Haha - Forum... my job in this thread is done.Originally Posted by podtech115
I'm glad we can agree on something. Sorry about being rude.
Try to make a better argument if you're trying to persuade people onto your preferences.
1. Beats me I am noob to gaming.
2. The graphics are awesome and I love all the color.
3. The graphics are pretty good but it's a little bit too toony.
4. The graphics are out dated and suck balls.
5. The graphics are really terrible and should have been super realistic.
6. I don't know yet I must play the game first to judge.
Haha - Forum... my job in this thread is done.
I'm glad we can agree on something. Sorry about being rude.
Try to make a better argument if you're trying to persuade people onto your preferences.
I would have bought Wii XCOM tho, if my ex didnt took the machine with her
But im pretty happy with my PC atm.
Gameplay > Story > Graphics like always, nice graphics helps a game but most of the time its the gameplay/story that makes the game good and not just the graphics. The thing is, gameplay doesn't need state of the art of realistic graphics to make a successful game while graphics always needs gameplay/story to be one.
(aside multiplayer games like CoD they dont need story they mainly played for MP)
There aren't much games out there that offers the complete package unfortunately, sure there are a few and imo the last one that really falls into this category is Deus Ex 3, got good graphics good gameplay (aside boss fights (only 4 of them luckily)) and good story.
U can discuss graphics (style) all u want but in the end it all comes down to personal taste making these discussions useless and lengthy the same applies to gameplay. Im glad the human race doesnt have the same taste in everything ^^
My opinion about this X-Com game.
It breaths atmosphere hope it delivers it still if we hear the game music during a ground battle.
I like the graphics/lightning so far, i dont need realistic graphics in a game where there are aliens and filled with tactical decisions.
The game prolly keeps me more busy with the choice i got to make instead of me jaw dropping as i got no time to look at graphics (even tho its turn-based :P) and to be fair, in its genre its the best looking game out there
ah! here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FL...ailpage#t=120s
And I found this:
http://glblog.sites.olt.ubc.ca/2012/...ncanny-valley/
No, of course not. But it would make things more painful.
Like, did you know that Epic told Microsoft to add 512MB of RAM, instead of 256MB? And it costed Microsoft one billion dollars!
http://www.1up.com/news/epic-games-c...rosoft-billion
Or what about the PS3? Originally they wanted the Cell Processor to do all the work. But it was too weak, so at the very last moment, they added a weak graphics card. I would list the problems with the PS3, but it would take too long.
And even with the much needed 512MB of RAM, we still lost some cool graphics, like this shadow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...T5ay_8DI#t=62s
And Developers says that they are at their limits, and they could have done so much more, if only they had more RAM:
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Ubi...PS3-33309.html
Now, developers are saying that we *need* at least 8GB of RAM for the Next-Gen, and we may only get 4GB, or even 2GB of RAM instead. Which would be very, very bad.
Physics engines, as well as AIs, uses RAM. Now, think about it, why doesn't more games have these physics in their gameplay? Answer: because there wasn't enough RAM.
The Next-gen *could* have these physics, but if there is only, say, 2GB of RAM, then all the programmers have to work extra hard into making the game look good, and there will be no space for physics or AI. But, if we get all the RAM we need, then programmers can work on the physics, and the game will have both great graphics and great physics.
Also, The Next-Gen is going to be with us for 10 years, so it would be easier for the developers, programmers, and everyone to create great games, if Sony and Microsoft would not be so cheap.
And to preview what may come, here's some tech demos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6kwteEHnpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjIzoGnkCZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...MjwSNdU#t=340s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqBSNAOsMDc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcM399E9MZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuWuTc5agVA
Ok fair enoguh you raise some really interesting points here.
However there is another reason why microsoft and sony won't put tons of expensive hardware into their consoles:
Both the 360 and the Ps3 where pretty expensive at launch. In fact they should have been a lot more expensive, but both companies sold them under price! They made a loss with every console sold.
High -end consoles require a much higher investment and they carry a bigger risk, because if the console should fail you won't have any chance to get that money back through game sales.
Looking at your links on the subject, you're misunderstanding what they're saying. They're not saying UV is root from racism, they're saying that, potentially, the two concepts operate in a similar manner.
It's a rather simplistic view on the very real issue of racism however. Racism requires the racist to view themselves as being superior then other races, and react in various means to that end. The uncanny valley merely points out that anything that is presented as being a human, but is noticibly not human makes people uncomfortable. There is no denying that this is damn creepy looking. It tries to appear human, but it is obviously not.
