Support NeoGAF

[Jintor]

Would be great if they had just based the combat on Frozen Synapse

Also insane. I love Frozen Synapse, but it's a different kind of TBS, yo.

 

[kottila]

Also insane. I love Frozen Synapse, but it's a different kind of TBS, yo.

They would have to slow it down of course, just the basics of choosing where to look and time management.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Yep. Watching the video interview with the devs I got the strong impression that big critics were present in the dev/design team from the start, at all levels. If there's a criticism that GAF can come up with then it's probably already been heard internally.

Having said that I do know that lead designers are known to ignore criticism sometimes. We'll see....

But we are not paid to reach a consensus and bury our personal opinions in order to get on with our jobs.

 

[epmode]

They would have to slow it down of course, just the basics of choosing where to look and time management.

I dunno, Frozen Synapse loses something as a single-player game. The way you can never truly lock down a kill makes it more of a mind game than XCOM and it's far more interesting in multiplayer.

 

[ruttyboy]

"Other notable gameplay changes mentioned: no more Aimed/Snap/Auto shots, but there are two special abilities you can choose between at each level up that add more actions (the example is a choice the sniper gets: 'Squad Sight which lets him fire at any enemy a squadmate can see, or Snap Shot which lets him take a quick shot after moving, an ability normally restricted from sniper rifles)."

OK, those two things have confirmed my worst fears, it's pretty much 'My First X-com'. The more I read the more it is clear that this game has been dumbed down. Perhaps not for console gamers specifically, but certainly to cater for what they perceive as modern gamers who can't handle depth. Not saying they're wrong BTW, they'll probably make more money this way, but it's certainly not the game I was hoping it would be.

They seem to have approached the game design from a "Shooting aliens is cool! Let's make a squad shooter!" angle, rather than a "X-com was an AWESOME game, what made it so?" point of view. I imagine they would argue that there is no appetite anymore for hard games where setbacks were actually damaging, but I would point them in the direction of Demon's/Dark Souls.

As for the four guys only at first thing, ignoring that that makes no sense from a storyline point of view, for me it pretty much confirms that your soldiers will be death machines straight from the off (at least compared to the original), if they'd kept the original balance you'd lose every mission you started.

Just so, so disappointed, and thank f*ck for Xenonauts.

 

[Data West]

OK, those two things have confirmed my worst fears, it's pretty much 'My First X-com'. The more I read the more it is clear that this game has been dumbed down. Perhaps not for console gamers specifically, but certainly to cater for what they perceive as modern gamers who can't handle depth. Not saying they're wrong BTW, they'll probably make more money this way, but it's certainly not the game I was hoping it would be.

They seem to have approached the game design from a "Shooting aliens is cool! Let's make a squad shooter!" angle, rather than a "X-com was an AWESOME game, what made it so?" point of view. I imagine they would argue that there is no appetite anymore for hard games where setbacks were actually damaging, but I would point them in the direction of Demon's/Dark Souls.

As for the four guys only at first thing, ignoring that that makes no sense from a storyline point of view, for me it pretty much confirms that your soldiers will be death machines straight from the off (at least compared to the original), if they'd kept the original balance you'd lose every mission you started.

Just so, so disappointed, and thank f*ck for Xenonauts.

Not even a gameplay video, and you've decided it's dumbed down. That must be a new record.

 

[ruttyboy]

Not even a gameplay video, and you've decided it's dumbed down. That must be a new record.

Why do I need to see visually what they've confirmed in writing? Do you not believe what you've read in books?

 

[subversus]

Not even a gameplay video, and you've decided it's dumbed down. That must be a new record.

it's not a record, it's usual business on GAF.

 

[epmode]

STUFF

That's a lot of hyperbole. All I see are a few potentially poor choices that won't be apparent until we actually try the game, not the rape and mutilation of the X-Com formula.

As for that sniper skill, it sounds like a spotting skill to me. I doubt you'll be able to hit things unless they're in your line of sight.

fuck

Fixed!

 

[syllogism]

Obviously squad sight will still require some sort of LOS. How would they even visualize the shot if it went through any and every obstacle? If anything the addition of more abilities could add more depth.

And ahahah at your "it makes no sense from a storyline point of view". The number they sent in the original made no sense either. The fact that they sent complete rookies made no sense. Few things actually made sense.

 

[ruttyboy]

If you remember the original EVERY squad member had that 'perk' as you could tell anyone to fire anywhere. If they need a perk to do it does that mean you can only fire directly at aliens you can see? So no more shooting down walls to get access to a LOS?

Also, I never said they'd 'raped and mutilated' the Xcom formula (that's the only hyperbole I see here), I'm making conclusions based on the facts available that they have changed the formula enough that it is not what I would want from a 'remake'. It could still be a great, fun game and that's fine, but it won't be great and fun for the same reasons as the original.

