02-04-2012, 05:29 AM
The indie game I'm working on has an Iron-Man mode -- no saves, permadeath. It's an 80+ hour game. The first person that completes it in that mode (oh yes, we have progression tracking) wins a prize. It's an RPG derivative of later Wizardry, so I thought it was especially pertinent to put such a mode in the game. Yeah, you're gonna suffer, but it's at your discretion -- beat the game, then try the mode. If you're that good, and finish the game, then yeah: we'll give you something. We're already thinking cloth maps and even a staff for the person(s) that finish it that way. Good luck.
Originally Posted by Leinad
02-04-2012, 06:23 AM
Same opinion as the interviewer - "The purist in me is still going Ďhmmmí but until Iíve played it I just canít sensibly comment."
I'll wait for the reviews.
Ydejin - So, where's your signature on the "Rename Fallout 3 to 2.1" campaign? I mean, since you can't allow the issue of someone holding a contrary opinion to yours on the NAME to drop...
Detritus - Preach it! Spread the good word! Carry the faith onwards!
02-04-2012, 07:14 AM
An interesting choice of comparison. I think Bethesda did a great job on Fallout 3, but I think what they tried to do is entirely different from what Firaxis is trying to do here With Fallout 3, it was clear from the start that Bethesda was throwing out all the mechanics of Fallout 1 and 2 and simply building on the universe of Fallout. It was using the background of Fallout, but not the game mechanics.
Originally Posted by Dawn Falcon
That's not at all what's going on here with Firaxis XCOM and Microprose XCOM. Firaxis is trying to modernize the mechanics, but it's doing so by building on top of the existing mechanics. The closer Fallout 2 vs. 3 comparison would be Microprose XCOM vs. Y2K Marin's XCOM (which frankly I don't hold out much hope that it will be either any good or true to the XCOM license).
On a personal note (and a bit of name dropping), I do feel rather attached to the Fallout series, since I went to school with Tim Cain. We used to play softball together and his personal coaching really helped improve my softball skills. So I don't lightly say that Fallout 3 feels like it earns the Fallout name. Although I haven't kept in touch with Tim, and I don't know how he feels about Fallout 3.
02-04-2012, 12:43 PM
Listening to the recent GI podcast, I really like the idea that the aliens are playing their own game - they are just doing their thing, researching, gathering resources, terrorizing the earth, and these pesky XCOM soldiers keep coming in and getting better and better equipment, so it's time to start deploying new alien types.
I hope at some point we get an expansion or something that let's us play from the alien perspective, that would be sweet.
02-04-2012, 01:50 PM
There was an open-source project called The Two Sides that is no longer available due to legal issues for some reason... they had a good chunk of playing as the Aliens completed.
02-05-2012, 01:08 PM
To do a bit of naming dropping I attended a GDC session on designing sequels by Soren Johnson and his rule is that good sequel needs one part new, one part old, one part improved. Personally I think Civ V is a good game in its own right the problem is that part that is that new, like the one unit per hex turns out not to be all that good. Hence it is at best as good as Civ IV and arguable not as good.
Originally Posted by ydejin
IMO, I think making a good sequel requires that design team have a deep understanding of what made the original game a hit. However, this understanding is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. MOO3 being a classic example Alan Emrich and team clearly knew what made MOO2 a good game that lacked the experience and skill to implement for MOO3. I'm not that familiar with Elemental but I suspect that Brad knew why MOM was a good game, but it didn't matter much.
For XCom I am feeling confident that Fixaxis team gets X-Com at deep level. I am cautiously optimistic that they have the skill to turn out a worthy sequel. Of course when you are trying to improve on a masterpiece the bar is very high.
Last edited by Strollen; 02-05-2012 at 05:23 PM.
02-07-2012, 08:08 AM
GameInformer has an interactive X-Com base online now. You can click on different base parts and learn what they do.
I thought this screenshot was particularly interesting. In one of the interviews (probably this one) Jake Solomon the lead designer promised we would be able to name and customize the look of our soldiers. Here's a screenshot showing a possible interface to do that.
02-07-2012, 08:14 AM
Looks like base layout will mean more than just defense -- some buildings work better when placed near each other, and you can uncover steam pockets in the earth's crust where you can build power stations to save money.
02-07-2012, 08:15 AM
I would suggest the "one part improved" was a problem as well. Some changes were good, but some not so much. The change in tile values/worth of resources, e.g., was negative. The dropping of health and then just sort of leveling off city growth over time was negative. The way many buildings was reworked meant that many of them had dramatic reduction in value, when tied back into the tiles was negative.
Originally Posted by Strollen
It felt like they were trying to streamline things, but that failed. Health was already a fairly elegant and superior abstraction to things that came before. Happiness was working really well in Civ IV (I think there is some potential to a global system, though).
02-07-2012, 08:17 AM
Agreed. I thought Civ IV health was a neat way to make different food sources interesting. The fact that all the Civ V resources all basically gave the same bonus amounts made them a lot less interesting than Civ IV resources.
Originally Posted by peacedog
02-07-2012, 08:19 AM
I'm a bit nervous as to whether there is a base defense -- have they talked about base attacks in any of the interviews/articles?
Originally Posted by Giaddon
Having one base means that if the base gets attacked and you lose, I assume that means game over. That seems a bit much, whereas in classic X-COM usually when a base got attacked and wiped out, that's because it was one of my secondary bases, which were not that well protected. This was a major hit to my resources, but not fatal.
02-07-2012, 08:22 AM
Good point -- not sure if there is defense. A loss could still be a hit to resources and not a game over. But it's possible the concept has been removed entirely. Wouldn't surprise me, now that I think about it.
