Print

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

[Neonivek]

None of those things were particularly difficult or particularly hard to figure out. I never used strategy guides either.

Ehhhh, something about that makes me doubt your being truthful. Just given how I saw the game go. Something must have informed you.

Hello blaster bombs!

Well this is why you need some good ranked people with armor. In the early game it is worth save and reloading your first few missions just so you have experienced characters who have a chance of not being instant killed.

JUST to make the game a bit easier.

...

Oddly enough when things come down to it the game actually relies on luck. In that you hit the end game the second you take down a large ship. Though given how the game handles the difficulty curve it could actually end the game too if you manage it too early.

Well, yeah - if you played badly, you were going to lose. Obviously

You would be surprised how easy the game is to lose when you don't have the mindset on how the game expects you to play, or when you expect more depth from the game then there is (for example expecting some parts of the alien craft to be useful). "Ohh I should research this, I may need it" (Game: "No, you didn't need that... you ACTUALLY should have skipped it") "Well I should build this!" (Game: "Nope it was a trap we set in the game. The time required to construct it is SUPPOSED to give reason why hunting aliens is required and is in fact a plot element and not a gameplay element. sorry you thought you needed it though")

Though I guess at this point I need to PROVE the game is tougher then you think... but can't ohh well

I think the biggest problem for people came from not knowing when they were outmatched.

Ohh you knew you were outmatched the largest issue is EVERY SINGLE OTHER GAME in existance makes you fight through that. Xcom is the ONLY game that makes you consider your options.

It is one of the main reasons why the game is nearly impossible for some people. Because the fact that "losing" and intentionally chosing to fail is something that goes against almost any other game in existance.

HECK I've played games where if you don't do the most suicidal missions one after the other the game becomes unwinnable.

The other is that the game really does have a true sequence of events you need to follow.

"The armor and weapons are secondary, I used to take out sectopods with heavy plasma, not easy, but not hard enough to carry lasers."

I said unlucky... I actually used tanks because they let my guys live and could take the early vollys of grenades. The unfortunate part is I love tanks...

[GlyphGryph]

It's war, casualties happen. Losing a squad or a battle should be a set-back but generally not a catastrophe. And retreating from a fight should, sometimes, be your best option when things go bad.

And I'd like a game where encountering a superior foe, managing to kill one at the cost of half your squad, grabbing its gear and hauling ass back to the evac while the others pick you off while pursuing can, in some cases, only to manage to scramble free with a third of the guys you went in with, can still be considered a VICTORY. After all, you can now reverse engineer its stuff.

And yes, Neonivek, the game will be impossible for those who insist on playing badly despite all evidence that such a strategy won't work, simply because it worked in some completely different game. I consider that a feature, not a flaw. If a tactical strategy game can't push you outside your automated linear handholding comfort zone, what's the point of it?

[Neonivek]

. I consider that a feature, not a flaw

Did I ever imply that its a flaw? Did I ever say that "Xcom is tougher then you think and that sucks"?

Its difficulty is one of its more satisfying aspects in that once you have everything together it just seems to fit. Its one of the few games where you feel like you actually start to accomplish something.

the ONLY part of its difficulty I even get close to considering a flaw are its intentional pitfalls and "tech loss"

only to manage to scramble free with a third of the guys you went in with, can still be considered a VICTORY

Naw, you should know you were doomed much earlier then that.

And yes, Neonivek, the game will be impossible for those who insist on playing badly despite all evidence that such a strategy won't work

The "I am using the same strategy" aspect isn't as obvious as it seems Glyph. Once again, I think you sort of know the game too well now to really go back a step and remember the time before "Ooooh yeah, I need to research this vehicle first before the advanced UFOs appear so I don't lose funding from too many lost terror missions. I also should build a base around this year to increase the amount of Radar range I have as well as giving myself another section to intercept. Thank goodness I knew I'd need that much cash".

Or "How do I get into this door without being instantly killed?" (In fact I still don't know how to properly open doors.)

[Mephansteras]

I think that'd be a great type of battle to do.

What I would like to see changed, though, is the technology handling.

In the original you'd start off with a pretty diverse squad. A Cannon sniper, A rocket guy, someone with an Autocannon, maybe a few scouts with pistols. It was interesting and fun to try to manage your different weapons and find tactics that used them effectively.

Then, assuming you didn't just tech straight for plasma, you got lasers. Not much of a change, just a little more powerful with unlimited ammo. But the Heavy Laser was pretty useless and you didn't get any upgrades for the other heavy weapon types (autocannon and rocket launcher). So you squad gets more boring, with almost everyone using laser rifles.

Then you get plasma and blaster bombs, and your squad pretty much defaults to everyone having heavy plasma. Sure, you might have a few guys with pistols and you'd have someone with the Blaster bomb, but that's it. No real variety and no real strategy for how you approach things. It's pretty much just find the enemy and shoot.