 

[Yo Gotti]

Never played the first game but I just read the GI article, this game went from being nowhere to being my #1 or #2 most anticipated this year. Sounds awesome.

I'm loving how games with deep and challenging experiences are becoming somewhat mainstream again.

 

[syllogism]

If you remember the original EVERY squad member had that 'perk' as you could tell anyone to fire anywhere. If they need a perk to do it does that mean you can only fire directly at aliens you can see? So no more shooting down walls to get access to a LOS?

I don't see where it is stated such a perk is required to do that. It's possible, but you have some reading comprehension and jump to conclusion issues.

 

[spineduke]

As for the four guys only at first thing, ignoring that that makes no sense from a storyline point of view, for me it pretty much confirms that your soldiers will be death machines straight from the off (at least compared to the original), if they'd kept the original balance you'd lose every mission you started.

It'll probably be much harder for an Xcom agent to get gunned down - and incidentally, they'll be far more effective against the aliens, since you're handling a much smaller team.

This doesn't mean it'll be a worse off game - just that the flow of the game will be a radical departure from the originals. I imagine they're doing this not to scare off new players to the franchise.

 

[ruttyboy]

I don't see where it is stated such a perk is required to do that. It's possible, but you have some reading comprehension and jump to conclusion issues.

OK, now you're just trolling me. In the original anyone could do what the perk now allows the sniper to do. The implication being that without the perk the sniper is unable to do it.

 

[ruttyboy]

It'll probably be much harder for an Xcom agent to get gunned down - and incidentally, they'll be far more effective against the aliens, since you're handling a much smaller team.

This doesn't mean it'll be a worse off game - just that the flow of the game will be a radical departure from the originals. I imagine they're doing this not to scare off new players to the franchise.

Yes, I agree, and I'm only saying this is a bad thing from my point of view (that of someone who wanted a remake to be functionally identical in terms of game mechanics). Apparently I'm not allowed to be disappointed though.

 

[syllogism]

OK, now you're just trolling me. In the original anyone could do what the perk now allows the sniper to do. The implication being that without the perk the sniper is unable to do it.

No, more like it indicates weapons have limited range and the perk likely improves the range when you've someone spotting. It's a sniper only perk anyway.

You are allowed to be disappointed, just not stupid.

 

[ruttyboy]

No, more like it indicates weapons have limited range and the perk likely improves the range when you've someone spotting. Alternatively, it improves accuracy. It's a sniper only perk anyway.

Why would it improve the effective range of a gun, that makes no sense?

Out of interest, have you actually played the original?

Anyway, even if what you are saying is true, that is *another* huge change to the formula.

EDIT: Also, where does it say it is a 'sniper only' perk?

 

[Jintor]

Hold your fuckin' horses, mate.

 

[syllogism]

Why would it improve the effective range of a gun, that makes no sense?

Out of interest, have you actually played the original?

Anyway, even if what you are saying is true, that is *another* huge change to the formula.

Yes I bought the original and the sequel at release, yawn

 

[Wallach]

Why would it improve the effective range of a gun, that makes no sense?

Out of interest, have you actually played the original?

Anyway, even if what you are saying is true, that is *another* huge change to the formula.

It is also one that would make combat more complicated in that regard, rather than less. Which is why it is important to keep assumptions in check when trying to look at tiny bits of info about what is going to be a pretty complex game no matter how different it winds up being.

 

[epmode]

EDIT: Also, where does it say it is a 'sniper only' perk?

In the very text you quoted before complaining. It's implied that this particular choice is for snipers only. Other classes presumably have different upgrade decisions to make.

 

[ruttyboy]

In the very text you quoted before complaining. It's implied that this particular choice is for snipers only. Other classes presumably have different upgrade decisions to make.

Or they could share certain perks between classes, we don't know, as you say it's merely an implication. The things I 'complained' about have been stated as facts.

 

[robin2]

If you remember the original EVERY squad member had that 'perk' as you could tell anyone to fire anywhere. If they need a perk to do it does that mean you can only fire directly at aliens you can see? So no more shooting down walls to get access to a LOS?

Also, I never said they'd 'raped and mutilated' the Xcom formula (that's the only hyperbole I see here), I'm making conclusions based on the facts available that they have changed the formula enough that it is not what I would want from a 'remake'. It could still be a great, fun game and that's fine, but it won't be great and fun for the same reasons as the original.

I somehow can understand why they changed the system though.

While I think the original TUs-based system is better than any move+action system, no contest, it was also very definitive. You could add the prone stance and change the mechanics of the auto-shot (like Apocalypse), and add the option to spend extra TUs for improved accuracy, but other than that, if you think about it, the little room for expansion or just customization is a bit evident. Their ambition was bigger than making a "HD clone".
(Of course if I had to choose, I'd have gone with the original system).