02-07-2012, 09:11 AM
What would be cool is if you could lose your main base and become more of a rag-tag underground thing like in Resistance. Instead of planning your building you plan tunnel systems and soon become a new race of Molemen.
02-07-2012, 04:36 PM
Maybe this is because I've never played any of the originals, but what the hell is a "time unit" in reference to the latest RPS article? Are they talking about a HoMM setup where each side moves 1 character per turn?
02-07-2012, 04:44 PM
It's basically action points, if that helps.
02-07-2012, 04:45 PM
Time units basically = action points in Fallout. A numeric represenation of how much 'stuff' one character can do per turn.
Originally Posted by Blips
In X-Com, as I recall, this could differ from trooper to trooper. They got more as they levelled up and some were just naturally 'better' than others.
02-07-2012, 04:50 PM
I remember Joe Capricorn had a ridiculous 22 or something.
02-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Ah ok, same thing as in Jagged Alliance 2 then. Thanks!
Originally Posted by LeeArac
02-07-2012, 06:23 PM
Not really. More D&D 3rd.
Originally Posted by Blips
02-07-2012, 06:34 PM
He's saying Time Units are more like Jagged Alliance, not the upcoming Enemy Unknown, I believe.
Originally Posted by Dawn Falcon
02-07-2012, 06:47 PM
Yeah, I don't think I've ever had first-hand experience with Fallout 1 or 2, but I love Jagged Alliance 2 and can compare it more easily.
Originally Posted by BleedTheFreak
02-07-2012, 07:33 PM
Ah yes. See, another reason to object! :P
Originally Posted by BleedTheFreak
03-04-2012, 01:19 PM
I beat xcom on experienced and genius, using the same strategy I used on beginner, except I learned how to use psionics, which made the games much easier. Once you know what techs to research in what order, and how to make a lot of money buying and selling laser cannons, as well as a certain psionic trick, the game is not very hard, although I still have to reload quite a bit. I don't think I could win without reloading, but that may be the best way to play. Steam says I have played 170 hours, by far the most I have played any game (which don't usually hold my attention for more than a few hours). For that reason alone, I declare xcom the best PC game I've ever played, and I have played many, many games.
Firaxis, guys, please don't let me down and do the original justice. Please.
03-04-2012, 01:34 PM
You should also direct your attention towards Xenonauts if you haven't already. For anyone that just recently played 170 hours of XCOM you'll probably get your money's worth purchasing both the faithful indie re-make and the AAA big studio re-imagining.
03-04-2012, 02:00 PM
Yes, I plan to get any and all xcom clones I can get my hands on, even the ones that don't have good metacritic scores.
Originally Posted by Staff Sergeant
I'm not sure I should try Terror from the Deep since I understand it's buggy and much harder, especially that you could get hosed by a research bug and not be able to complete the game after having spent many hours playing it. As far as I know there are no fan made fixes to the research bug and no XCOM Extender equivalent, which made the original much better.
Last edited by ioticus; 03-04-2012 at 02:05 PM.
03-04-2012, 02:29 PM
Um, most modern versions of TFTD come pre-patched to remove part of the issue, and XComUtil can fix the research bug anyway.
03-04-2012, 02:32 PM
How To Go
I would like people stop saying this. Not that is going to happen, but still...
Originally Posted by Staff Sergeant
It's nice to want things, I suppose.
I don't want a faithful remake, point to point, I want something more, or something else. So to me Xenonauts it's interesting, but it doesn't serve to just forget and ignore the other Xcom game, this one. Because I want a game that changes up more the original game.
The quid, the real question is what parts are faithful and what parts are improved and what parts changed. I feel, I suspect, I won't agree with all the decisions of the Firaxis team. Parts I would like to see the same are changed (like the base management, classes/perks for soldiers), parts I would like to see improved seems more or less the same or worse (tactical options), parts i would like to change (like the TBS system) are in the other hand the same, I would like something else like "We go" system.
See? It's not as easy as to say "You have Xenonauts!".
03-04-2012, 03:58 PM
I have no idea what you are saying or even if that is a positive or negative response to my post. Judging from the first line it's negative, so sorry for recommending a highly relevant game to someone that just discovered the beauty of XCOM?
03-04-2012, 04:31 PM
TurinTur, if you re-read Staff Sergeant's post again in context of what ioticus wrote, I believe Staff Sergeant was highlighting what could be considered the lesser known remake of Xenonauts, as well as the obvious AAA title from Firaxis XCom that ioticus knew was coming out. I believe that is right Staff Sergeant? Sharing the love and all that?
True, there are people who jump up and down about camera positioning, squad limitations and consolitis, amongst other things, and are quick to point out that Xenonauts is the one true path thou art to follow. And with that sort of sentiment, I agree with you completely. But I don't think that is the case in this scenario.
Ultimately, XCom fans will be spoilt this year. I haven't pre-ordered Xenonauts yet. I'm waiting for the final release to hit so I won't be spoilt by the usual pre-release bugs, AI limitations etc. Also, since the Game Informer coverage, there hasn't been much else release from Firaxis regarding the game?
03-04-2012, 04:39 PM
You are correct. While I am kind of hesitant about some of the stuff that Firaxis has changed, the existence of Xenonauts nullifies any concerns. If I want to play something that is extremely similar to X-COM with modified systems and better graphics, I'll play Xenonauts. When I want to play the AAA acclaimed strategy development studio's modern take on the game, I'll play XCOM:EU.
Originally Posted by Strato
I fully intend to buy both (and already have Xenonauts pre-ordered, have for probably more than 2 years now).