I must be ill or something. They have changed or deleted parts of X-com that we all know and love, yet I am starting to like what I am seeing, getting excited even.
Could it be, that they have done right by this game, and maybe achieved the impossible and made X-com a better game?
Noooooo, that could never happen...........could it?
Anyone know if they plan for expansions and allow modding?
Modding should be absolutely supported.. lord knows people still mod the original to this day myself included.
what have they deleted that you think are fundamental to the game? i'm just intrested.Originally Posted by Lostandfound
there are threads on both these topics
DLC/Expansions: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...-DLC-Expansion
Modding: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...t-have-modding
It would be hard to choose a few from the 20 gazillion changes announced.
I would imagine if you changed just one thing from the original then it would all come tumbling down, unless of course you knew what you were doing. So, it all depends on weather or not they know what they are doing. I really hope so.
I have this feeling too, When I was watching the gameplay videos, there was so much different, but it just captured the exact feeling I had when playing the original, I guess that's the holy grail of remakes, since you can't just copy the original, the world has changed.
Tbh I think this new xcom looks like how my brain made the original xcom look :P
I love this quote just here. I know exactly where this guy is coming from. The graphics and feel of the original conjured up images in your mind of what it would be like to be in the soldiers shoes. They have taken that image and brought to us.
This is probably a benefit of a big xcom fan having a lot of control of the development and him forcing the entire team to play the original x-com while running weekly build iterations of gameplay, starting with a direct update of the game and working from there (all things Jake has said over various interviews). If all remakes were designed like this, we'd probably have a lot less bad ones.
Well said. I'm honestly not sure they could have picked a better designer to make this game. Jake seems to really have his Sectoids in a row if ya know what I mean.
If I am not wrong, Mr. Solomon has never designed a big title in the past. It is quite a stretch to say:
Just watched an interview with the lead programmer, one of his favorite moment is leading his soldiers out of the skyranger, without knowing what is waiting for them.not sure they could have picked a better designer to make this game
( I remember someone here mentioned the pilot picking a alien free landing zone. As if the pilot could simply see where the aliens are on the radar, after all the aliens are much more advanced in technology. )
I sometimes got the feeling these biggest fans sit in a room, list all their favorite moments in the original and then say: "Let's see how many items from the list we could remove just because we are the biggest fans." Honestly, if we remove the sectoids and the title screen, the preview videos we have seen could be any scifi themed game.
You were right on the button there.
When I use to play the original, it was 10% the game and 90% imagination. I guess the game inspired the imagination, maybe that was one of the things that made it so popular.
But as you say what I just watched was what my mind use to envision.
Final fantasy 3 was an RPG, Warcraft 2 was an RTS, Tomb Raider was a 3D action. All of them are proceeded and followed by an evolving continuation of new games, made by a variety of companies, in their genre.
The original xcom was amazing for its generation, that's part of why we all still remember it do fondly. The other part is that the game was so original, it can't really be associated to a genre of continuation. If anything, the "genre" of sequels and spinoffs the game did inspire were so lacking, most fans pretend they don't exist.
Fair enough. I challenge you to pick a designer whom you think would do the game justice. Not saying you're wrong, just curious who you would have picked instead.
That would be me but that's not entirely correct. My post had to do with the removal of the mechanic where your troops funnel out of the Skyranger in response to some saying it was more realistic "like the D-day landing." What I said was that I'm pretty sure modern military practice is to drop troops into safer landing zones and that the transport doesn't usually stick around, or something to that effect. Another member, I can't recall who but I know he said he was/is part of a tank unit, added that the transport not sticking around was true as transports make really good targets but that if they have to land in a hot LZ that they have door mounted guns specifically to clear out or "hose down" the LZ. So it was less about the pilot always being able to pick a safe landing zone and more about the transport not sticking around.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here, care to elaborate?
*readies smoke grenade just in case*
Last edited by Notorious_BLT; 06-14-2012 at 12:09 PM. Reason: Dat grammar
Personally I would say somebody who did good games before or better yet, good turn based tactics games. Jagged Alliance / Silent Storm people or Mr. Gallop?
Of course it is no guarantee, but better odds.
I see, no disagreement there. What I was talking about was it was used to justify the removal of the "walking out of the skyranger". It is an ambush situation like any other tactical scenario, as long as it is not designed to give the players no chance at all, it remains a great feature. If that is not acceptable then ambushes in all other situations should be removed as well, which makes no sense what so ever.
