|
On September 03 2012 18:46 djukger wrote:we all know this triple A title will not be a good xcom game .....like all other xcom games .... why not http://www.xenonauts.com/you can get the alpha version from the kickstarter event( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/69341191/xenonauts ) and from what i've played this will be very close to the originals (tftd, enemy unknown). They even discuss stuff with people on the forums and ask for opinions about certain changes
No, we don't know that. Actually by these videos and streams it looks like it will be an awesome X-com game that is really using all the advanced of computer programming of the last 15+ years while still at the core being the X-com game we love.
And BTW, it will have MP which looks as much fun as singleplayer game if not more.
|
I think it looks ridiculously fun, can't wait for it. Reminds me of the Warhammer 40k game which was released for... PSP or DS, I don't remember, only more advanced, and that game was awesome.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On September 03 2012 18:12 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 18:19 Random() wrote:On September 01 2012 18:13 -Archangel- wrote:Well in 2 missions that were shown in that 1h video the player lost 2 guys. So how can anyone claim soldiers won't die. Personally I never lost soldiers in Xcom 1 and 2 as I would load the game as soon as I lost one. Soldiers dying less means less loading the game for me  Boo, real men don't load. Try playing without save/load at all (the only time you are allowed to save is to save and exit the game), makes for a completely different (and much more exciting!) experience That is fun, at least until the moment you land to defend a terror mission when your first soldier makes his first step out of the aircraft... and a rocket from the darkness evaporates 3/4th of your team without anyone but the first soldier ever being able to move an inch. If you then manage to get up a beachhead around your craft a wild chrysalis (or whatever they were called) appears from around a corner and your shots bounce off him while his zombiefying attack starts a chain reaction killing your whole remaining team. X-Com is one of the greatest games ever made but it's sooooooo frustrating at times.
Or you clear the terror site with minimal losses but that LAST freaking cyberdisc hides somewhere where you cannot see it without it reaction-shooting you and you lose every soldier one by one trying to get it.
But that is exactly what makes it great :-) You are no longer just blindly going to every mission knowing that whatever happens you can just load, you start to realize that trying a terror mission may not be even worth it (night missions, for instance), and you know that if you land and something goes very wrong (like you encounter ethereals without psi-trained soldiers) you know that you better abort or risk losing everyone and the plane. This makes the game full of critical decisions and calculated risks instead of just steamrolling the aliens with save/load abuse.
Also losing stuff is not as bad as people make it think, it is actually really exciting to try and recover from very bad losses and most of the shitty situations (like losing every soldier and the skyranger on your very first mission) can be recovered from.
|
On August 29 2012 11:01 YMCApylons wrote:
[You pretty much have to go rambo style, which is what they do in the playthroughs, and it's just not the XCOM way. Also, with only 4-5 guys covering all that map, they all have to be supersoldiers that are nearly indestructible. It's ridiculous that a soldier could take 3 shots from mutons and still be alive.
This looks true about the game... on Normal Difficulty, which is the difficulty shown off in the 1-hour gameplay stream. If you've seen the PAX Prime streaming vids the past weekend, they had the same missions cranked up to Impossible Difficulty. And it looks HARD. Soldiers go down in 1-2 hits, aliens are more aggressive, use grenades and special abilities more often, not to mention being tougher - one of the vids had a group of Chryssalids survive a rocket. Of the 4 times they attempted the same Terror Mission on Impossible, none of them ever came close to completing it, even as they adjusted their tactics with each try. The most successful in my eyes was the last attempt where they just bugged out to the Skyranger with 2 out of 5 men surviving.
And that's with the oft-stated caveat that adjusting difficulty to Impossible mid-mission (which is what they did) is not the same as actually playing the campaign on Impossible Difficulty from the beginning, which would restructure the mission differently to have more aliens with different group compositions.
Then there's is the optional Iron Man Mode, which prevents you from save scumming to victory by giving you only one save slot that's overriden by autosave at every opportunity.
|
you can preorder it now on steam... but 50 € is too much for me.
|
That preview video looked so disapointing, so consolish. I will prolly buy it anyway but only becouse UFO:Enemy Unknown and Terror from the Depths were one of first games i've got on PC. Also 50 euro... maybe will wait for some sale.
|
Yeah. I want this game, but I don't want it for $50. Wishlisted.
|
On September 05 2012 20:14 SashinkiRenzu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 11:01 YMCApylons wrote:
[You pretty much have to go rambo style, which is what they do in the playthroughs, and it's just not the XCOM way. Also, with only 4-5 guys covering all that map, they all have to be supersoldiers that are nearly indestructible. It's ridiculous that a soldier could take 3 shots from mutons and still be alive.