So, we can end this line of discussion, because Uncanny Valley is not a splinter of racism, but rather, the two are of different branches of how people perceive things. Or something like that.
That is what happens when something from the uncanny valley turns around and looks at the uncanny valley. And then becomes self-aware.
Reminds me of that one Commander Shepard face. Looks quite human, until he smiles in the CREEPIEST way.
I completely agree with the OP, the graphics are ala X-com Enforcer style. Just made an account to tell you, that you are not alone on that. Most of us old-school x-com fans have lost any hope that this remake will be up to par with the original. Let me tell you how its going to go down: the game will be released and will sell average, because fans are sceptical (and i'm talking about us 30 year old nerds that have waited 18 years for this). Then after the hype is gone and everyone realises how average (at best) this game is, it will be forever forgotten. Remember this comment, you can bash me now as much as you want, but just remember - after an year or two nobody will remember this game, just like x-com enforcer.
The marketing strategy of these guys is way off. If you're going to make a reboot of a legendary old series you do not produce crap targetet at 15-20 year olds. These young lads don't know what x-com is so you are not gaining much by placing the name on this product. On the other hand oldschool x-com gamers expect a serious reboot that is dark, realistic and do not shoot rainbows at you (not to mention the shaky follow cam which can be best described as "cheese" and is totally out of place).
Stuff which irritate me on the demos: Some alien models are HUGE and when they take cover they are well exposed. On the demo, a soldier was able to cross almost the entire map in one turn. The big aliens on the demo were not alarmed by the sectoid shootout. The one-liners have to go or have to be reworked, the current ones are crap. Weapons look too big, too shiny and too colorful, at times you feel like you are watching my little pony. Most of the shootouts in the demos are concentrated in a very small space, this looks unpromissing and makes the game look easy (limits your movement tactics).
All in all I'm sure the game will not be anything special. The lessons of the past have not been learned. Next time you make a x-com remake, make it dark, creepy and hard.
Hate this type of posts, idolizing the original game and proclaims doom on anything different. I will adress some issues (even if I don't think this post deserves a response)
- I was born in 82, I have played all* XCOM/UFO games. Speak for yourself, "most of us old-school x-com fans" my ass.
- You claim this game will be a failure in sales, then state it should be tailored to an even smaller subsection of gamers. That's idiotic.
- Take a look at the original again, it was very "cartoon-like". And the industry is not uniformly moving to photo-realism any-more, a good thing imo.
I don't expect myself to like every part of the game, or expect Firaxis to get it 100% right (the first time). But from what we have seen so far, it looks like a job well done. And I can live with some of the imperfections, analyse them, and debate them.
I don't go along your lines or the idiots that demanded a new Mass Effect 3 ending just cause it didn't suit them.
</RANT>
* only tried Interceptor and Enforcer though.
Edit: Also, Do some reading up on "easy"/difficulty, "one-liners", "the big aliens", "glam-cam" settings, "art-syle" and so on.... there are multiple topics on each that adress each issue.
Last edited by heniv; 06-30-2012 at 04:34 AM.
Hey we got what we wanted, though. Well, at least I did get what I wanted frome the extended cut.
Anyway the whole point of that whole uproar against the Me3 endings was, because they didn't give us what they advertised. And Bioware listended and gave us what was clearly missing from the original release.
But, Heniv, that would not only require reading, but also comprehension, a basic understanding of the video game industry, and actual work. More importantly than that, it would be enough to simply suggest that is unsupported opinions are in some way inaccurate, and that's just inconceivable.
@ Procletnic: More seriously, honestly I just wanted to follow the post with a big F-You, but mods frown on that. So, I'm actually going to have to write something.
What a load of trollop. I think this game is going to do well, but I understand that I'm neither a market analyst (which they can be wrong look at Red Dead Redemption, a game they said would never sell), nor do I speak for even the entire XCOM community. Mind control is hard!
However, like Heniv said your hamstringing your market if you pander to XCOM fans, damn right I used the word pander. Faraxis knows how to sell a game. By marketing it as XCOM, a strategy game, a Faraxis game, and somewhat modernistic in approach they hit a much broader audience? Are things going to change? Yes, should they not change? Hell no! I'm a relatively new XCOM fan and while I picked it up because of this current game I'm a fan. It's a fantastic game. Its ages and flaws are apparent to me however. So I think they're going to pull in a bigger audience than you think. They're very conscious of what they have to live up to and at times it's not fair to them. You strike me as one of those people who expects XCOM to strike some chord like it did when you were younger, and you just can't go home again, bud.
