Do you know of any articles or have you heard any news suggesting this game will have multiplayer or online co-op? I really like what I see and hope this game has multiplayer of some sort. 70 missions sounds cool but there is nothing more satisfying than crushing your friend.
Yes we have heard. It will not. Thanks for playing.
It will not what? Not have multiplayer at all? If that is the case, then it's a fail for me.Originally Posted by katscan
There hasn't been an official word on multiplayer. Link Katsan?
No multiplayer = fail? What kind of XCom did you play? It has always been primarily a single player game.
Help make the game successful by promoting it where you can as a slacktivist gamer. Then hope to all hell for an expac or a sequel. I can't seem to find the whole game's budget, but I'm guessing it's not really "very very big budget" as some reports have had it.
A smaller budget with mostly niche appeal that's really and truly set up to take a fall with a lot of criticism from a high-expectations critical fanbase that remembers fondly the original but is now used to all kinds of bells and whistles and tutorials and advanced game features - is not going to have advanced multi-player support. Until they get some money to play with for a sequel.
Spoken as not much of a fan of the original, then. No offense, but if multiplayer is really a must-have for you, you're in the wrong genre messing with the wrong grand-daddy of all gaming series. It'd be kind of like saying if the next World of Warcraft expansion pack doesn't have offline single-player mode, then it's all just fail fail FAIL. It's silly. WoW is an MMO, built around an online thing. Sure you could take a bunch of resources and developer time and change things, but that's not the core competency of the game's appeal.
Same thing with XCOMEU - the core element is the single-player tactics, the Geoscape full world-view, the base-building and the air intercept mini-game. Tacking on other stuff would be nice, but it's not the core of the game's appeal. Wait for a sequel, which becomes more probable the more YOU and I help promote the first game.
Pretty much what Oathbreaker said. Beyond that, its a lot of expended energy into something almost no one will use. Playing the game in MP would be exceedingly time consuming to the point of only a handful of people using it. This is based upon the number of battles involved and the time to finish a single one.
The only feasible thing would be to include 'quick battles'.. pick a map, pick a squad, and fight. But that would be a moderate amount of work into something that really doesn't have anything to do with the game.
Errrmmm... Ok, I guess it won't be quite like Civ Rev or MP Civs games. A co-op mode for missions would be a lot of fun though. I never played this game but it sounds like the game is made for co-op missions...
Yea.. It would be great to have the ability to allow people to join in and do co-op missions, without having to make the whole game multiplayer, but that's just wishful thinking for now. Maybe in an expansion or something.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/7760/
It's five bucks on Steam. No ifs, ands or buts. Hop to it. You're gonna die. A lot.
$5 for a 1994 game?? Or for the last iteration UFO-something?
5 bucks for one of the best tactical turn based games, the basis for this entire forum. Are you cheap or something? It will be worth the cost of a meal at Subway.
Best $5 you'll ever spend and yes, you'll also die a lot. And it's actually 1993 Game
Did you mean: "UFO: Afterlight"?
I agree, coop missions would be a fantastic add to the game, not to mention a multilayer action. Since none of the original games had it, I see why all the opposition, nevertheless if coop mode was added, I think it would bring more players to the game. But that's just me. Coop RTS...big fan!
Edited: Spell check
Trust me.. I just bought it last week. Its still fun as all hell.
If tactical multiplayer isn't an option I'll just play the same multiplayer I played in the original game, 4 friends and I would play the game by committee.
When you figure it's been in development for 3-4 years, with ~60 people on the project, that's alotta dough. Easily +15M before advertising. Granted, that's not necessarily a huge budget by current standards, but it's not chump change either.
Fair enough. Amazing that they're spilling that kind of dough on what's essentially a niche market. Sure it's famous - but the people in charge of what they should invest their development money on have to be functional alcoholics by now from worrying about spending money on what is - I DON'T WANT TO GO OFF ON A RANT HERE,
A) not a sequel
B) not a first-person shooter or a real-time-strategy game
C) has a rabid and very picky and internet-savvy and hyper-critical fanbase
D) trying to succeed where pretty much no-one else has in the last ...oh, umm, about 18 years
E) decidedly NOT in running with the general direction of where PC and console gaming experiences are heading - which is massive layers of easy so-called "power fantasy" gaming where you essentially make the player into a mini-god with awesome powers just blasting away enemies left, right and center with little to no actual danger of losing anything more valuable than a 10-second run back from the spawn point - and the convenience first, last and always crowd of people who have gotten used to being pampered and feel entitled to it.
OF COURSE, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I COULD BE WRONG. Cue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEu1uOVUBnE SFW
They're trying to make a good game with broad appeal. It can't be too complex, too slow, or too long. So, we see a design that reflects that. I think the game will sell well, just because I expect it to have a healthy marketing budget. Consumers buy what they're told. *shrug*
I have a dumb question...dumb because I don't play enough games anymore to speak authoritatively on the entire breadth of multiplayer games.
Certainly I played Starcraft, both as a single player and online with my siblings and friends in which we fought against each other in teams / alliances. I also played Quake Team Fortress (I think that was the name...OK, I'm probably dating myself) on-line in "pick-up games" where, again, there are teams. And of course, I've watched my brother play Everquest and WOW. So I can conceptualize what I perceive as the most common forms of multiplayer games, both FPS and Starcraft-style.
Am I correct to speculate that in this forum, when I read multiple threads about people wanting about multi-player games, they are mostly wanting a Starcraft-style oppositional or allied game, where you share fog of war / each other's sight?
