Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

As a rule, if you go on about how bad something will be before you try it, you won't enjoy it when you do try it regardless of its actual quality.  If they ended up making this the best game ever to exist, an individual who raved about how bad it will be beforehand still wouldn't find it enjoyable once he actually tried it.

The only way to enjoy a game is to at minimum be cautiously optimistic about it when trying it out for the first time.

[Sensei]

Nonsense, I've been surprised by good games before.

[Saint]

X-com enforcer is a shooter.

That game never happened.

I bought it off steam with the X-com pack.
I think it happened.

[Pillow_Killer]

X-Com enforcer was never released. It doesnt exists.

[Urist McOverlord]

It's... different.
From what it sounds like, they're turning the whole thing into the "galactic campaign" version of Star Wars: Battlefront 2. I fully think that this could be a good shooter.

Is it another strategy? No. Definitely not. Is that a bad thing? I'd say yeah, if for no other reason than we (that is to say, gamers) need more strategy games. Or RPG's that aren't mmo's. Or really just more non-shooters...

That said, I think this could turn out to be decent. Although, I'm not one to stop companies from experimenting with their IP. Movement =? innovation = good, and all that.
Although I wish that the entire industry's movement would be [/i]away[/i] from shooters... *grumblegrumblegrumble* At least they're (supposedly) doing something (kind of) new, though. What with the "research and planning" elements. Sounds to me almost like taking the original's Geoscape map and changing the battlescape to shooter.

NOW STOP SPOILING MY UNWARRANTED OPTIMISM!

[Zangi]

Generic FPS is not Innovation...  >.>

[Apple Master]

re: screenshots
http://www.eurogamer.pt/gallery.php?game_id=13109&article_id=1086446

[Urist McOverlord]

Generic FPS is not Innovation...  >.>

If they do, as the article linked in the OP seems to suggest, recreate X-com's Geoscape in a shooter, then I would indeed consider that innovation. Of course, we don't know for certain what's going to happen with this, so I could very well be wrong, but once again, STOP SPOILING MY UNWARRANTED OPTIMISM!

The console version is guaranteed to suck, though. Am I right?

[MrWiggles]

I'm not to insane, I dont want it to be isometric 16-bit graphics or anything or for the turn base mechanic to be there. It should move along with modern game design elements. The gaming world progress for a reason.

Turn-based is an insane, outdated idea now?

The insane comment was about basically wanting nothing to change for it, for it to be a carbon copy the original. It should grow and change and adopt to the modern gaming modalities.

TBS Squad, can be outdated. It depends on how its implemented. Switching to RTS format would change the basing pacing of battlescape mode and how it tension builds. Both could be awesome, though modern markets go toward RTS over TBS. Truthfully, I think an RTS squad battle scape could be fairly awesome. It depends to largely to speculate on it.

[Sowelu]

Valkyria Chronicles looks like a game I could sink my teeth into.  Not X-Com, probably, but still neat.


...You know what I find kind of funny?  There were a lot of aspects of the old, original X-Com that if I was re-making it today, I would want to change.  Can you guys tell me how you feel about these concerns?  Whether they are not problems at all, or maybe how you think they ought to be addressed?  I'm not entirely sure how I would go about changing them, but I have a few ideas:

• I honestly think that the turn-based system, AS IMPLEMENTED, is a flawed concept.  I mean, it's pretty good in a lot of ways, reaction fire is awesome...but it has some causality-breaking things.  Like, your first guy runs as far as he can and exposes an alien on his last step, then your second guy takes his entire round to make an aimed shot at said alien.  Also, being able to chain-throw grenades across your entire squad in one turn.  I really don't know how to fix this in any TBT game.  I liked Apocalypse's real-time mode, but then you guys already knew that.  I think you can account for reaction fire in real-time, too, by just giving a half-second surprise period where none of the team can react to a specific hostile after the first time it's been recently spotted (reaction training lowers this time).
• Training, training, training.  God how broken is training.  The concept is very solid, because it sounds like this:  As your soldiers shoot at aliens, they get better accuracy!  As they get put in reaction-fire positions, they get better at reaction fire!  It doesn't work that way though.  If you HIT an alien, your accuracy goes up, otherwise it doesn't...which means that people who are already great keep improving, while newbies find it hard to learn from their mistakes.  It also makes it possible to scum for training by stealing a muton's weapon, then lining a bunch of guys up in front of him with pistols.  How stupid.  Oh yeah...and why would someone learn how to shoot in the field, instead of ON THE FREAKING SHOOTING RANGE?!  God!  Anyway, I'm a firm believer that field experience should be represented in a very different way from how it is now.  I don't like the concept of levels, but Jagged Alliance 2 might be closer to what I'm after.
• Accuracy, and shooting in general, are so weird.  I think the turns are something like five seconds each, and you can run something like sixty feet in a turn, which is perfectly fine (I just did some math to arrive at five seconds which is a great round number).  But think of what a marksman should be able to do in five seconds.  Specifically look at how terrible of a shot your guys can be, when they take 2-3 shots every five seconds.  You know that "chance to hit" you have?  It's the same at ANY RANGE.  Your guy with 70% snap-shot accuracy is likely to miss a target five ten feet away, a fifth of the time...and he's a pretty darn good shot.  (Mind you, in X-Com, if you roll a 'miss', it still goes in the same general direction--so you'll often hit your target anyway--but still.)  Oh yeah...and if you put the worst shot on your team up on a hill, and tell him to take auto-fire shots at some guy across the freaking map, that's way out of his visual range, and he only has 20% chance to hit at close range?  Guess what, one out of five shots will still magically home in on the target.  That's stupid.  Accuracy shouldn't be range-independent.