That's all beside the point really, because it's probably not going to change your mind. However, when you start spouting nonsense I'm going to call you out on it.
*Throws a smoke grenade*
Also just to be a smart-ass know-it-all I'm going to point out that this thread is not about the graphics in the game, but rather the aesthetical art style chosen by the developers.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode...vs.-aesthetics
I agree with heniv - I can't believe the number of people who actually bother to come onto this forum and criticize everything about a game that Firaxis has obviously poured an insane amount of time and resources into creating for fans of the original game. Would we even be getting a re-imagined XCOM if the creators themselves weren't fans of the original? Who's gonna ask for it - some fifteen year old call of duty nut who hasn't had to think while playing a game since birth? The simple fact that they're making this game tells you that they played and enjoyed the original. I've played enough games online to know that the average gamer in 2012 is a whiny teenager who gets a sudden shot of testosterone from hiding behind a screen, but I have to admit that I'm flabbergasted at the sheer amount of negativity and flat-out ingratitude that I've seen in just two hours of perusing this forum.
Hating on everything that is different from the original game is myopic and counter-productive. And I have news for you guys - this game has been in development for five years. They aren't gonna suddenly about-face and make the game a clone of the original with better and - hattip to the OP - "realistic" graphics. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Thankfully Firaxis seems to have their heads on straight, so I don't have to worry about this awesome game being delayed because there was enough whining on the forums to warrant sweeping changes to it.
The graphics in this game are INCREDIBLE. Period. Moreover, that isn't even the point. What made XCOM a great, enduring title is not the graphics (obviously) - its the gameplay itself. And from everything I've seen of this game so far (and there's a wealth of information out there to get a grasp on what the core gameplay is like), EU will be more fun than the original. We are following the creation of an epochal game here folks - a title that can restore turn based strategy games to the fore of the market. Instead of nitpicking on it, why don't we trust a studio that has proven itself more than competent at game creation to turn its product loose in October and amaze us all.
*when I say graphics, I actually mean aesthetics
<3*when i say graphics, i actually mean aesthetics....
all of the "realistic" characters are the same thing with maybe a slight change a grittier texture a few neck veins popping out a shiny shell.......so ya.............not helping your case..........
*edit im talking about the realistic buu cell etc.
Last edited by Rtron; 06-30-2012 at 07:26 PM.
Im begining to think that this is a troll post.............just based of of what you put ther its to green,brown,orange,LOL! Wow, they really got to you.
Sorry about that. I didn't think it would bug you that much.
Back to topic: The graphics are fine, BUT, I don't like how parts of the maps are so saturated with one color.
Like, for example, this shot seems too green:
http://attackofthefanboy.com/wp-cont.../XCOM-EU-2.jpg
And this one is too brown:
http://downloads.2kgames.com/2kgames...11-cropped.jpg
And this one too orange:
http://www.ztgd.com/wp-content/galle...ast2012/03.jpg
It feels kind-of like something from Batman and Robin. Or Michael Bay is using one of his orange filters again. But anyways, maybe on the PS4 we won't need this saturated color filter.
like inkdu said its all to get the feel down lotsa green=theres a glowing green pod thing in a enclosed space
lotsa brown=an entire city is being destroyed buildings are CRASHING to the ground so...ya id imagine there would be alot of dust
lotsa orange= its the positition of the sun
It only just dawned on you?Im begining to think that this is a troll post.
hello my name is Rtron I never played the original Xcom as I was born after it came out went big then dissapeared
i would also like you to know that I know what xcom is and from the videos i saw the original looked GREAT
and from what i saw...for that time even it wasnt "dark,realistic,and doesnt shoot rainbows at you" it was atmospheric yes and it used the music to heighten the suspense for when you send in your troops into the fog of war but from what i saw it was a bright colorfull game the fog of war hid it until you found it and from the demos ive seen it is plenty dark and used the music, from what ive seen, to heighten the atmosphere whenever your sending in your troops into a downed alien ship etc. well as for the realism as far as I know Xcom has always been more of a what if situation game (key phrase is,as far as I know, dont quote me on that) as for the shaky follow cam...you mean the glam cam? you can disable that,along with the one-liners can you give me examples of when those types had ever been good? you can also disable that FYI so my point is from what ive seen Xcom is a game that will ATLEAST have a sequal and will not be forgotten. there are no games that can span the ages evetually all games will be forgotten as new graphics or ways to play arrive. all games will be evetually forgotten but after a year or two no i HIGHLY doubt that. xcom is gonna arrrive and xcom is gonna be GUARANTEED at least one buyer from me. oh by the way when i think dark i think Dark souls creepies darkest game ive ever played and one of the best or demon souls for that matter i can think of plenty of games that are much darker than Xcom old and new so the dark and creepy part i dont connect to Xcom atmospheric of of course tension building as you really hope there isnt an ambush or something horrible waiting on the other side of that door or corner? definitely. howls of rage as your highest lvl soldier gets murdered on the anniversary of his first mission marking it his 100th also yes. I could go on and on but my point is you,sir, are horribly wrong
yes it actually just dawned on me and i was actually hoping this would be a serious post
The post above the post above me makes my inner grammar/spelling wizard want to kill itself trying to fix that.