I discussed this with my brothers who also loved the original X-Com. I wonder about the possibility of having a tactical mission with all the players' sqauds start in different locations of the battlescape, where the fog of war is not just towards aliens and the surrounding terrain, but also towards your allies. To me, this would replicate reality and also preserve the creepiness of X-Com's fog of war. The closest example might be during real war when multiple allied units converge on a single enemy. You have to use radio / visual / aerial / satellite / etc. assets to try to confirm your ally's position. Of course, when this fails, you get friendly fire incidents / fratricide.
Another real world example of fog of war in relation to allies might be when multiple law enforcement units converge on an intense, active criminal scene (e.g. think of the 1997 North Hollywood shootout or the Columbine High School massacre) - they don't really know where each other are and it's just bedlam / chaos. (I apologize if I stir up any bad feelings about those terrible events.)
Imagine not knowing where your buddy's squad is on the map.
- You can't just go lobbing grenades at the aliens indiscriminately or you might blow up a buddy's squad member or destroying their cover.
- Do you want to fire that incendiary round at the sectoid in the diner? Just be sure you don't burn your buddy's support soldier crouching behind the table...at least, you think you know which table. And God forbid that you miss and have a stray round.
- Or imagine looking around the environment and trying to talk to a co-player, using landmarks to figure out where the other guy is...
- "Which blue car do you mean?"
- "Which tree do you want my heavy soldier to fire the rocket launcher at?"
- "You need immediate assistance at your position which is marked by an electro-flare? I see flares down 2 different streets...which one are you?"
- Do you think you spot movement up on that roof in the darkness? Could that be a chrsalid or your friend's assault soldier coming to rescue you? Do you fire or wait?
To me, that would be immensely fun...more fun than one side being a squad of human soldiers, and one side being a squad of sectoids.
Are there games out there that replicate the kind of multiplayer game I am describing, with the fog of war towards everyone outside your squad? When all these threads talk about multi-player, are they talking about what I'm describing, or are they talking about the traditional you-vs-me?
Yeah, another thread about multiplayer...
I'll just say it now and only once, NO MP this is not call of UFO (call of duty joke) we never want it to be, GIVE ME MY XCOM BABY!!!
I must praise 2k games for doing this long time needed reboot, looks like their off to an awsome start, dont dumb it down too much for the COD crowd they dont deserve any tactical gameplay.
I don't see why everyone is fuming once the subject of multiplayer is brought up. Ufo The Two Sides allowed two players to duke it out head to head, both on the battlescape AND the geoscape. I played several games with a few friends and it was TENSE. Having to deal with a human who knows that Aliens are superior to your rookies and who knows the value of a good grenade ... Trust me, it was a whole different level. I do have to agree that certain concessions had to be made. The Aliens for instance had to place a base as well and they only received shipments from Cydonia. So, if purists want to shoot UFO TTS down, I can't blame them. But then again, TTS has shut itself down over possible copyright fears. So, yeah.
Besides that, there was also UFO 2000. This only allowed battlescape battles, but once again, fun fun. A human player can be sneakier than any AI can ever be.
Both UFO TTS and UFO 2000 were fan initiatives. One can hardly deny there isn't a piece of the 'hardcore crowd' that wouldn't like to see multiplayer XCOM. And if a new player, unfamiliar with XCOM, comes in and asks for multiplayer, we shouldn't jump at him like a pack of braying bloodhounds. If the new blood decides he doesn't want to try XCOM because it doesn't have multiplayer, than that is his / her loss.
And didn't Solomon say at one point he could not confirm nor deny the existence of multiplayer? There was a Gamespy article that claimed this, anyway.
If this information has been refuted, please do tell. I won't cry over not having multiplayer. I rather have an EXCELLENT singleplayer XCOM than a GOOD XCOM with multiplayer.
I find that when a game that should be mainly SP get given MP it degrades the SP experience by either taking up too much budget or we get a lack luster SP campaign just so we can have MP. This is generaly why im against MP like Dohon says i'd prefer a great SP component then having MP. If they could do both i spose i would be ok with it, but if they went MP but sacrificed SP components i'd be very annoyed.
Here is a link to one of the stream videos by 2k from PAX http://www.twitch.tv/2k/b/314235910
Go to about 40:43
You may draw your own conclusions of the reactions.
That was ... weird. You saw the three of them looking at eachother when the question was asked. Miss Tobey then just cut off the question by stating "we can answer that yes, no, maybe later, but they weren' going to give anything away'. Seems like they have got something planned, but just what it is ... Either it is DLC / expansion material, there is basic skirmish or there is a full-blown multi-campaign. I'm more inclined to believe it's the former instead of the very latter. But then again, could be that there is no multiplayer and they are trying to keep it 'sea-krit' to keep the hype going.
Cheers for the link though!
The perk system, the stats (and lack of variance)... kinda screams MP. It's the only reason I can fathom why they'd make soldier stats so static. Standout soldiers are awesome for SP, but they break balance in MP.
Static stats? where did you get that from?
Never read anywhere that there won't be differing stats on rookies.
Every squaddie level heavy (bottom left, circle with 2 dots) we've seen in a screenshot has 65 aim skill and 6 hp. Haven't been able to find a single variance. Most of the screens I've seen of other classes aren't consistently squaddie level, so it's hard to make the comparison until more info is released.
Whatever level a shield with 3 stars is, it looks like 11hp and 70 aim.
The screens are also from a very early version of the game. I'm pretty sure nothing we've seen is going to translate fully into the final product. They probably just have specific pre-generated characters they use for demonstrating the game's engine.
I heard you couldn't play as the Aliens (at this time or something like that). Whether that's the case or not, maybe if they did have a multiplayer, you'd be fighting someone controlling an Alien, or someone else controlling a rival agency. "We're helping the invaders so we don't get demolished," sort of thing.
If someone said this already, then...yeah. I'm agreeing with whomever, lol.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