On the other hand, the initial 4-units limit is just bad and I can't think of any "but" or "if" that can sweeten it in my eyes.

 

[fresquito]

I've tried in the other X-Com thread, but: is there anyone willing to trade X-COM through Steam? I Offer Swords and Soldiers HD.

 

[syllogism]

Or they could share certain perks between classes, we don't know, as you say it's merely an implication. The things I 'complained' about have been stated as facts.

No they have not. Nowhere has it been said you can't target fire walls without a perk for instance.

 

[AndyMoogle]

So my idea of going into blackout mode has already failed. Going to pre-order xenonauts this evening to get my xcom fix.

I had no idea Xenonauts existed. I will pre-order it right away.

 

[-tetsuo-]

If you remember the original EVERY squad member had that 'perk' as you could tell anyone to fire anywhere. If they need a perk to do it does that mean you can only fire directly at aliens you can see? So no more shooting down walls to get access to a LOS?

Also, I never said they'd 'raped and mutilated' the Xcom formula (that's the only hyperbole I see here), I'm making conclusions based on the facts available that they have changed the formula enough that it is not what I would want from a 'remake'. It could still be a great, fun game and that's fine, but it won't be great and fun for the same reasons as the original.

Wait, they are changing the formula from a twenty year old game? Man, why is this even called X-com at this point.

 

[AndyMoogle]

Aren't Firaxis' games usually very mod friendly? If so, the PC version might be modded quite a bit and take care of some of the problems.

 

[ruttyboy]

No they have not. Nowhere has it been said you can't target fire walls without a perk for instance.

And you accuse me of reading comprehension problems. That was stated as a question, a point of discussion if you will.

For the purpose of me not going insane here are the things that have been stated as facts (correct if I'm wrong) that I have complained about:

- Only four members of a team initially
- Removal of time unit system in favour of simplified move and shoot system
- Only able to build one custom base
- No more differentiation between Aimed/Snap/Auto shots
- Soldiers are (eventually) signed up into 'classes'
- Introduction of 'perk' system
- No kneeling
- No/unlimited ammo

From this I conclude that the game will be substantially different to the game I was hoping it would be, and is, to my mind, "dumbed down". I don't understand why it's bad for me to have an opinion on a discussion forum?

And again I feel I must state that it could still be an awesome game (I hope it is), but I don't believe it will be awesome for the same reasons as the original.

EDIT: @Tetsuo Is that supposed to be sarcasm? I don't understand the point you're trying to make? Are you saying that I'm claiming they shouldn't be able to use the franchise or something?

 

[syllogism]

Can you explain why the perk system is bad? Does it not add depth to the game? Now I'm not under any illusion that the game will be any deeper in this area (or likely any other), but you have to explain why changes are bad and not just saying it's bad because it's different.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Can you explain why the perk system is bad? Does it not add depth to the game? Now I'm not under any illusion that the game will be any deeper in this area (or likely any other), but you have to explain why changes are bad and not just saying it's bad because it's different.

Looks like perk system is just drip feeding you abilities that your soldiers should have just from using the equipment they have. Fake feeling of progression rather than emergent complexity and player mastery.

 

[ruttyboy]

Can you explain why the perk system is bad? Does it not add depth to the game? Now I'm not under any illusion that the game will be any deeper in this area (or likely any other), but you have to explain why changes are bad and not just saying it's bad because it's different.

Certainly, I believe it is bad because it removes (or at least limits) choice, if not directly then certainly there is a risk it will do so indirectly. Two examples:

1 - Once you have a soldier limited to a class it makes it harder to reassign them to another role, a big part of Xcom for me was utilising the weapons of those who had fallen and trying out different people in different tactical roles.

2 - The temptation is there to spam the perk and so you're less likely to explore different tactics.

The genius of the original was that it gave you the freedom to approach things exactly how you wished as every decision was yours.

 

[subversus]

Looks like perk system is just drip feeding you abilities that your soldiers should have just from using the equipment they have. Fake feeling of progression rather than emergent complexity and player mastery.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

These are game systems that people have seen before. Got to be able to reach conclusions at some point.

 

[Neuromancer]

Looks like perk system is just drip feeding you abilities that your soldiers should have just from using the equipment they have. Fake feeling of progression rather than emergent complexity and player mastery.

But in the original game, your soldiers' stats improved over time. This is just as logical if you ask me.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

But in the original game, your soldiers' stats improved over time. This is just as logical if you ask me.

This isn't about the logical consistency of the the game world. It's like, in X-COM soldiers with bad stats can do everything that soldiers with good stats can do. Watch Gattaca. You can still beat the final mission with rookies with no armour and laser rifles, you just have to try harder and be luckier.

 

[Neuromancer]

Eh. The perk stuff doesn't bother me, in fact it could end up adding a lot to the strategy of the game. New and different doesn't always equate to bad. Plus for you hardcore guys it means losing a grizzled veteran will be even more damaging to the team.