I really love the theme of the original X-Com, and the game mechanics really grabbed us because they were complex, and it was the first game that ever really "went there".  But when you think about them, a lot of the mechanics haven't withstood the test of time.  I think that both Apocalypse and Jagged Alliance did problems #2 and #3 a lot better...but, well, do the rest of you guys agree on at least changing the training and the accuracy stuff?  Even if I was making a flat remake of the original X-Com, I'd want to change both of those mechanics.

I'm trying to figure out what parts exactly are the "sacred" parts of X-Com's mechanics.  Clearly the strategic + tactical confluence is.  And JA2 goes in a totally wrong direction, thematically (and most of its mechanics are for a very different game).  Apocalypse's theme is probably wrong for a lot of you guys, and I get the impression that a lot of you don't like real-time, but I also feel like the X-Com organization being more 'out of the closet' might appeal to some of you...


Hell, I'll just up and ask.  For a modern X-Com game, either a remake or a new game that's loyal to the setting...what game mechanics are in need of change?  Do you want to tweak research?  Tweak production?  Tweak the balance issues?  Tweak armor and lethality?  (I like those two just like they are, myself.)  Tweak psionics or, god forbid, remove them entirely or make massive changes?  I don't think any of the mechanics are sacred and, while this new game doesn't seem like an X-Com game thematically or mechanically, how far from the original could we stray in our quest to make the best X-Com game possible?

[Soulwynd]

You could still just wait to try it out instead of going on about how it's going to suck as an X-Com game based on some pre-release interviews. Yes, yes, you've been playing it for ten years, they've played it for a few hours, it isn't going to be the X-Com we know and love, etc. etc. I'm cautiously optimistic as to its chances at being good as an X-Com game instead of just a good shooter, although even I'll admit that's doubtful, to say the least.

Right now, based on the interviews, that's my opinion. I'm not saying it cannot change and I'm far from being too stubborn to stick to an opinion.

If they manage to surprise me, well, even better. A good new x-com name would be awesome. This sadly doesn't sound like it. *shrugs*

[MrWiggles]

Spoiler: Sowelu Post (click to show/hide)

Valkyria Chronicles looks like a game I could sink my teeth into.  Not X-Com, probably, but still neat.


...You know what I find kind of funny?  There were a lot of aspects of the old, original X-Com that if I was re-making it today, I would want to change.  Can you guys tell me how you feel about these concerns?  Whether they are not problems at all, or maybe how you think they ought to be addressed?  I'm not entirely sure how I would go about changing them, but I have a few ideas:

• I honestly think that the turn-based system, AS IMPLEMENTED, is a flawed concept.  I mean, it's pretty good in a lot of ways, reaction fire is awesome...but it has some causality-breaking things.  Like, your first guy runs as far as he can and exposes an alien on his last step, then your second guy takes his entire round to make an aimed shot at said alien.  Also, being able to chain-throw grenades across your entire squad in one turn.  I really don't know how to fix this in any TBT game.  I liked Apocalypse's real-time mode, but then you guys already knew that.  I think you can account for reaction fire in real-time, too, by just giving a half-second surprise period where none of the team can react to a specific hostile after the first time it's been recently spotted (reaction training lowers this time).
• Training, training, training.  God how broken is training.  The concept is very solid, because it sounds like this:  As your soldiers shoot at aliens, they get better accuracy!  As they get put in reaction-fire positions, they get better at reaction fire!  It doesn't work that way though.  If you HIT an alien, your accuracy goes up, otherwise it doesn't...which means that people who are already great keep improving, while newbies find it hard to learn from their mistakes.  It also makes it possible to scum for training by stealing a muton's weapon, then lining a bunch of guys up in front of him with pistols.  How stupid.  Oh yeah...and why would someone learn how to shoot in the field, instead of ON THE FREAKING SHOOTING RANGE?!  God!  Anyway, I'm a firm believer that field experience should be represented in a very different way from how it is now.  I don't like the concept of levels, but Jagged Alliance 2 might be closer to what I'm after.
• Accuracy, and shooting in general, are so weird.  I think the turns are something like five seconds each, and you can run something like sixty feet in a turn, which is perfectly fine (I just did some math to arrive at five seconds which is a great round number).  But think of what a marksman should be able to do in five seconds.  Specifically look at how terrible of a shot your guys can be, when they take 2-3 shots every five seconds.  You know that "chance to hit" you have?  It's the same at ANY RANGE.  Your guy with 70% snap-shot accuracy is likely to miss a target five ten feet away, a fifth of the time...and he's a pretty darn good shot.  (Mind you, in X-Com, if you roll a 'miss', it still goes in the same general direction--so you'll often hit your target anyway--but still.)  Oh yeah...and if you put the worst shot on your team up on a hill, and tell him to take auto-fire shots at some guy across the freaking map, that's way out of his visual range, and he only has 20% chance to hit at close range?  Guess what, one out of five shots will still magically home in on the target.  That's stupid.  Accuracy shouldn't be range-independent.

I really love the theme of the original X-Com, and the game mechanics really grabbed us because they were complex, and it was the first game that ever really "went there".  But when you think about them, a lot of the mechanics haven't withstood the test of time.  I think that both Apocalypse and Jagged Alliance did problems #2 and #3 a lot better...but, well, do the rest of you guys agree on at least changing the training and the accuracy stuff?  Even if I was making a flat remake of the original X-Com, I'd want to change both of those mechanics.

I'm trying to figure out what parts exactly are the "sacred" parts of X-Com's mechanics.  Clearly the strategic + tactical confluence is.  And JA2 goes in a totally wrong direction, thematically (and most of its mechanics are for a very different game).  Apocalypse's theme is probably wrong for a lot of you guys, and I get the impression that a lot of you don't like real-time, but I also feel like the X-Com organization being more 'out of the closet' might appeal to some of you...


Hell, I'll just up and ask.  For a modern X-Com game, either a remake or a new game that's loyal to the setting...what game mechanics are in need of change?  Do you want to tweak research?  Tweak production?  Tweak the balance issues?  Tweak armor and lethality?  (I like those two just like they are, myself.)  Tweak psionics or, god forbid, remove them entirely or make massive changes?  I don't think any of the mechanics are sacred and, while this new game doesn't seem like an X-Com game thematically or mechanically, how far from the original could we stray in our quest to make the best X-Com game possible?

You're point list seems to be upset at possible exploits. I think that is slightly unfair to the game. Changing from TBS to RTS won't absolve exploits just exchange them.

But yea, accuracy is odd. Its a nifty in a sense though. The initial accuracy given by the weapon is absent of range, however hitting the target is not absent of range. The longer the range the lower the average you have to hit. The x-com community at the ufopedia page is uncertain as to reason. They think its a randomized spread factor.

Anyway. Uh, I think its rather hard to hit on what makes X-Com, X-com. For Battlescape there can be a thick tension in the game, and apprehension to pressing the turn over button. This hasn't been match in other x-com inspired titles or other squad strat games really.

Base mgm. is excellently design to the point where you choices do forcefully impact the game on all the levels but does not overwhelm the player with to much information to fast.

[zchris13]

Yes, the X-COM geoscape is extremely easy to understand, and get involved in, unlike some other, newer, games.

@▼/MrWiggles:  Dwarf Fortress is newer, dummy.

[MrWiggles]

Yes, the X-COM geoscape is extremely easy to understand, and get involved in, unlike some other, newer, games.

Or Dwarf Fortress.
@∆/zchris13: Hey now, the community generally exempts DF from other games.

[Farce]

RTSes are no fun for me.  I'm always too busy zooming around the map trying to move guys around, and whenever there's a fight I inevitably have to keep zooming around the map, going back to my base to tell newly spawned groups to get into the fight, so I don't get to partake in my little soldier's victories or losses.  At all.  If they win I don't see their awesome moments, and if they lose I only notice cuz' suddenly they're gone.  :\


Sowelu:  Personally, I can abstract that stuff in plausibility pretty easily.  A grenade-chain as they're running up, one guy in the back tosses a 'nade up to the front, calling the dude in front of him and telling him to pass it up to what's-his-face on point.  Just like how the entire turn is abstracted into individual actions for your soldiers, "irl" it's all simultaneous, with the grenade coming up over the span of the turn.

...I've never really thought about it, but aren't your soldiers supposed to be like the Earth's top men?  I would think they'd have gotten as good as possible on a range pre-hiring.  I suppose I -would- like to see 'em slowly get better by practicing in the base, I guess, but it doesn't really bother me.  I would think the "improve by firing on the field" thing accounts for being able to aim while under the stress of combat with murderous, terrifying aliens and combat experience.  But still... I guess sometimes the ridiculous accuracy chances in TBS games kinda gets annoying.  I remember in JA2 and Fallout Tactics, unless you were some kind of crackshot gun-wizard the chance to hit people like ten yards in front of you would be somewhere around 30%.  That seems a bit low to me, but what do I know.


Overall the mechanics don't bother me, really.  What always got to me was the lack of variety in weapons - for every tech type, you got a pistol, an assault rifle, and a heavy weapon.  No matter what, Heavy Plasma is the way to go - your snipers in the back line up shots with a MASSIVE gun, same as your pointmen, same as your grunts.  More weapon variety to outfit your soldiers would've made it much more entertaining for me - as it is the only differences between soldiers seemed to be stats to me.

Apoc fixed that, I guess, but it was just silly.  I mean, your default armor is just goofy-looking.  Other X-com-like games tend to do pretty well with weapon variety, though.


TBS-style games are one of my favorite genres, though, I guess.