IGN article: "Should X-Com Have Stayed Turn-based?&quot

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I'm content with isometric perspective for starters. The tactical options provided by FO1 and 2 were as good as those of Enemy Unknown and Terror from the Deep. Good enough for me.

What the fuck have you been smoking, comparing FO1 & 2s tactical options to those of UFO games?

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Valkyria Chronicles walked the line between shooter and tactics quite well.

 

[zeitgeist]

I'm content with isometric perspective for starters. The tactical options provided by FO1 and 2 were as good as those of Enemy Unknown and Terror from the Deep. Good enough for me.

That is a very silly thing to say. XCOM is superior in pretty much every aspect - squad equipment loadouts, character skill customization, tactical use of (destructible) terrain, the variety of enemies and their abilities, and so on.

 

[Disconnected]

Narration cannot be separated from level or system design, imo, and camera angles are a big part of that. As an example, there are certain vistas and moments in Fallout 3 and New Vegas that could not be accomplished without breaking you out of the isometric view regardless (REPCONN rockets launching). You can't get the full impact of weather, day/night, seeing the moon over Vegas, seeing the two Ranger Statues in the distance at the Mojave outpost, seeing distant flames at Nipton, looking up to see the Goodsprings cemetery with the skyline of Vegas behind it, or seeing the storms of the Divide to complement the location (the last four of which I'd argue are strong narrative moments as well as superior level design touches that cannot be done isometrically). I feel isometric is great for multi-party (like, 5-6 individuals you're controlling in combat), but when you're the lone wanderer with one or two companions that take general orders, it's not essential.

I partially agree, but why not switch to WEGO with a bird's eye camera when combat is entered?

Is it because combat encounters are sometimes one or two trash enemies, so distant that the player will ignore them & walk away? Because if so, it could easily be solved by not having shitty combat encounters. OR if that's really too hard, just allow the player to enter & exit combat without affecting the enemies.

I mean sure, it's a best of both world's kind of thing. But why not have the best of both worlds in this case? I don't see any particular reason the player has to either be distanced from the world, or suffer shite combat.

 

[sser]

First off, what is that guy doing writing for IGN? That was a well written article.

Second, you could probably produce an updated, 3D XCOM for the online console stores, sell it for $15 and make an easy profit. Hell, that alone could test the market for the need of another XCOM game instead of mindlessly a) Resurfacing a buried series most modern gamers don't even know about and b) Throwing another game into the giant ocean of FPS cover shooters.

 

[Gondolin]

What the fuck have you been smoking, comparing FO1 & 2s tactical options to those of UFO games?

That is a very silly thing to say. XCOM is superior in pretty much every aspect - squad equipment loadouts, character skill customization, tactical use of (destructible) terrain, the variety of enemies and their abilities, and so on.

Not really, taking into account the differences in genre. Equipment in X-Com was limited to two rifles, a rocket launcher and the Psi-Amp. Anything beyond these weapons was a waste of time for me. I never used grenades in either game (except in Fallout 2 because of that bot guarding the abandoned cache in the Toxic Caves). At least Fallout had a good range of weapons and had a better auto fire mode.

Character skill customization in X-Com means shooting a lot and running around to build stamina. Throwing specialization is available in both games.

Destructible terrain was a plus in X-Com, I'll grant that. However, in Fallout cover was not an issue, nor hunting for the last enemy around the fucking map (well, except maybe for the Redding mine). Most fights took place in the open, with your party being gangbanged by enemies.

The variety of enemies was wasted in X-Com. Except for the Chryssalid, the rest were pretty bland. Most terror animals were no threat and failed to even reach my soldiers. The Ethereals were no match for Heavy Plasma and, later, your soldiers were even better at that Psi thing than the Ethereals themselves.

X-Com has a fully controllable squad, Fallout has a bunch of melee weapons (not just a blade with two upgrades). X-Com soldiers can kneel, in Fallout you can attach a scope or laser range finder to your FN FAL.

In Fallout, at least, controlling your party and facing a wave of enemy is a challenge. X-Com combat devolves into hunting aliens one by one, because they never coordinate their attacks. And Fallout can still be challenging even in late game. Having Advanced Power Armor and the best weapons on all your characters doesn't mean you can't get raped by Enclave patrols around Navarro.