This looks true about the game... on Normal Difficulty, which is the difficulty shown off in the 1-hour gameplay stream. If you've seen the PAX Prime streaming vids the past weekend, they had the same missions cranked up to Impossible Difficulty. And it looks HARD. Soldiers go down in 1-2 hits, aliens are more aggressive, use grenades and special abilities more often, not to mention being tougher - one of the vids had a group of Chryssalids survive a rocket. Of the 4 times they attempted the same Terror Mission on Impossible, none of them ever came close to completing it, even as they adjusted their tactics with each try. The most successful in my eyes was the last attempt where they just bugged out to the Skyranger with 2 out of 5 men surviving. And that's with the oft-stated caveat that adjusting difficulty to Impossible mid-mission (which is what they did) is not the same as actually playing the campaign on Impossible Difficulty from the beginning, which would restructure the mission differently to have more aliens with different group compositions. Then there's is the optional Iron Man Mode, which prevents you from save scumming to victory by giving you only one save slot that's overriden by autosave at every opportunity.
Making it impossibly hard doesn't solve the 4-6 soldier problem. If they think it does, then these people have no clue about XCOM. The problem is striking the balance between overall mission difficulty and individual soldier capability. With large XCOM squads, individual soldiers could be weak, but the overall mission could still be manageable. When you play XCOM on superhuman, your soldiers were hopeless...killed in one shot by heavy plasma, panicking, getting psy-bombed and mind-controlled all the time. But with enough soldiers, you could keep rolling. Keep a couple unarmed psy-weak rookies in the Skyrangers to act as sponges to soak up all the ethereal TUs. In XCOM, individual soldiers are so weak, but, when microed properly, they become a fighting force. Your decisions matter.
With only 4-6 soldiers, if you lose 2, it's game over. Yeah, I suppose its HARD and HARDCORE, but it's also stupid. It's a tactical game. You're supposed to have fireteams, mutually-supporting zones of fire, and win through skillful tactical deployment, even when you're outgunned and outnumbered. I don't know how much tactical cunning you would need when you have only two soldiers left. Does it really matter how I place them? Or will I win because the game balance numbers say that I'll win, or will I lose because the game balance numbers say that I will? To be a good game, the players decisions have to matter. Just making it OMG IMPOSSIBIRU isn't going to do anything to placate XCOM veterans.
tl:dr - making a game hard to beat doesn't make it good. To be good, with that XCOM feel, it should be "microable". Your input as a player should make the difference between victory and defeat. A dial that makes the game harder doesn't make it better.
|
On September 12 2012 06:06 YMCApylons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 20:14 SashinkiRenzu wrote:On August 29 2012 11:01 YMCApylons wrote:
[You pretty much have to go rambo style, which is what they do in the playthroughs, and it's just not the XCOM way. Also, with only 4-5 guys covering all that map, they all have to be supersoldiers that are nearly indestructible. It's ridiculous that a soldier could take 3 shots from mutons and still be alive.
This looks true about the game... on Normal Difficulty, which is the difficulty shown off in the 1-hour gameplay stream. If you've seen the PAX Prime streaming vids the past weekend, they had the same missions cranked up to Impossible Difficulty. And it looks HARD. Soldiers go down in 1-2 hits, aliens are more aggressive, use grenades and special abilities more often, not to mention being tougher - one of the vids had a group of Chryssalids survive a rocket. Of the 4 times they attempted the same Terror Mission on Impossible, none of them ever came close to completing it, even as they adjusted their tactics with each try. The most successful in my eyes was the last attempt where they just bugged out to the Skyranger with 2 out of 5 men surviving. And that's with the oft-stated caveat that adjusting difficulty to Impossible mid-mission (which is what they did) is not the same as actually playing the campaign on Impossible Difficulty from the beginning, which would restructure the mission differently to have more aliens with different group compositions. Then there's is the optional Iron Man Mode, which prevents you from save scumming to victory by giving you only one save slot that's overriden by autosave at every opportunity. Making it impossibly hard doesn't solve the 4-6 soldier problem. If they think it does, then these people have no clue about XCOM. The problem is striking the balance between overall mission difficulty and individual soldier capability. With large XCOM squads, individual soldiers could be weak, but the overall mission could still be manageable. When you play XCOM on superhuman, your soldiers were hopeless...killed in one shot by heavy plasma, panicking, getting psy-bombed and mind-controlled all the time. But with enough soldiers, you could keep rolling. Keep a couple unarmed psy-weak rookies in the Skyrangers to act as sponges to soak up all the ethereal TUs. In XCOM, individual soldiers are so weak, but, when microed properly, they become a fighting force. Your decisions matter. With only 4-6 soldiers, if you lose 2, it's game over. Yeah, I suppose its HARD and HARDCORE, but it's also stupid. It's a tactical game. You're supposed to have fireteams, mutually-supporting zones of fire, and win through skillful tactical deployment, even when you're outgunned and outnumbered. I don't know how much tactical cunning you would need when you have only two soldiers left. Does it really matter how I place them? Or will I win because the game balance numbers say that I'll win, or will I lose because the game balance numbers say that I will? To be a good game, the players decisions have to matter. Just making it OMG IMPOSSIBIRU isn't going to do anything to placate XCOM veterans. tl:dr - making a game hard to beat doesn't make it good. To be good, with that XCOM feel, it should be "microable". Your input as a player should make the difference between victory and defeat. A dial that makes the game harder doesn't make it better.
