniper leveled up still. He was able to choose from two abilities. Either Squad Sight(which means he can shoot anything a squadmate can see) and Snap Shot(which lets him shoot after moving. Something snipers aren't normally allowed to do)

•You can't recruit specific classes. You can only recruit rookies and then level them up to become specific classes

•The guys in suits in the screenshots are 'Thin Man' aliens. They're able to leap long distances

•Challenge is stressed a lot

•same quick save/load system though they are considering an iron man type mode where you can't load previous saves

•Firaxis states that they're not rebooting it, they're re imagining it. Using the same core gameplay with modern technology, weapons, audiovisuals, etc.

•randomly generated missions, terrain. Developer says you'll never play the exact same mission twice outside of a few story missions which feature in-game cinematics

•fog of war is confirmed. area starts off with darkness everywhere, and the average soldier can't see ☺☺☺☺

•enemy spawns are randomized

•mobile platform called SHIV; customizable for new chasis

•Sectoids and Mutons confirmed

•The base's screenshot is accurate. It is now a side shot instead of top down. You can also upgrade your base, like the satellite, with alien technology

•There was an example in one scenario where Japan had the laser rifle already developed before the invasion because they felt threatened, so that seems random.

•You have 16 countries in the funding council you need to keep happy. Some provide more money, but others, like Africa, provide more raw resources

•The sniper units have a grappling hook ability to get on top of buildings

•Gunners have a suppressing fire

•you can equip your xcom guys with all kinds of different guns. customization looks like a big deal

•Apparently there's some sort of cinematic view when your guys get killed. They didn't cite VATS or anything, so I doubt it's too in depth

•Unexperienced agents can panic, freak out, etc if something bad happens

•Firaxis designer states that the PC version will have an enhanced interface. He cites Dragon Age: Origins on PC and console as a big inspiration




•No black blobs in Firaxis's XCOM. The guys in suits are called "Thin Men" and they can use weapons, jump large distances, and puke disgusting goo.

•No action points. The game uses a move-and-shoot (or move-and-move) dynamic. They don't want people piddling around counting individual action points. Some will call this a concession to consolitis; others will call it useful streamlining.

•Soldiers gain perk-like abilities when leveling up; some examples given are, for a sniper, Snap Shot (move-then-shoot, not normally a sniper option) or Squad Sight (shoot any enemy anyone on your squad can see -- not sure of the rationale there....).

•Environments are destructible, as we would wish.

•Soldiers can still panic, but not to the point of wiping the squad. Likewise, you'll never get plasma-bombed right out of the carrier. They want to make the game more fair, and those were specifically mentioned.

•The strategic layer is extremely robust. You still need to choose which countries to send missions to, which offers of aid (in exchange for more protection) you'll accept from which countries, which alien technologies you'll research, etc. The back-and-forth between tactical and strategic play remains at the heart of the game.

•Overwatch, duck-and-cover, etc. are all still very much present, tactically.

•You can research vehicles, which take the place of a squaddie. They don't gain XP and when they are destroyed they are lost for good, but they provide serious cover and firepower. One example given is a mobile heavy weapons platform that serves as a good overwatcher for a tactical advance.

•Sectoids and Mutons are in. Cyberdiscs and Thin Men are also mentioned. Evidently psionics are also in.

•Aliens have their own special perk-like abilities as well.

 

[Haba]

So they've simplified a bunch of mechanics, made the game easier to learn and quicker to play, typical streamlining etc. etc. Is this really a surprise? We were never going to get a flat UFO remake for a plethora of reasons.

 

[Haba]

Yeah, there are many small things that enabled X-Com's success (X-Files craze, living on an era where there was no Internet, no mobile phones etc.) that Xenonauts will not have. But so far it is the closest that any "spiritual successor" has come to the real deal. Not to say that there isn't plenty of work to be done on it still.

But as mechanics go, it is 100% faithful to the original, which is the point I wanted to make. If you remove some of the minor niggles from the original X-Com, slap in bigger resolutions and higher definition graphics, you have a perfectly workable and sellable game - this day and age.

 

[Darth Roxor]

To start, you could do that before by staying in the Skyranger and wait until the Aliens come to you ... it might happened and you would finish the game at the 25th billion turn, depends on the AI deciding to go to you or just roam about.