As for the actual topic at hand, I have to disagree with podtech. The aesthetic of the game (which is what we're REALLY arguing here, not the graphics power/quality of the game) is very much thematic with what the developers want. The Mutons look like badass green aliens in power armor. The Floaters look like machine/alien constructs who've been chopped in half and turned into a mobile weapons platform, just as they wanted. The Chrysallids look like scary, lithe and deadly insectoid creatures hell-bent on laying their offspring in you, etc. Everything fits the theme of what the developers want the game to look like; a stylized turn based strategy game in which all of the aliens are distinctive through their actions and looks. When something tries too hard for the "realistic" look, it tends to result in the game being oversaturated with browns and grays, with everything looking gritty and grainy. I prefer the aesthetic style they've chosen over the realistic style anyday, when it comes to this game.
Last edited by Almainyny; 06-30-2012 at 07:35 PM. Reason: Spellchecking and unfortunate timing issues
Ya it is pretty bad isn't it?
so i watched distric 9 yesterday again, and the armor of the elite military troops looks exactly (the front shield at least) like the one xcomEU has in the intro...so here goes your realism, you haters
Well, this is still a terrible thread. Sequels that don't follow the recipe with "grittier and more realistic characters" are often made, even though your average film and game-critic has no free space in their brain to categorise them. And if one game or film actually pulls it off, and recreates that emotion the original conveyed so successfully - by being abstract, which was necessary for it to actually work - then it's not compared to anything.
But that's what you get, I guess, for actually making something interesting.
Meanwhile, Tim Schafer pulled in 4 million dollars on Kickstarter, so why care about "industry preferences". It's stupid. If anything, a company that actually makes a genuine game that doesn't scream "simplified sequel with gritty grunting characters and dick-jokes" should be congratulated for "taking" "a risk".
I think the guys from Extra Credits described it best:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/hard-boiled
I'm so sick of all these grim and gritty games that try to be all mature, but end up being completely one dimensional.
It's like the whole industry thinks "realistic" games need to be dark and grim devoid of all humor or fun.
The funny thing is that this makes most games MORE immature and one dimensional.
We're growing up as an industry. We've only been around about forty years. We kind of want to be taken seriously, and we come off like that teenager who thinks he's grown up but hardly knows that that entails. We'll get it. I mean there are already a few good examples of gritty realism and hard boiled.
Gears of War actually, especially the second and third. There's some genuine emotion to be found there, if you're not dead set on hating the franchise. Let's see, Witcher 2, that was good. So I mean it's not like the whole industry is inept at doing it. We just don't have it quite down-pat yet.
XCOM seems to have it down. Sure there's blood, death, horrifying transformations, and swearing (whether you actually like the soldier quips is unimportant). However, it has a rather colorful and stylized atmosphere. Just like the original. There was blood (if you actually looked at the bodies), dying, horrible transformations, mind screws all that, in a bright colorful stylized package.
Oh, my God. The people at Fraxis might actually know what they're doing! The end is nigh!
(re. Penny Arcade).. Funny guys. "Try playing MW3 while thinking of it as satire". Go ahead and try watching "Team America" on the first week in New York, and experience half the cinema screaming "Americauuuuh ☺☺☺☺ YEAH!!" - without a sliver of irony. I swear to god I'm not making this up - when the guy in the film randomly sucks his commander's dick to prove he loves America, by doing whatever the commander wants - there was a guy next to me who nodded in agreement. As if going: "Yeah, this is exactly what patriotism means - I want to suck my commander's dick as well!".