I see what you mean but having "psi-sponges" is not good design either imo.
Also the biggest issue with large, but weak, soldier groups (10+) is that missions can really drag out and at least for me TFTD was a sick grind cause alien bases spawned constantly and it would take me 2´ish hours to clear them every time.
We could see smaller maps or more aggresive ai so they dont hide to compensate for that.
However I´ve played every single x-com game and x-com copy incl. the ufo-series and a squad size of 6-8 is what I find optimal. You still very much have to plan your steps and if you are not carefull its game over. Less than 6 soldiers may be pushing it though.
|
It's a shame there's no action points in this game. I've always felt that X-Com (along with Jagged Alliance) has really good gameplay systems and at the same time were very believable. You could take a turn-based battle from X-Com and "imagine" it playing out in real-time. I'm going to miss bigger squads as well.
Ah well, looks like it's going to be a good turn-based tactics game. It's inevitably going to be modded so it's more like X-Com 94 anyway.
|
So excited for this game :D
It definitely is NOT the original game, but it is a really awesome game :D Played it at Gamescom and movement, shooting and the "cover-system" were really cool. The fact that your squad starts at 4 and increases up to 8(not really sure about 8) is awesome for building a narrative.
Of course the combat is no longer the same as with the game from 1994 but i actually do not want the same stuff even though i enjoy the old game, i'd like to see it re imagined in a modern way.
|
Any word on a demo either now or post release? I haven't been able to find anything one way or the other 
|
Any word on a demo either now or post release?
The Devs have been rather quiet and cryptic on that. All that has been gathered is some veiled references to a demo being a possibility. The prevailing opinion (of fans) is that a demo may be announced tomorrow on a gamespot livestream with the Devs. check it out:
Sept 24 @ 10am PDT
http://www.gamespot.com/shows/now-playing/?event=xcom_eu20120924
Edit: date/time added
|
I had the opportunity to test-play the tutorial for half an hour at gamescon cologne (I actually did not wait that long either, was rather surprised by that). Although the tutorial seemed rather scripted (because hey, its a tutorial), it seemed to me that the overall game would end up to be pretty much what I ever wanted it to be. I played the old games A LOT, so I was a) rather sceptic and b) had huge expectations, but from what I´ve seen and played I must say : It may not be the "old XCOM with new graphics" a lot of people are hoping for, but I at least really enjoyed it, and I look forward to the release.
|
On September 24 2012 04:19 Espelz wrote:
I had the opportunity to test-play the tutorial for half an hour at gamescon cologne (I actually did not wait that long either, was rather surprised by that). Although the tutorial seemed rather scripted (because hey, its a tutorial), it seemed to me that the overall game would end up to be pretty much what I ever wanted it to be. I played the old games A LOT, so I was a) rather sceptic and b) had huge expectations, but from what I´ve seen and played I must say : It may not be the "old XCOM with new graphics" a lot of people are hoping for, but I at least really enjoyed it, and I look forward to the release.
thx for the "review" looking forward to the release too
|
Just watched a video on this, hadn't heard about it at all. But the tactical combat and presentation looks fantastic, definetely keeping an eye out for this one.
|
You can now download a demo of the game on steam. Check it out.
|
Of course I bought it yesterday thinking there wouldn't be a demo  thanks for the heads up!
|
lol is this the Demo or the game, this things 5.5GB, i wonder if i could just keep on my pc for later and it will add to the install of the game when its out.
|
haha yeah I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully it just means the demo has that much stuff to try!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