WUT

The only thing an approach like this would accomplish would be getting 1-2 reaction fire kills and a blaster bomb/mass panic attack somewhere by turn 10. Not quite an effective strategy if you ask me. That is, IF the soldiers manage to get reaction fire and if they manage to hit (someone other than themselves). Otherwise, it might just be alien grenade in skyranger by turn 2

 

[SkepticsClaw]

Xenonauts is not a high budget console-targeting title with front rank production values and a retail release cycle.

 

[made]

high budget title with front rank production values

And this one is? Looking at the screenshots released so far Xenonauts looks better than this.

 

[EG]

Xenonauts is not a high budget console-targeting title with front rank production values and a retail release cycle.

And it doesn't even have a torrent! How can I "buy" a game if it doesn't have a torrent?

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Yeah, there are many small things that enabled X-Com's success (X-Files craze, living on an era where there was no Internet, no mobile phones etc.) that Xenonauts will not have. But so far it is the closest that any "spiritual successor" has come to the real deal. Not to say that there isn't plenty of work to be done on it still.

But as mechanics go, it is 100% faithful to the original, which is the point I wanted to make. If you remove some of the minor niggles from the original X-Com, slap in bigger resolutions and higher definition graphics, you have a perfectly workable and sellable game - this day and age.

Of course it can sell. And when it comes to mainstream/casual audience the point to sell is more about presentation than mechanics, by the way.
People claiming that turn based games can't sell well cause "times are changed" (or some similar bullshit) are just blind, deluded idiots. They are like those other morons claiming that when it comes to Hollywood productions you MUST put Michael Bay-like bullshit in movies or no one is going to pay a ticket to see them.
Apologetic, shortsighted retards who don't even bother facing reality. Or they could notice how some of the best selling franchises in videogames are indeed turn based even today (Pokemon, anyone?).

 

[janjetina]

Xenonauts is not a high budget console-targeting title with front rank production values and a retail release cycle.

Translation: Xenonauts is not a waste of money.
Looking from that perspective, throwing all that money into the game and ending up with a clearly inferior product to both its predecessor and low budget indy sibling is kind of sad.

 

[Haba]

Xenonauts is not a high budget console-targeting title with front rank production values and a retail release cycle.

And exactly what does that have to do with your claim? It is a flat X-Com remake with same level production values as the original.

Or would a "flat remake" require modern day AAA+ production values, massive hype and marketing, full voice acting, CGI cut scenes and a line-up of gaming journalists with full pockets and freshly sucked cocks?

 

[Hellraiser]

But as mechanics go, it is 100% faithful to the original, which is the point I wanted to make. If you remove some of the minor niggles from the original X-Com, slap in bigger resolutions and higher definition graphics, you have a perfectly workable and sellable game - this day and age.

Gentlemen, bros and trannies. This is the entire fucking point some of you missed. For a game from the mid 90s there isn't a whole lot you could improve in X-Com. You could clean up the interface, add more weapons (mortars, flamethrowes etc.), add a new vehicle chassis or interceptor/dropship, add stuff like climbing on roofs of shacks from ground level (which you had in JA) and new environments, maybe switch to hexes or get rid of the grid altogether and do what ToEE did. But that is content for most of the part. Are any of the mechanics truly outdated? No in fact they still are miles ahead of some of the games released today. Yet as part of making the game more "modern" or "accessible" instead of progress Firaxis is taking 2 or more steps back by simplifying the game. That is the very definition of decline. If you want this shit to continue then go ahead and pay them for a sub-par new X-Com game. Because that will only ensure that we get more dumbed down turn-based titles in the future.

 

[Infinitron]

Because that will only ensure that we get more dumbed down turn-based titles in the future.

As opposed to?...

For marketingfags, "turn-based" is just a bullet point on a Powerpoint presentation slide. Anything that turns that bullet-point from a negative into a positive should be good news for turn-based fanatics.

Once developers have the okay on that bullet point, they may or may not do something worthwhile with it. But they need the okay first.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

You have to understand I'm not assessing the value of anything. Xenonauts may well be a vastly superior game to this new XCOM console title - that is definitely not the point. The point is that these games are quite clearly aiming for different things. Xenonauts is UFO with updated graphics, staying faithful to the original game. It is not trying to attract a new audience, re-imagine anything nor even attempting to think about selling it to a console audience.