The thing is that that audience is out there. They exist. There's no denying that. They're loud, they're obnoxious, they all apparently have enough spare time to spam all messageboards with nonsense year after year. They also buy games - religiously buy games, with a very specific goal to be entertained with something like a.. virtual blow-job or something. Straight forward, nothing unexpected, release, finished.
So what you see very often is that developers are deliberately targeting these people, consciously making their game more immature. They know about that. They're making, you know... Joss Whedon, just without the sarcasm, screenplay and social commentary (masquerading as popsy dialogue and angsty teenager crushes). And it does sell. It doesn't sell immense amounts of discs (Prototype, Dante's Inferno, GOW3, Gears, MW, etc.) - and most games that actually make a splash are games that go past being based completely on shallow cliches.
Nevertheless - you get an amount of sales from something gritty that plays like Gears and Halo. It's proven. And that's why we see things like Lost Planet 3, DmC, etc. turning up. Will be interesting to see what happens to Dead Space 3, though. If they actually make it about narrative and slow terror instead of endless hack&slash shooting. My guess is that the team is basically making the last game in the series, and have no expectation of making another one. So I guess there's at least a chance that game will be a good one..
But I like my constant hack and slash shooting terror. You can put me in Silent Hill all damn day, but I'm bored by the end of it because... well big metaphysical psychological problems only matter when they're my big metaphysical psychological problems. I'll take constant terror any day thanks. I remember only being able to play Dead Space 1 and 2 for thirty minutes or so at a time because I was so scared my muscles locked up. Silent Hill made me sleep like a baby. I just don't feel connected to it and yeah, I've played Silent Hill 2. :\
Just how it is I guess. I don't like that they're going co-op. Co-op in horror is bad. Objectively so.
Well in theory coop in horror games COULD work out very well.
At least if the developers put a lot of effort into it. (Never played Dead Space)
I can think of some great ways to use it:
You and your friend go into a room. the light flicker and go out and suddenly something grabs one of you and pulls him through the ground while the other has to fight for his life against a bunch of other enemies.
Just saying the concept would have potential. You can come up with great situations to seperate players or even play them out against each other.
It's not that, horror is by nature an intimate and solo affair. If two people are there to support each other it's just not as scary. It's why they always split the party in horror movies. It's got nothing to do with how it's implemented, the fact that it's implemented means that it's just not as scary.
Yes and you can do just that in a game as well! You just have to get creative.
Seperate the players at crucial times. Make them doubt each other, or even compete against each other.
For example in a zombie horror game you could let players get infected. Now they can either tell their coop group that they are infected and risk getting shot by them, or not tell them and hope they will find a cure somewhere in the level.
There are endless possibilities to make coop horror games work out.
Fair enough, but remember that games while interactive have that out of the game area. Two co-op players who die can retry and talk about how to beat the split up. The problem is that most players will (on purpose or not) defuse the situation.
yes,but (and I dont know if this will work) what about randomly generated maps? same end area but each time you play it you have to take a different path,with maybe different enemy positioning,etc. OR you could just do what Day Z is doing.
Sure. But Dead Space 1 actually was a pretty deep game. It doesn't preach philosophy to you, like for example Joss Whedon doesn't do either in Serenity. But it's still there, and it makes the game interesting beyond the two first hours.. you know.
Like when you play the first xcom game. Sure, there is a way to make that game more immediately interesting. To skip past some of the UI problems, make some of the rules and goals a bit less oblique. There's a way to present dread and terrorising desperation than by making everything on the UI impenetrable. And it's much better if you overcome it by doing something in the game, rather than figure out the rules, etc.
But you can't say that the game could just as well not have any thought behind it, because so few people play it for the philosophy lesson. Because I don't do that either. I play games for fun. But having some real thought behind it, that is what made for example xcom so popular. That you get the type of immersion that defies the drama from cutscene to cutscene, for example - only really good games/interactive entertainment has that.
So you're basically telling me F-You because I have different oppinion then yours. How very mature
Anyway I'm aware of your 1,170 posts in this forum. It seems you have alot of spare time, or maybe you are paid to write crap on this forum
Now let me address this:
- I was born in 82, I have played all* XCOM/UFO games. Speak for yourself, "most of us old-school x-com fans" my ass.
You can also speak for yourself then because I'm involved with one of the biggest x-com communities in the net and the general oppinion is that "your" game looks like ☺☺☺☺. I'm sorry, did I strike a nerve there? Yes, the game looks like an arcade shooter, dumbed down for todays generation of MoH fanboys.
- You claim this game will be a failure in sales, then state it should be tailored to an even smaller subsection of gamers. That's idiotic.