(And even today, I think soldiers still get ambushed in the landing zones, are they not? They closer they want to be dropped near the hot zones, the greater the risk. Of course the farther away the safer it becomes. It is a risk and reward decision I would say. )
Haha, alright I will be as careful as I can.
It is about the most repeated defense "we are the biggest fans! how dare you bla bla."
Well, as they say "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", the "biggest fan" seems to be the counterpart
for remake game designers.
I am not saying Mr. Solomon and his team are not the biggest fans, they can be the biggest fans in the known universe for all I care. But it is a lousy way to explain or defend a position when their design decisions are questioned. And I certainly have seen enough of this line of "reasoning". In fact, any interview I read, they repeat this more often than not quite a few times.
I better find a bunker just in case.
No smoke grenade for you.... THIS TIME ಠ_ಠPersonally I would say somebody who did good games before or better yet, good turn based tactics games. Jagged Alliance / Silent Storm people or Mr. Gallop?
Of course it is no guarantee, but better odds.
I see, no disagreement there. What I was talking about was it was used to justify the removal of the "walking out of the skyranger". It is an ambush situation like any other tactical scenario, as long as it is not designed to give the players no chance at all, it remains a great feature. If that is not acceptable then ambushes in all other situations should be removed as well, which makes no sense what so ever.
(And even today, I think soldiers still get ambushed in the landing zones, are they not? They closer they want to be dropped near the hot zones, the greater the risk. Of course the farther away the safer it becomes. It is a risk and reward decision I would say. )
Haha, alright I will be as careful as I can.
It is about the most repeated defense "we are the biggest fans! how dare you bla bla."
Well, as they say "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", the "biggest fan" seems to be the counterpart
for remake game designers.
I am not saying Mr. Solomon and his team are not the biggest fans, they can be the biggest fans in the known universe for all I care. But it is a lousy way to explain or defend a position when their design decisions are questioned. And I certainly have seen enough of this line of "reasoning". In fact, any interview I read, they repeat this more often than not quite a few times.
I better find a bunker just in case.
Honestly I think I misread what you were saying to be more combative than intended. I'm happy to see I was wrong.
No doubt that soldiers are still in danger of ambush in an LZ but I think the danger is lessened by the presence of side doors (Y U NO HAVE SIDE DOORS SKYRANGER?!) and door guns. I think it was removed simply because it didn't make much sense for, what are supposed to be, experienced soldiers and military commanders giving the go ahead to build and use a transport craft that has a built in choke point and no way to provide any cover fire. Don't get me wrong, I have many fond memories of exiting the Skyranger to be greeted by a bunch of Cyberdisks and overcoming that situation and I will miss it very much but I still think their decision makes sense.
I totally get what you're saying in regards to the "biggest fan(s)" thing. I dislike illogical arguments since, well, they just don't make any sense. I'm not sure if they keep reiterating how big their fan-ness (totally not a word) is to calm some peoples fears or if they're doing it just because the marketing department is telling them to. Either way I agree it's not enough of a justification for any design decision. Somewhat back to the previous point I think Jake may have explained the decision to remove moving your troops out of the Skyranger in one of the interviews. I think it had something to do with turns that didn't really serve any major purpose or something like that, I can't remember off the top of my head =/.
There's one big flaw in Oyler's logic here. If you removed something like the secoid from the original XCOM then it would be just another sci-fi game (obviously at equal states of development). You can't remove icons so easily. That was a really poor example. If you removed Mario from a Mario game it would be just another platformer. Maybe the sectoid isn't as iconic. However, comparatively that's a weak example.
I've never heard "the biggest fan" used by Solomon personally (though I might have missed something, it wasn't honestly that important). I've heard "big fans" and superlatives matter people. There's a difference between big and biggest. Regardless of all that I've never heard any one of them say "we removed it because we're fans' as an excuse. In fact, I might not be as attached to the game as some people here emotionally, but I found a lot of the answers logical.
The skyranger for example. Sure, there are a few good D-day moments, but remember that historically even in WWII D-day was really the exception that proved the rule. It was not standard operating procedure to bum-rush a beach. Putting that aside they said that they found that most of the time it just added two turns to the mission, at worst people reloaded because they (like me) found it incredibly unfair at times. Their design philosophy was "brutal but fair" and the Skyranger debarkation was the closest thing the original had to a scripted sequence. I like that answer.