Firaxis appear to be trying to do these things; putting money into developing a console-esque visual level and thinking about the mechanics from the perspective of "how can we introduce and entice people who are not normally interested in this kind of thing? How can we attract a mass audience?" And whatever actions they believe will make their game more palatable and acceptable to people weaned on instant-satisfaction gameplay mechanics, they will do within the limits of whatever budget they've been assigned and within the limits of their own ideals about what a turn based strategy game should be.

The two games are clearly different in both aim and the style of execution. The interesting thing about XCOM is seeing whether it actually succeeds in creating a squad-level turn based tactics/strategy game for a modern console audience that actually sells well given the vast, essentially unchallenged domination of action-oriented games in the modern market. That I am interested in seeing.

 

[Spectacle]

Yeah. Dumbed down turn-based strategy is still better than dumbed down RTS or awesomebuttoned akshun.

 

[Haba]

Yeah. Dumbed down turn-based strategy is still better than dumbed down RTS or awesomebuttoned akshun.

Yet this freshly announced game has already garnered a ten page thread, while Xenonauts as an example only has a few pages.

Rage fuels discussion of course, but when we have a truly faithful modernization as an alternative, it is a bit sad.

 

[Arcks]

Yet this freshly announced game has already garnered a ten page thread, while Xenonauts as an example only has a few pages.

Rage fuels discussion of course, but when we have a truly faithful modernization as an alternative, it is a bit sad.

And you know why people are discussing it? Because it is going to be released some day.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Firaxis appear to be trying to do these things; putting money into developing a console-esque visual level and thinking about the mechanics from the perspective of "how can we introduce and entice people who are not normally interested in this kind of thing? How can we attract a mass audience?"

Which is what makes this game shit for most people here.

Mass audience means dumbing down. It means simple, easily accessible (no reading/thinking/figuring out is necessary) gameplay built around instant gratification. It means that the game will be easy since everyone should be able to beat it without getting frustrated, which means that it won't be tactical because tactics require challenge.

As I said in the South Park combat thread:

"In my opinion, the target audience is the first or foremost indicator of a game's design and depth. When someone says the magic words - "we want to make the game equally appealing to both hardcore and casual crowd", "we want to make the game more welcoming", "we don't want to make the game just for the RPG nuts", you KNOW that you aint getting an RPG. You're getting a dumbed down action game with stats, because that's the only type of games that will appeal to people who aren't into RPGs and never played one before (i.e. zero interest in RPGs)."

Granted, XCOM isn't an RPG but the point still stands.

The two games are clearly different in both aim and the style of execution. The interesting thing about XCOM is seeing whether it actually succeeds in creating a squad-level turn based tactics/strategy game for a modern console audience that actually sells well given the vast, essentially unchallenged domination of action-oriented games in the modern market. That I am interested in seeing.

If the game is aimed at the mass market, it will be as actiony as it gets.

 

[Morgoth]

Tons of people like a game? --> "Mass audience crap"

Small elite of monocle-wearing gentlemen like a game? --> "buy AoD* today"

This is the key in understanding VD.


*available on Thursday

 

[codexian reject]

It is a mod for civ5, it won't be actiony. It'll be however to xcom what civ revolutions was to civ2, or worse. There is no hope for firaxis after civ5. Nothing to see here, move on.

 

[Infinitron]

While I think VD's argument, that one simply cannot make an elite quality game for a mass audience, is a defensible one, I simply don't see why I or anybody else should get butthurt over a dead franchise.
Let them do whatever they want with it, and heck, maybe it'll even be fun!

 

[Gondolin]

Yeah. Dumbed down turn-based strategy is still better than dumbed down RTS or awesomebuttoned akshun.

No. Dumbed down is dumbed down and, therefore, shit. If Firaxis succeeds in capturing the mass market with their dumbed down action game, they will never change the formula to something we would consider acceptable.

 

[Haba]

Tons of people like a game? --> "Mass audience crap"

Small elite of monocle-wearing gentlemen like a game? --> "buy AoD* today"

Over 600,000 copies of X-Com: Ufo Defence were sold. For PC alone.

The problem is that today those 600,000 sold copies would not be enough.