The idiot here is you sir. Claiming that a game would appeal to teenaged gamers that think battlefield 3 is the holy grail in gaming, only because it wears the tag x-com is idiotic. As I already stated - they don't know what x-com is. You could've named the game "rainbow fairies" for all these people care. There is a reason why the x-com name is placed there. The targeted audience will play the game for a day or two and then they will be tired of "the rainbow shooting faires". Then they are back to battlefield or moh and you are left with the hardcore x-com fans.
- Take a look at the original again, it was very "cartoon-like". And the industry is not uniformly moving to photo-realism any-more, a good thing imo.
It's all about the atmosphere in the original game. Any game was "cartoon-like" back in 1994, it was the atmosphere that told you if it is realistic or not. You had to buy some flares to light up the terrain because aliens could see you from 20 squares during the night and you could see them from only 9. You could've used proximity mines to cut off the aliens from parts of the map. There were points for Stamina, Reactions, Strength, Firing Accuracy, Throwing Accuracy, Melee Accuracy, Bravery, how many of those will be included in this game? I bet none. Instead we get action oriented crap, where the primary strategy is "cover me I'm going in".
No, I'm not going to waste my time on this board. I've already seen the sort of people that lurk here
I'm going to relax and watch the epic failure from a distance. The time will come when another group of people will produce a game worthy of the name x-com.
..right. A modernized classic. Like, the hugely successful first person rts. Like Overlord. Which was such a hugely amazing hit in all ways. Or Brutal Legend. That was awesome. To get treated to an rts half-way through the game to draw out the playing time. Massively successful on the sales too.
Or a first person rpg. Those sell so amazingly well right now. There's.. you know.. at least one single brand that actually did sell relatively well. And probably many, many more as well. Like Arx Fatalis. With first person spell-making. That game made HUGE splashes! Woowzers.
Or a first person shooter. It's proven, beyond doubt, that every shooter that looks like Halo and Gears is going to sell millions.
Same goes for first person games in general. First person fighting game. Zeno Clash, for example - everyone knows about zeno clash. People go - OH, Oh, oh, that's the first person game! Really great and unique!
Then there's Mirror's Edge. It's nothing about that game that interested anyone. But then(!) someone noticed it was a first-person game, and they go, like crazy, because it was a FIRST PERSON GAME. My god, that was so original! Just that made it sell 1 million discs right away! Nothing else about the title that actually made it work. Proven by internet opinion that I'm insisting on right now, which makes it practically truth, because I say so.
So when - oh, when - will we see a "proper" XCOM game? That will be when xcom is remade into a gritty space-age shooter with zombie aliens - in FIRST PERSON. /That/ is when it will take off as a franchise. Because the customers will look at the game, and then go: There's nothing about this game that interests me - BUT OMGZZZHHINGGGG!!!! WHAT IS THIS!!! IT IS A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER GAME, AND THAT MAKES ME AUTOMATICALLY WANT TO PLAY IT!!!
It's a sure-fire way to sell Five Million Copies. Pay attention, developers - or else be doomed to sell four copies only. To each of your hardcore fans. Internet opinion makes it so. Which is previously proven. And by stating it over and over again, I'm only making it more and more definitely true!
----
...seriously, though. Like everyone else, I will be disappointed if soldier abilities, throws, shots and so on, can be fired with 100% accuracy every time. And if you level up a soldier and it performs identically to another similarly leveled soldier with much more training in some specific area - then that will be a disappointment too. But why would exposing the variables to you during game-time be a good idea?
There's just too much of that going around in the "hardcore" community right now. The idea that if you only have a bunch of numbers on the screen, then the game is great. And then we just need to make numbers popping up on the screen popular again, like it was in the good old days.
It's not as simple as that, is it.
No see, I said I couldn't just say F-you so I had to come up with more. So read what I put in there and not what you want to. My parents are proud of me, but the way, especially when I make arguments against people who make baseless claims. They also taught me that opinions without actual backing in a little thing called the real world are wrong.So you're basically telling me F-You because I have different oppinion then yours. How very mature
Anyway I'm aware of your 1,170 posts in this forum. It seems you have alot of spare time, or maybe you are paid to write crap on this forum
Now let me address this:
- I was born in 82, I have played all* XCOM/UFO games. Speak for yourself, "most of us old-school x-com fans" my ass.
You can also speak for yourself then because I'm involved with one of the biggest x-com communities in the net and the general oppinion is that "your" game looks like ☺☺☺☺. I'm sorry, did I strike a nerve there? Yes, the game looks like an arcade shooter, dumbed down for todays generation of MoH fanboys.
- You claim this game will be a failure in sales, then state it should be tailored to an even smaller subsection of gamers. That's idiotic.
The idiot here is you sir. Claiming that a game would appeal to teenaged gamers that think battlefield 3 is the holy grail in gaming, only because it wears the tag x-com is idiotic. As I already stated - they don't know what x-com is. You could've named the game "rainbow fairies" for all these people care. There is a reason why the x-com name is placed there. The targeted audience will play the game for a day or two and then they will be tired of "the rainbow shooting faires". Then they are back to battlefield or moh and you are left with the hardcore x-com fans.
- Take a look at the original again, it was very "cartoon-like". And the industry is not uniformly moving to photo-realism any-more, a good thing imo.
It's all about the atmosphere in the original game. Any game was "cartoon-like" back in 1994, it was the atmosphere that told you if it is realistic or not. You had to buy some flares to light up the terrain because aliens could see you from 20 squares during the night and you could see them from only 9. You could've used proximity mines to cut off the aliens from parts of the map. There were points for Stamina, Reactions, Strength, Firing Accuracy, Throwing Accuracy, Melee Accuracy, Bravery, how many of those will be included in this game? I bet none. Instead we get action oriented crap, where the primary strategy is "cover me I'm going in".
No, I'm not going to waste my time on this board. I've already seen the sort of people that lurk here
I'm going to relax and watch the epic failure from a distance. The time will come when another group of people will produce a game worthy of the name x-com.
Have a nice day, troll.
I believe something along the lines of "don't let the door hit you on the way out" would be appropriate here
It's hard to believe you are a fan of the original considering how hard you want this remake to fail. Because you do want it to fail, judging solely by the massive prejudice you are holding against it based on a few short videos and screen shots. You have that right, and please do stick to the original game, it's great. A shame to be stuck in 1994 though, I know we were all much younger and happier in the nostalgic years. Meanwhile the rest of us will treat this game for what it is, a fresh and long awaited treat for all audiences and not just a carbon copy of a personal fantasy
First, read this: I don't want it brown and gray!!! Why do people keep thinking just because I want it realistic, means people think I want it brown and gray? Realistic does NOT mean I want it brown. Go look at Crysis Shogun 2 - Total War!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCISPi6LFy0
Next, I think it [XCOM:EU] looks fine!
But there is something about it that bugs me. The Chryssalid for one. Or how most of the human and aliens look a bit chunky and fat, looking like toys for a Tabletop game (i know, I know, the makers wanted that!). And the troops looks a bit too gears of war to me. In fact, they even have the exact same armor, right down to the same armor plates. ( I hope someone isn't going to reply with 'i don't see a resemblance')
Finally, I don't want X-COM to be cartoony, because I don't want it to have this.... Flanderization:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...Flanderization
You see, with X-COM: Apocalypse, they did NOT make it cartoony, they made it serious with bright colors, ( a serious story with colors? No way!) and you can see this in the tone of the intro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InUQ1TebMGk
Then, the makers of xcom Interceptor came (which also had stupid one-liners), and they got it into their heads that X-COM was a joke from just the way Apocalypse looked, and.... well... just look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYMdqkvO3wE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MHyqpWWYgA
NOOOO! GOD NOOO! Geez, that was just BEEPing horrible! I never want X-COM to be like that again, ever! Right now, XCOM:EU seem to be in the same zone as Team Fortress Classic, which was in between sillyness and seriousness. If the makers of XCOM:EU feels the game was cartoony (by way of Flanderization), then think of how much more cartoony in XCOM 2 it will be. I rather they go for a darker look for what X-COM is, and keep the more colorful parts of TFTD and Apocalypse.
------------------
Another thing that been bugging me:
You see, to me, there is a scale. That scale goes from 0% to 100%, 100% being Photorealistic, and 0% being as bad as a "stick people" drawing. Cartoony art is about from 0% to 60%, and Photorealistic art is 60% to 100%. I like cartoony, sometimes, but I think praise should be given for art that works extra hard to try to get 100%, and only gets 70% realism. But here, I get this:
Really now? Shouldn't Zeful be telling us how great Beyond: Two Souls looks, and how hard the artists work on this to even give us 80% realism on the PS3? But no, he doesn't look at the 99.9%, instead, he looks at the 0.1% non-realistic parts, like the ceramic mug, and complains it's in the Uncanny Valley. He wouldn't be saying this if it was stylized, would he? Same goes for Rtron, who doesn't appreciate the absolute hard work that a FAN goes to make something like this. I like to see him try to do something like that.
