Print

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

[Calhoun]

2) The main difference between this game and Xenonauts is that Xenonauts isn't using the exact same name as the original.  Therefore, Xenonauts can make any changes they wish, as it is more readily identifiable as a different game.  If Xenonauts sucks, it tarnishes nothing.

So if they called it anything else you wouldn't care? I don't even begin to understand the rational behind this. See also X-COM Enforcer.

[GlyphGryph]

and you absolutely can lose the game if you screw up too badly

If anything, this is the quote that worried me the most. I don't want it to be possible to"lose the game if you screw up too badly". I want it to make sure you "lose the game if you aren't playing well" or at the very least that you "WILL lose the game if you screw up to badly". I mean, I don't know accurated the quote is, but it makes you sound like you need to be both an idiot AND unlucky in order to pull of a loss.

[Untouchable]

and you absolutely can lose the game if you screw up too badly

If anything, this is the quote that worried me the most. I don't want it to be possible to"lose the game if you screw up too badly". I want it to make sure you "lose the game if you aren't playing well" or at the very least that you "WILL lose the game if you screw up to badly". I mean, I don't know accurated the quote is, but it makes you sound like you need to be both an idiot AND unlucky in order to pull of a loss.

I would have preferred if it was worded like "If you screw up at the worst times then the Aliens will let you have it" so if you make a real tactical blunder then the Aliens will capitalise on it and won't hesitate to overrun you. Like having a squad armed with mostly heavy weaponry, Etherals and Sectoid Leaders will use these against you.

[MorleyDev]

Considering the only reason I ever really heard of the X-COM games is the controversy around the FPS (I'd obviously heard the name, but knew nothing about them but "Turn based strategy" and "apparently good"), maybe that betrayal is actually for the best...

(If I was a more cynical man, I'd wonder if a part of the reason for the FPS was to drum up awareness of the series like this...)

[Cthulhu]

and you absolutely can lose the game if you screw up too badly

If anything, this is the quote that worried me the most. I don't want it to be possible to"lose the game if you screw up too badly". I want it to make sure you "lose the game if you aren't playing well" or at the very least that you "WILL lose the game if you screw up to badly". I mean, I don't know accurated the quote is, but it makes you sound like you need to be both an idiot AND unlucky in order to pull of a loss.

It sounds like you're reading a lot into it.  If you're not playing well, chances are it's because you screwed up badly.

[GlyphGryph]

See, in the original (at least after the difficulty patch on the harder difficulty), you did not need to screw up to lose. You needed to actually play well. A series of non-awesome but still decent decisions were collectively enough to sink you. Like I said, I don't know what the difficulty potential will actually be, but I guarantee you a game like Ninja Gaiden Black or even Guitar Hero would never have been described as "if you screw up too badly it's possible to lose", because those aren't words that describe a game that's got real challenge to it.

Again, I don't know for sure if that's accurate for the game they're releasing, but some sort of statement that on the harder difficulties "you need to push yourself to your limits or you are going to lose" would be much appreciated, rather than the sort of words that indicate losing will actually take some sort of effort in that direction.

One of my fondest reasons for liking x-com (and not really enjoying many of the other games in its genre) was that losing was a real possibility unless you were careful, clever, and diligent.

[Muz]

and you absolutely can lose the game if you screw up too badly

If anything, this is the quote that worried me the most. I don't want it to be possible to"lose the game if you screw up too badly". I want it to make sure you "lose the game if you aren't playing well" or at the very least that you "WILL lose the game if you screw up to badly". I mean, I don't know accurated the quote is, but it makes you sound like you need to be both an idiot AND unlucky in order to pull of a loss.

You can say the same thing about the original UFO: Enemy Unknown. I don't really know anyone who's actually "lost" it, unless they did something stupid like leaving their main base unguarded or with only a few noobs protecting it. Or if you ignore too many terror missions and lose funding.

Though TFTD is another issue...

Personally, though, I'm not too keen on overly difficult games where you lose often. What I like about X-Com is that you can lose battles, even your entire squad, and still bounce back. The era of "Save often" games is over, I'd rather play a game from start to finish without savescumming, and not be too tough; it feels more authentic. I definitely don't want to push myself to the limit over it... while it makes victory sweeter, halfway through it gets really annoying, and you end up having to play exploits to actually win.

I'm not too worried about them dumbing it down too much though. Firaxis is smart enough to know its target audience and certainly at least one of those guys has won a single X-Com game. They should know what the game is about, and it's not like they're known for making games easy on high difficulties

[Cthulhu]

There's an unsourced quote on UFOPaedia that the new game will have a Classic setting with old X-COM style difficulty.

The thing about old game difficulty is that, from what I've seen, going back and playing old games I thought were really hard, is either they're not that hard at all or they're so hard the game stops being fun.  There's a point somewhere between Contra 1 and Ghosts 'n Goblins where you're so angry by the time you finally win that you're not capable of feeling satisfaction about your victory.

[GlyphGryph]

You can say the same thing about the original UFO: Enemy Unknown. I don't really know anyone who's actually "lost" it, unless they did something stupid like leaving their main base unguarded or with only a few noobs protecting it. Or if you ignore too many terror missions and lose funding.

Losing the original was more about realize you couldn't win - the aliens were pulling ahead of you. I know very few people who actually went all the way to the "you lost" state, because you could draw out the loss for a long long time, but they they still "lost".

The thing about old game difficulty is that, from what I've seen, going back and playing old games I thought were really hard, is either they're not that hard at all or they're so hard the game stops being fun.

Yeah, not all old games were perfect on this front. Or even very good. I felt like XCom was one of them though, though it definitely had areas it could have improved.

Which actually brings up something - as far as changes go, what I'd really like to see is a system like UQM or Fallout where "losing" is a actually a variety of end conditions. That encourages people to really see a loss through and give it meaning, in my opinion, rather than giving up if things turn south. Firaxis has shown a willingness to create games like this in the past - with multiple end conditions somewhere between total victory and total failure, and I'd like to see them add something like that to XCom.

[amjh]

To me, it starts to seem like (non-indie) games aren't made for people who want to play games anymore. They're made for people who want something to do, and might choose a game if it's shinier than other options and doesn't take too much effort.

[Dohon]

Some more info. 3 screenies and some comparisons with game like Battlefield and Mass Effect. I kid you not. Clicky here.

EDIT: Also, Geoscape screenshot.

[Mephansteras]

The comparisons were kind of lame, but I guess that's mostly a filler article.

Screenshots look pretty good, although I must wonder about the [press Y to Scan for UFOs] thing on the Geoscape. Shouldn't that just be automatic? Why do I have to do that myself?

[GlyphGryph]

Screenshots makes it seem more and more like Valkyrie Chronicles, and the article actually mentions that. No evidence of hexes in new screenshots.

If you're a hardcore enough strategy gamer to be a fan of Valkyrie Chronicles, you've already pre-ordered XCOM.

HAHAHAHA *wheeez* HAHAHAHA.
Heh.
Hardcore. Yes. Hardcore Strategy Gamer. Suuuuure.

Don't get me wrong, I liked that game a lot, but it's not what I would call "hardcore".

[Domenique]

The exact research time and all the other visible numbers are a little too rpg-like to me atleast, otherwise everything seems fine. Also, I wonder if that roof was cracked in-game, based in the form it looks like it was.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm actually liking what I've seen of the interface here. However, the roof there looks like it was destroyed by the alient craft(?) landing, not by the agents.

I'm looking forward to our first screen shot of some actual destructible terrain.