Yeah, I stand correctly, it is probably more "big fans" instead of "biggest fans", but it does not change the logic of my argument.
@BLT: The probable (my total guess) reason the Skyranger did not have side doors is that the C-130 does not, and the C-series of Air Force transports are clearly the spiritual successor of the Skyranger.
More precisely, the C series (including the C-130) have side doors, but I have never seen any soldier use them. Those doors are for Airmen, senators, Kid Rock, and State Department pukes. They get a cute 'lil staircase to step up to the door with, too.
In some cases, a man in full battle rattle cannot easily pass through those doors. Soldiers go in and out of the back, period.
@olyer and the forward deployment argument: no one has done a true combat airdrop or amphibious landing since Normandy, because of Normandy. I am saying this because I know people who completed the Iraq "combat drop", who freely admit it was a joke.
You have fun with that getting-ambushed-right-from-the-Skyranger nonsense. The only way to make that scenario "real" would be to add an "emergency landing" mechanic - which I'm not against, but seems like a lot of work.
it was more like "We dont take something out unless we can improve it...""Let's see how many items from the list we could remove just because we are the biggest fans."
Yeah, I don't know the fine folks at Firaxas AT ALL. But I do have several years experience watching these forums and seeing how fans react to sequels/reimaginings/etc. The most common reaction to any and all news is to completely lose your mind with negativity. Back before forums existed, when fans heard about something new, they would go, "Cool. I wonder if that will be any good? I sure hope so!" Now it's generally all tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth.
Using XCOM as an example, a constant mantra of mine has been to wait and see how the parts fit into the whole. It's easy to look at the original game and go, "You took this and this and this out." But what we aren't getting a feel for is how the altered mechanics work in the new game. If you cloned X-COM and took the squad size down to 4, it would be an absolute failure. But Firaxis didn't do that. They fundamentally changed the way soldiers work and improve over time. Opening up a different style of play. And one of the only ways they can ask us, as fans, to have a little faith is by letting us know that they are fans, too. Besides revealing the whole game early, what else can they do?
And that's what it ultimately comes down to: faith. If we take them at their word (that they are fans of the original), and we look at their track record for producing great strategy games, that gives me faith. And that's why I don't sweat the small stuff. If they are changing aspects of a nearly 20 year old game, I doubt they are doing it haphazardly, incompetently, or with any ill-will in mind.
I don't think we should approach this with faith. And wait and see seems to be the only choice. And let me stop here.
Agree totally. I’m sceptical about the changes as everyone, but they back it up with arguments that I can understand. Making the same game just with better graphics would not work, that’s for sure.And that's what it ultimately comes down to: faith. If we take them at their word (that they are fans of the original), and we look at their track record for producing great strategy games, that gives me faith. And that's why I don't sweat the small stuff. If they are changing aspects of a nearly 20 year old game, I doubt they are doing it haphazardly, incompetently, or with any ill-will in mind.
When I look at disasters like Jagged Alliance: BiA, then I have to admit that I’m a little afraid. But from the interviews I have the feeling that they not only think allot about the changes they make, but they also test them allot.
Having an XCOM fan as the lead designer is great for me for one main reason: he knows the feeling that we all had while playing the original. Often you have people that are good in their field of work but have no clue about the topic they are working on. A translator can be as good as ever, if he has no clue of, for example, the Battletech universe, he will have a hard time to translate one of the Battletech novels. There are so many alien based films, books and games out there with their own backgrounds and feelings attached to them that someone who only knows the facts about XCOM would have no chance to transport at least a part of the feeling to a new game, I think.
So far, I think Firaxis has been pretty good with at least shedding some light on their thought process with a lot of their changes. Of course we're not all going to agree with every single one of them all the time - but nonetheless, I think their logic has thus far gone deeper than "let's see how much we can change around before anyone notices."
And... let's be honest: even without sectoids and the X-Com logo, we'd still be looking at a turn-based squad-level strategy game with an in-depth resource management game on top. That's similar to how many games, exactly? Which other game, specifically, do you think this game looks like?