I'm not going to make a big deal about this, I just wanted to point that out.
------
I got to see Prometheus, and wow, can you imagine XCOM 2 for the PS4 like that? Think about it chief! XCOM 2 or 3 could look this good:
http://www.jfsr.co.uk/prometheus/Pro...01200%2001.jpg
http://www.maxon3d.com/prometheus/p53.jpg
http://blog.khanneasuntzu.com/wp-con...theus00051.jpg
http://www.fmoviemag.com/c/media/k2/...4/PROM-659.jpg
But I think it would suck, if somebody wanted, instead, a more stylized XCOM. Because,let's face it, no one is going to make a X-COM movie.
You really are a massive troll aren't you. I can tell from what you're writing that you've probably watched 1 two-minute long video clip of the game - hell, maybe you've only watched the trailer on xcom.com - and made all of your judgments. Either that, or your confusing XCOM:EU with the XCOM shooter that is being developed concurrently with it and will be released in 2013.
You can also speak for yourself then because I'm involved with one of the biggest x-com communities in the net and the general oppinion is that "your" game looks like ☺☺☺☺. I'm sorry, did I strike a nerve there? Yes, the game looks like an arcade shooter, dumbed down for todays generation of MoH fanboys.
mo.
It's all about the atmosphere in the original game. Any game was "cartoon-like" back in 1994, it was the atmosphere that told you if it is realistic or not. You had to buy some flares to light up the terrain because aliens could see you from 20 squares during the night and you could see them from only 9. You could've used proximity mines to cut off the aliens from parts of the map. There were points for Stamina, Reactions, Strength, Firing Accuracy, Throwing Accuracy, Melee Accuracy, Bravery, how many of those will be included in this game? I bet none. Instead we get action oriented crap, where the primary strategy is "cover me I'm going in".
No, I'm not going to waste my time on this board. I've already seen the sort of people that lurk here
I'm going to relax and watch the epic failure from a distance. The time will come when another group of people will produce a game worthy of the name x-com.
Most of my opinion of the game (which I am now convinced will be better than the original, which I did play in 1994 and continue to play to this day) comes from the PAX and E3 demos of the game, which show an in-depth look at the combat system.
While I haven't seen anything definitive about night visibility, I'm quite certain they'll include that in the game, as its fairly simple to do and was a key component of the original, which the entire team making the game played and the lead designer is a huge fan of. What I can say is that it can be easily inferred from the demos and interviews that all of the attributes you mentioned from the first game will be present in some form of fashion if they aren't in the game already. Jake Solomon has already referenced panicking and mind control - which implies that bravery is still around somewhere. The demo footage shows a percentage chance to hit just like in the original before you take a shot - this percentage is confirmed to change based on the cover status of the target and the distance - I would assume it also accounts for the natural abilities of the shooter. At any rate, the design and marketing teams at Firaxis have repeatedly emphasized preserving the impact of losing your soldiers in this game. They are aware that to a younger generation of gamers the concept of your soldiers dying permanently is fairly new. Everything I've seen makes it clear that they are interested in connecting the player to the soldiers, which means differentiating them heavily. How is the player to give a damn about losing a soldier if he can just create a copy from a new recruit? It's doubtful that they would take this emphasis and not differentiate the soldiers based upon their abilities too. How transparent that will be is not yet apparent, but to assume it will simply not be included in the game is flat out ignorant.
At any rate, any fan of the original who genuinely wants new xcom games to play should hope and pray that this game gets it right and throw their support behind it, rather than hope for doom. I can gaurantee you that of all the studios working today, Firaxis is the one *best* equipped to make an XCOM remake. They are one of the only companies left making turn-based strategy games. Hell, even the latest 4X games in the master of orion mold are real time now. They do know what they're doing. I hope for your sake your prediction doesn't come true, because if Firaxis fails, nobody else will try ever again and you'll be stuck playing a relic from the mid 90s and looking down your nose at a younger generation of gamers who doesn't know how to use their minds because they've never had a fun game to play which required them to think but also provided the kind of aesthetic that they're used to.
No, it's pretty much confirmed that there are no visibility differences between night and day. However! because of the modern approach there are more places for aliens to hide in both nighttime and daytime. So I consider that a fair trade. Plus, now people have no reason to go out of their way to avoid nighttime missions.
Posting Permissions