 

[ruttyboy]

This isn't about the logical consistency of the the game world. It's like, in X-COM soldiers with bad stats can do everything that soldiers with good stats can do. Watch Gattaca. You can still beat the final mission with rookies with no armour and laser rifles, you just have to try harder and be luckier.

Also, improvement is gradual, they don't wake up one day and find that they can now look up as well as down*.


* Not saying that that is a perk, just an example of how the progression should be analogue rather than the digital stepped progression of 'perks'.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If I now lose a veteran the game becomes more boring to play as well as a bit harder. Qualitative difference. I would just reload.

 

[Bizazedo]

It is very important to me that a solution to some of these missions be "massive holes in the wall" or, alternatively, destroy entire floors of buildings.

I'll take a rating hit.

 

[StoppedInTracks]

If it is being dumbed down (and I assume it is not) it's not for consoles or because of console players. It's dumbed down to reach broader audience on PC/ consoles. Think Call of Duty players.

Anyway loving the screenshots (that guy has 6 HP, lol! 6 HP is pretty damn low even for Fire Emblem).

Wish this game was coming out next month :/

Oh well more time to platinum FF13-2 then.

 

[syllogism]

Looks like perk system is just drip feeding you abilities that your soldiers should have just from using the equipment they have. Fake feeling of progression rather than emergent complexity and player mastery.

This is a nonsensical statement. You could just as well say Xcom rookies should be able to shoot relatively straight and have better accuracy. We also do not know enough about the character progression system to make any conclusions about the progression and "emergent complexity".

Certainly, I believe it is bad because it removes (or at least limits) choice, if not directly then certainly there is a risk it will do so indirectly. Two examples:

1 - Once you have a soldier limited to a class it makes it harder to reassign them to another role, a big part of Xcom for me was utilising the weapons of those who had fallen and trying out different people in different tactical roles.

2 - The temptation is there to spam the perk and so you're less likely to explore different tactics.

The genius of the original was that it gave you the freedom to approach things exactly how you wished as every decision was yours.

No actually 1) means you are playing suboptimally
2) uh this seems like a non sequitur

 

[ruttyboy]

Hahaha, I was playing it wrong! Who knew?

Can't be arsed defending my right to have an opinion any more so I'll just say I wish this game all the success in the world, and fingers crossed its success might spawn a sequel that fulfills my personal wishes.

 

[Neuromancer]

If it is being dumbed down (and I assume it is not) it's not for consoles or because of console players. It's dumbed down to reach broader audience on PC/ consoles. Think Call of Duty players.

People are acting as if modern game design should not in any way influence a remake/re-imagining of a 19 year old game. It's just not realistic.

Forgot to mention, the new screens are excellent, the new geoscape in particular.

 

[syllogism]

Hahaha, I was playing it wrong! Who knew?

Can't be arsed defending my right to have an opinion any more so I'll just say I wish this game all the success in the world, and fingers crossed its success might spawn a sequel that fulfills my personal wishes.

Well see you said you liked trying stuff in the original, whether it was a good idea or not (some characters are always better than others at certain things), but won't like to do that in the sequel because some characters will be better at certain things than others

 

[CecilRousso]

Hahaha, I was playing it wrong! Who knew?

Can't be arsed defending my right to have an opinion any more so I'll just say I wish this game all the success in the world, and fingers crossed its success might spawn a sequel that fulfills my personal wishes.

Or perhaps that when you finally play the final version of this game, it might actually be a game that you will enjoy as a fan of the old XCOM games? It´s one thing to be worried about the changes it, that´s ok, but it´s another to completely disregard any thought if actually being a satisfactory XCOM game already.

 

[Xater]

People are acting as if modern game design should not in any way influence a remake/re-imagining of a 19 year old game. It's just not realistic.

Forgot to mention, the new screens are excellent, the new geoscape in particular.

It's not only not realistic but also not something a lot people would want. There is stuff that needs changing, but there are always absolute hardliners that want absolute everything to be the same.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well see you said you liked trying stuff in the original, whether it was a good idea or not (some characters are always better than others at certain things), but won't like to do that in the sequel because some characters will be better at certain things than others

UFO often isn't about finding who is the best at something and having them do it. It's about who has the opportunity to do something and what sort of last ditch plan you can put together with what is left.

It's not only not realistic but also not something a lot people would want. There is stuff that needs changing, but there are always absolute hardliners that want absolute everything to be the same.

Nobody wants everything to be the same but Firaxis were making big claims about keeping all the great gameplay moments of the original.

 

[syllogism]

UFO often isn't about finding who is the best at something and having them do it. It's about who has the opportunity to do something and what sort of last ditch plan you can put together with what is left.

But even if that is the case, that doesn't change with the perk system