Mileage is going to vary from person to person, of course. But myself? I'm coming into this expecting a game where I manage a base and my team, research alien technology, respond to alien activity and sightings, and then take them on in a turn-based game at the squad level. As far as I'm concerned, nothing is sacred beyond that. I've played X-Com tons of times. I don't need the same exact game to keep me happy - so if I allow them lee-way to make decisions they can stand behind, I'm then obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt until I've played it.
There was some interview with Jake Solomon, I think, where he talked about how their decision process was more involved with prototyping - if they had an idea, they'd try it out in-game first and see how things worked. And how different that is than just arguing mechanics in the abstract, on paper so to speak. Now, obviously, that's all we can do here. A forum wouldn't be a forum without picking apart minutiae and debating about it.
But at the end of day, I do think there's still the caveat to any of these arguments that it's pretty hard to take any of this too seriously, one way or the other, until the game's actually out and it's been given a fair shake. Because until then pulling any one element out and inspecting it is still lacking some very crucial perspective in terms of the overall gestalt of the finished game.
Personally, I think the only thing that they must not change in any way, shape or form, is the turn base. If they mess around with this or try and introduce some half-arsed rts system, then the whole thing WILL come a-tumbling down around their ears.
As far as all the other proposed changes to the game are concerned, they could very well work. We won't know for sure until October the ninja.
See u then.
It doesn't matter, not really, because that's all we've got. We can look and poke and theorize all day long, but all we've really got is faith. I'm not talking about it in it's religious context. It's just the belief that something is the way it is with no concrete reason. We don't have any real concrete evidence. It's all bits and pieces. *shrug* It's not something we necessarily get to choose. Because even if you believe it will be bad that's still faith. :\ A really negative form, but still, faith. Because you can wait and see all day long, but the fact that you have issue with some of the elements means that you're already thinking one way or the other or some middle ground, but you already have a formative picture. We tend to be human like that. :|I don't think we should approach this with faith. And wait and see seems to be the only choice. And let me stop here.
I agree completely. Great post.Yeah, I don't know the fine folks at Firaxas AT ALL. But I do have several years experience watching these forums and seeing how fans react to sequels/reimaginings/etc. The most common reaction to any and all news is to completely lose your mind with negativity. Back before forums existed, when fans heard about something new, they would go, "Cool. I wonder if that will be any good? I sure hope so!" Now it's generally all tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth.
Using XCOM as an example, a constant mantra of mine has been to wait and see how the parts fit into the whole. It's easy to look at the original game and go, "You took this and this and this out." But what we aren't getting a feel for is how the altered mechanics work in the new game. If you cloned X-COM and took the squad size down to 4, it would be an absolute failure. But Firaxis didn't do that. They fundamentally changed the way soldiers work and improve over time. Opening up a different style of play. And one of the only ways they can ask us, as fans, to have a little faith is by letting us know that they are fans, too. Besides revealing the whole game early, what else can they do?
And that's what it ultimately comes down to: faith. If we take them at their word (that they are fans of the original), and we look at their track record for producing great strategy games, that gives me faith. And that's why I don't sweat the small stuff. If they are changing aspects of a nearly 20 year old game, I doubt they are doing it haphazardly, incompetently, or with any ill-will in mind.
One thing is for sure, I may love anything X-com but I won't be pre-ordering.
Lately I have been burned so many times by over-hyped games only to find out they were bad alpha's, that now, I am exceptionally wary no matter what the title.
While I totally get what you're saying (most recent burn for me was Dead Island) I couldn't resist pre-ordering. Call it a weakness for Guile hair, I just couldn't help myself =/.One thing is for sure, I may love anything X-com but I won't be pre-ordering.
Lately I have been burned so many times by over-hyped games only to find out they were bad alpha's, that now, I am exceptionally wary no matter what the title.
You of little willpower, get a grip. Cancel that pre-order forthwith, and don't let me catch you doing it again.
But, but then I'll lose the Guile hairYou of little willpower, get a grip. Cancel that pre-order forthwith, and don't let me catch you doing it again....
I'm traditionally a wait and see guy, too. I've only preordered a few games. But this one is a given. Mainly because they aren't making pie-in-the-sky predictions. This isn't a huge, open-world game or something that promises to reinvent the wheel. They are taking an extremely familiar classic and blending it with more modern aesthetics and mechanics. The end result will be relatively unique, but the only real question is whether they will balance the character progression with the overall difficulty. And it sounds like they have a good handle on that. Without the headaches of competitive multiplayer, the odds of them producing a stable, fun game are pretty good, IMHO.