I'd like to see some interesting weapons come out in this one. I want Plasma rifles to be distinct and useful. I want to see a multi-shot laser weapon to replace the autocannon. I want shotguns and sniper rifles. I'd like to see rockets that get improved with tech so you don't have this giant gap between your starting rockets and the blaster bombs.

Not really faulting the original game too much, they had a lot of limitations they were working under. But I'm hoping we get to see some really interesting stuff come out with the new version.

[Neonivek]

Shotguns could be interesting as Breach weapons that have a higher chance of firing before all other weapons.

Sniper however... I sort of think the game would be better without them... THEN AGAIN! It isn't like the original wouldn't have laughed at a sniper.

I am hoping for cool new vehicles. Though I still found them too insanely fragile.

Not really faulting the original game too much, they had a lot of limitations they were working under

No I think the limits is what allowed the game to be grounded enough to be so good. You never know what breaking limitations will do to an industry.

Needing to spend MORE time with LESS... is better then spending LESS time with MORE.

[Shadowlord]

In the original you'd start off with a pretty diverse squad. A Cannon sniper, A rocket guy, someone with an Autocannon, maybe a few scouts with pistols. It was interesting and fun to try to manage your different weapons and find tactics that used them effectively.

I didn't. I equipped EVERYONE with heavy cannons or autocannons with explosive or incendiary rounds until I had laser rifles.

[Neonivek]

In the original you'd start off with a pretty diverse squad. A Cannon sniper, A rocket guy, someone with an Autocannon, maybe a few scouts with pistols. It was interesting and fun to try to manage your different weapons and find tactics that used them effectively.

I didn't. I equipped EVERYONE with heavy cannons or autocannons with explosive or incendiary rounds until I had laser rifles.

And some people just skip Laser and go right to Plasma.

[scriver]

Great news.

Watching to post.

[Talvara]

I for one welcome our new sectoid overlords.

This is very much better news than that X-com shooter that isn't X-com but just tries to ride on a brandname. They can fuck it up sure, but they could make a masterpiece aswell though. I'll hope for the best, I mean they can't rape my childhood. that ship has sailed and left my tiny little soul violated and paranoid.

Let's just be happy that this group is taking a stab atleast into the right direction.

edit: I actually don't have anything against the X-com shooter, I'm sure it could be an interesting game. I'm just pissed that they're trying to milk a brandname instead of using something new. (I mean they're pretty much making something new anyway then why the name T.T) (but I digress, this thread is about fireaxis's stab at the brand)

[Neonivek]

I for one welcome our new sectoid overlords.

I actually prefer the old ones... vastly.

they seemed like an actual people rather then a creature.

I'm just pissed that they're trying to milk a brandname instead of using something new

The disapointing part for me isn't that they are trying to make a Xcom shooter (afterall, they already done one). It is that they sort of ignored their source material.

[Darkmere]

It's been openly stated that the shooter remake wasn't intended to be an XCom game. They slapped the name on another, completely unrelated game trying to cash in on a franchise someone remembered they owned.

All the ruckus from either title (and I use title loosely, since one piece of concept art isn't much of a game to argue over) should come down to 2 options:

1) This game is fun enough that I will purchase it.
2) The above is not true.

I don't like tacked-on names either, but I can acknowledge that Fallout:Tactics and the Star Control non-sequel were fun in their own way. Raging against things that don't exist yet just gets everyone angry.

EDIT: I disagree with most of this article so much: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/06/the-new-xcom-my-needy-little-wishlist/

[a1s]

Fun fact: Extraterrestrials (the extended, yet somehow vastly undercooked remake of XCom) is getting a sequel this spring. Seems 2012 will be the year of X-Com in gaming...

[Neonivek]

We only go by pictures Darkmere... If we arn't going to at least attempt to judge these pictures then all these posts would just be "ohh cool".

[a1s]

EDIT: I disagree with most of this article so much: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/06/the-new-xcom-my-needy-little-wishlist/

Sigh... that is a useless post. If you disagree- say what with. If you disagree with every single word in that article- don't post it.
that being said, I find the hypocrisy funny:

Here’s what I want from it:
Higher resolutions. That’s it.
...
please don’t make this new Enemy Unknown just the same as the original, a straight retread with modern tech.

[Tilla]

EDIT: I disagree with most of this article so much: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/06/the-new-xcom-my-needy-little-wishlist/

Sigh... that is a useless post. If you disagree- say what with. If you disagree with every single word in that article- don't post it.
that being said, I find the hypocrisy funny:

Here’s what I want from it:
Higher resolutions. That’s it.
...
please don’t make this new Enemy Unknown just the same as the original, a straight retread with modern tech.

A1s: that first bit is a joke. Where he says 'Higher Resolutions, that's it'. He was kidding.

I don't really disagree with anything in the article honestly, they all seem reasonable to me.