Print

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

[TheCze]

I'm trying to figure out what parts exactly are the "sacred" parts of X-Com's mechanics.

In my opinion the TBS core is the most important thing.
Unfortunately there are only a few games that have TBS on squad level so I understand why every TBS fan is disappointed by another FPS game.
I mean, a jump from TBS to RTS would have been hard, but to FPS?


Guess I'll rather play JA2 the 20 thousand time ^^

[Sowelu]

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.  :\

Just wanted to clarify the huge difference between RTS and RTT.  One common RTT example is, oh, Planescape: Torment, or Baldur's Gate / Neverwinter Nights etc (though I have only played the first of those).  You're usually only watching a small area at a time--where the action is--and you spend a LOT of time paused (much like how, in X-Com, you spend a lot of time scrolling around and pondering what to do next).

The main advantage you get from RTT over TBT is that there's no distinction between "your turn" and "enemy turn".  This is GREAT news for you when a chryssalid pops up down the street.  In a TBT game, if it shows up a hundred feet from your guys after you spent all your TPs, you're goddamn screwed, losing at least one guy for sure.  In an RTT game, you still have options.  Like "Stop shooting at that snakeman, everyone open fire at the chryssalid!"  Or even "Take cover from the snakeman, THEN open fire".  It's also very useful when someone comes around a corner with an alien grenade.  I mean, if you're all bunched up in a little group and you see a sectoid where you're not expecting one, and he has something small and round in his hand, your guys should be smart enough to BOLT.

RTT removes some of the tension--you don't get all apprehensive about pressing the 'end turn' button, that's true.  It changes the feeling from "horror" to "war".  In TBT, a long-distance firefight is "Oh shit oh shit I need to kill him on this turn, let's get more guns over here...damn it, we all missed, everyone crouch behind your hills / sidle behind trees!  Okay, his turn...whew, thank god, he missed with all his shots, our turn again".  In RTT, you actually have a few guys, halfway behind cover, firing a constant stream of shots back and forth between each other.  It feels more real, visceral, and in-the-moment.  There's not as much tension, that's true.  But...I kinda feel like the tension was always *slightly* overstated.  Apocalypse had a bit too little tension, but it had more than a lot of other games I've seen.  Especially with those hopping grenades.  *shudders*


So...RTT might not be the right genre for X-Com players, but it's at least extremely different than RTS.

[Virex]

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.  :\

Just wanted to clarify the huge difference between RTS and RTT.  One common RTT example is, oh, Planescape: Torment, or Baldur's Gate / Neverwinter Nights etc (though I have only played the first of those).  You're usually only watching a small area at a time--where the action is--and you spend a LOT of time paused (much like how, in X-Com, you spend a lot of time scrolling around and pondering what to do next).

I always thought RTT was more like Ground Controll or Commando's. Now I don't know about commando's, but Ground Controll had no pause function. Instead it was RTT because you controlled a small and limited amount of units (which couldn't be replaced in GC 1, or they could within bounds in GC 2), so you're going to have to be wary of losing anyone and you usualy have only 1 or 2 theaters of war and no bases to care about, since you don't have enough troops to do anything more.

[Jreengus]

The difference between RTS and RTT is simply that you can't build units, so RTT can cover from the total war series all the way down to Baldurs Gate.

[Sowelu]

I didn't like Ground Control.

I recommend that if you're leery of RTT, and you've never tried Apocalypse, that you at least consider giving it a try in RTT mode.  It might be closer to the X-Com you know and love than you think (though the geoscape is quite different and will take some re-learning).  Oh yeah, and your troops keep their weapons on them, instead of chucking them back into a pile on the skyranger after each mission.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

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.  :\

Just wanted to clarify the huge difference between RTS and RTT.  One common RTT example is, oh, Planescape: Torment, or Baldur's Gate / Neverwinter Nights etc (though I have only played the first of those).  You're usually only watching a small area at a time--where the action is--and you spend a LOT of time paused (much like how, in X-Com, you spend a lot of time scrolling around and pondering what to do next).

I always thought RTT was more like Ground Controll or Commando's. Now I don't know about commando's, but Ground Controll had no pause function. Instead it was RTT because you controlled a small and limited amount of units (which couldn't be replaced in GC 1, or they could within bounds in GC 2), so you're going to have to be wary of losing anyone and you usualy have only 1 or 2 theaters of war and no bases to care about, since you don't have enough troops to do anything more.

I know for a fact that you can pause in Ground Control.  I distinctly remember pausing the game several times after blowing up those bike things to watch the driver frozen in midair as his vehicle exploded around him.

Anyway, since we're talking RTT I'd suggest the Mechcommander series or even better, the Bestway games(Men of War and it's predecessors). 

[Sowelu]

Specifically being able to give orders while paused, too, is the important part.

Although that whole pausing in RTT thing makes multiplayer kind of...not work at all.

[MrWiggles]

Well it cant be an actual pause. In Defcon, you have speed levels, and you play at the slowest speed selected by the players in the game.

[Pandarsenic]

Oh, another thing missing from my giant rant:

FBI-com looks like it will have no reason to make you fear dying, because you'll just load up from your last save point and start again. In X-com, unless you're an obsessively savescumming bastard who likes defeating the whole purpose of the game, every death is a major setback, an immediate loss of firepower and a long-term loss of any training and officer promotions this unit possesses. That doesn't translate to FPS, period.

[Soulwynd]

To me, it's not the FPS part that bothers me. I'm alright with that.

FPS in x-com should work by (in order of bestestness[sic])

Idea 1 - Taking over one of the characters and also being able to pause, yes, pause in FPS, to command units over a map. If the character you're using dies, you just go to the highest ranked one left. no save scumming, no bringing people back from the dead.

Idea 2 - If you must be a particular character always, at least you should be able to pause and command. If you can't have a map to command them from, think of Fallout 3 VATs. Also, a hardcore mode where if your character dies, gameover.

Idea 3 - If all of that fails and you can't pause, you should at the very least be able to command, give simple orders.

Idea 4 - If you can't do any of that, you're a horrible game studio, give up.

Overall the missions in x-com should be somewhat like this:

Idea 1 - Completely dynamic, the storyline is followed by research results. You can also have some key events or key objects to find in missions, but those should appear randomly. Preference goes to random maps (which only xcomutil modded x-com 1 & 2 have) and very tactical settings that requires team work to win. Ideally, you should be able to send a squad to auto-solve a mission, something all x-com & After series lacked.

Idea 2 - Give room to a few storyline set missions, compromising research and mission to advance the game. Not really fond of this, since replayability is killed somewhat, since you already know the key missions in the next gameplay.

Idea 3 - If you go HL linear story, I will kill you developers.

Idea 4 - Erase idea 3 before people say shit.

As for the base management bit:
Idea 1 - Since it's FPS, being able to walk in the base to spot its defense flaws and be able to assign guards to key locations would be a great thing. But also, keep all base building in a over head mode, same goes to research, nobody wants to fucking walk to whatever to talk to people to get things done. One button beats walking, always. The only except would be being able to move sentry guns and barriers around your base in FPS to create a decent defense line.

Idea 2 - Okay, if you can't have an over head map building, at least try to keep us from walking around.

Idea 3 - No map building? You fail, go to hell.

Idea 4- No base? Just one stupid room with a scientist npc and an engineer npc? Yep, this sounds like this game alright, do not want.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Here's the thing.  Any modern mainstream developer like 2K is not very likely to make a highly replayable game unless it's an MMOG.    For big corporations like 2K and EA good ethics is enriching your shareholders.  It's all about increasing profits.  You aren't making money if people are replaying the game they already bought from you over and over again for free.  So making a highly replayable game and selling it for a one time fee is not simply foolish, buy unethical as well.

[Soulwynd]

Only because dumbasses buy those games.

Oh the humanity.

[MrWiggles]

Isn't the Sims, and Fable made by EA or published by them?

[Frumple]

X-com FPS with heavy randomization, like the originals (and capable of being played on a low-ish end system (not gonna' happen, ha)) would make me happy. Chances of anything of the sort being made in mainstream gaming before 2020 or so is vanishingly slim, I think. Procedural implementation in modern gaming systems is picking up a bit, but it hasn't really 'caught on' outside of a few niche areas, I don't believe.

Not really the point. Point to be made: X-Com RTS = Warzone 2100 + X-com. I think it'd work pretty bloody well. Warzone's got probably one of the better base management systems I've seen in an RTS, period. Scale (tank to human squishy, building implementation) would have to change, but I think it'd be something pretty close to workable.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

The original The Sims was made by Maxis, one of the few companies bought out by EA that didn't completely vanish from the face of the earth.  Practically speaking I'm not sure if they actually still exist or if their name is simply a figure head for EA's slightly more original creations but the Maxis that was certainly no longer exists if Spore is any indication.  The Fable series is developed by Lionhead studios founded by a member of one of the companies EA bought out and erased from existence who then went totally batshit psychotic.  According to Wikipedia at least, it was published by Microsoft Game Studios.  There's a name you don't see too much about anymore.

The Sims is a great example of one way to make constant income from a game that doesn't have a monthly fee.  They had great online support for it, but released constant expansion packs that the online content required.  Then they released The Sims 2, left out tons of features released from the expansion packs, stopped supporting The Sims 1 online, and started it all over again.  I suppose it's the same with the third game though I didn't bother with it after learning that you apparently have to download the majority of the content online after you buy and install the game.