Yeah! I was expecting a complete abortion to be honest, but as the months go by and the information creeps in, I have to admit this game is looking more and more promising. They do seem to be doing what they say they are doing and none of the usual BS.
I was one of those in on that conversation and I would like to add, although I am not sad to see the D-day landing removed, I cannot say I truly care for the concept of an "Alien Free zone" for a safe LZ. Sometimes the Aliens are at the LZ, sometimes the vehicle does come under fire. Unless you constantly have eyes on the area you cannot know where the aliens are or are not. But perhaps the concept is someone, not X-com, is keeping tabs on the aliens.
There's the rub. See they didn't say the LZ would be alien free. They just said that you would not be forced to move your units against enemy fire. You would not have to shuffle out to the slaughter. They could very well put aliens at the LZ, but your troops will be on better footing when dealing with them.
Case in point: I remember I had one game where two snipers were in front with heavy plasmas and my heavies were in the back. I landed next to four, four cyberdisks (two visible two out of sight). I was slaughtered unfairly on the landing pad to where I got frustrated and save-scummed myself out of the Skyranger anyway.
Now, I would not have if my troops had been in a nice little lose formation, not more than five squares apart and ready to go. It's not that the LZ is safe, it's just you're off before they can react. I honestly am glad to see it.
and whoever said you cant get shot at on your first move?
Personally, Enemy Unknown is probably going to be the text book 'doing a reboot right' example for some time to come.
I'm reminded of an article I read on IGN the other day, about how EA felt Syndicate was a failure, yet their SSX reboot was a big success. I hope they didn't waste too much money on figuring out why it was like that: SSX remained what it was: A snowboarding game. It didn't change it's gameplay model to try to be something else. Syndicate on the other hand, did try to be something else then what it was original was. And beyond a few name drops, one sound bite of music, and the trenchcoat, it had virtually nothing to do with the original game it was based on.
That's why it failed. Fans of the originals had no investment in the reboot, and on it's own, it was a pretty medicore title. The XCOM FPS will have the same problem, I suspect. Enemy Unknown, however, seems to be doing it the right way. They've kept the core gameplay (global view stratgey, turn based battlescape tactics), as well as iconic features of the setting (aliens, modern day, etc). These features are things the fans of the originals can invest in.
While I don't expect this title to be a earth shattering success, I do believe it will be a success in it's own right.
Only for those who think they are doing it right. What you say about Syndicate is how I feel about Xcom:EU at this point.
I think there might be a disconnect here. By "doing it right", I don't believe Nosmirc is saying that everyone has to like every change being made. He's saying that, like SSX, XCOM is remaining true to it's core gameplay. Unlike Syndicate, which changed from a tactical shooter to a FPS. I don't think that's up for debate--unless you feel that XCOM is no longer a turn-based strategy title? It utilizes different or refined mechanics, but it is still clearly a strategy title.
Correct. Syndicate suffered from a utterly complete disconnect from it's original gameplay. Enemy Unknown retains both the geoscape and battlescape gameplay, retains the turn based tactics, as well as keeping the setting largely intact IMO. You really cannot compare the situation of Enemy Unknown to that of Syndicate.
Now, if BCD was talking about the XCOM FPS, that's a different story. While I cannot say if it was going to be good or not, I can say that it would have likely had the same hurdle that the Syndicate reboot had, and from what I saw, I wasn't really confident that it would clear that hurdle, ending up in the same mess Syndicate did by being effectively unrelated to the base material, and being a sub-par to medicore shooter that doesn't stand well on it's own.
Or they know that because all the XCOM fans are going to be playing this, and so the shooter will appeal to a different audience with maybe some cross over.
I don't know, two delays has kind of shifted my view of the FPS but if they can bring some XCOM strategy and tactics to the FPS genre then I don't really see a problem with that. Most people were upset that they thought XCOM: FPS was the only thing they were getting after almost twenty years. Since this is no longer the case... well I'm willing to at least let the shooter stand on its own merits.
Or it could be that what I define as core is different and that it is not remaining true to the original. That what I enjoyed about the original has been removed and to me it is no longer the same game and possibly a game I would not be interested in playing. I am not talking about the FPS, as far as I am concerned the FPS is not worth mentioning.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote