MOO3, SotS2, now LoP...

It's hard to be a 4X game developer!

Fenrakk101 wrote:
What about the UFO games on Steam? Referring to UFO: Extraterrestrials and UFO: Afterlight here. I've played both XCOM and UFO, and UFO feels (to me) as if it's just XCOM with much, much more modern graphics. Although I've never survived half an hour into the game, so take that at face value.

I hated UFO Afterlight and UFO Aftershock, but I only played the demos and decided they weren't for me.



UFO Extraterrestrials is from someone else and is far better - much more like the original XCOM game but brought more up to date. But it keeps crashing for me sadly.



Xenonauts looks ok but I have to say having played UFO:ET I did get a bit bored of the very slow turn based mechanic compared to newer games so I dont know whether I will buy it especially after having played the original XCOM game to death year and years ago.



I still think the new game could be very interesting but still giving it more time to settle down before I make a purchase decision. And I have other games to play at the moment anyway. I probably wont like the streamlining much, the combat looks better than the original other than the lack of equipment and suspense, but cant say whether I will like the strategy or not. So we shall see. Its a possibility - vcertainly its a very popular game at the moment on Steam - straight up to third spot in the now playing list.

Igncom1 wrote:
Your right it wasn't made for the vets, it was made for people like me who have never played the game before.

I dont think this is true. I think people just need to turn up the difficulty The new one is proper hard if you play on "classic" or "impossible" difficulty. Its certainly different. But the tactical mechanics seem very similar to me. Like in the original you cant just go guns blazing into places. You may have to keep a turn of moves to use overwatch, like you used to kneel in the original and save action points for a reaction shot. Same deal to me really. Just streamlined imo. And the powers really enhance the mechanics of the tactical combat. Personally I found the old combat to be very tedious after awhile, especially in terror from the deep. It got way out of hand in micro.



The tutorial could really put you off if your a vet. Its truly ridiclous. I was very disappointed with the game until I restarted without the tutorial. It played like a true Xcom game then imo.

BlueTemplar wrote:
I've heard that those are far from being as good as the original X-COM...

They are!

I've heard that those are far from being as good as the original X-COM...

BlueTemplar wrote:
All hail the Xenonauts!!!

(Thank you very much for that link)

What about the UFO games on Steam? Referring to UFO: Extraterrestrials and UFO: Afterlight here. I've played both XCOM and UFO, and UFO feels (to me) as if it's just XCOM with much, much more modern graphics. Although I've never survived half an hour into the game, so take that at face value.



Laser Squad Nemesis is also a nice time-waster; it's basically XCOM combat with a multiplayer focus (although I think the game is unsupported now; I'm not entirely sure where you can get it, maybe Amazon?)

Naut wrote:


its not horror, its not tense....its just "a" action turn based game. and its obvious that this game wasnt made to reach the veterans, it was made to reach the console market - hence the simplifaction in control AND gameplay.



and THAT is a big letdown for me.

Your right it wasn't made for the vets, it was made for people like me who have never played the game before.



I love it when a game is streamlined so new people can actually come and play it, then all of the original players of the old game slam on it for being simple and not like their old game.



If the new Xcom was like the older one, how many new players would the series get?



Frankly if games can't appeal to everyone then what the point, the developers might as well burn their money in a big pile. Its a bad business decision, and it would suck for people who never played the first and would be overwhelmed by it.



Streamlining does not equal simplification.

All hail the Xenonauts!!!

(Thank you very much for that link)

Naut wrote:
and thats like a slap in the face...



i agree that streamlining can be a good thing, but designing something which just is there to give you handicaps to balance the game is just poor game design.

for example, giving snipers perks like "headshot" and having a cooldown is like denying the whole purpose of using a sniper rifle at all...i know i know, its a mechanic to balance the game, but its POOR design.



i can enjoy the game, its different and it has the right to be different. but if you had seen that interview i talked about, its just NOT what they said it'll be.



its not horror, its not tense....its just "a" action turn based game. and its obvious that this game wasnt made to reach the veterans, it was made to reach the console market - hence the simplifaction in control AND gameplay.



and THAT is a big letdown for me.

It wasn't necessarily designed this way for the express purpose of reaching the console market. It's a pretty big generalization to say that if something's simplified, it must be because of the console market. If they wanted to carry over the whole action-points system where you had 60+ action points, and crouching and making sure you faced the right way, the consoles would definitely have been able to handle that, and console players would have been able to manage. The streamlining comes from an overall design philosophy, not from the developers cutting corners to access a certain market.



And I still say you're making pretty bold statements when you say "it's obvious this game wasn't made to reach the veterans," because you're very, very obviously not the only person who ever played and loved the original X-Com, and relatively speaking, you're one of the only people who's seriously offended by this game. Things change, and if 5% of people despise you for those changes, that's something you need to accept - you can't please everyone - and you just-so-happened to fall into that bracket here.



I have not seen the interview you're referring to, but I will agree that this game is not horror. However, it does feel tense - personally, it feels more tense for me than the original XCOM. In the original XCOM, I was way too frustrated to feel tense - always having less than 30% chances to hit got the better of me at some point.

BlueTemplar wrote:
I'd LOVE to see the original X-COM to be redone. I just can't play the old one with those awful 320x200 graphics!

http://www.xenonauts.com/



That said. I absolutely love the new xcom. Once you turn off the tutorial, the stupid 3d person camera, and fmv animations. It plays great The original required a lot of grinding for money and stuff, doesnt seem to be a need of that anymore. Its nice and streamlined. The tutorial is the worst thing ive ever seen though ,forces you down stupid paths and limits options. Not fun at all.



Still looking forward to xenonauts for the retro feel though

Fenrakk101 wrote:
and judging by current reviews from the game, you are most definitely not representative of the majority of people who played the game.

and thats like a slap in the face...



i agree that streamlining can be a good thing, but designing something which just is there to give you handicaps to balance the game is just poor game design.

for example, giving snipers perks like "headshot" and having a cooldown is like denying the whole purpose of using a sniper rifle at all...i know i know, its a mechanic to balance the game, but its POOR design.



i can enjoy the game, its different and it has the right to be different. but if you had seen that interview i talked about, its just NOT what they said it'll be.



its not horror, its not tense....its just "a" action turn based game. and its obvious that this game wasnt made to reach the veterans, it was made to reach the console market - hence the simplifaction in control AND gameplay.



and THAT is a big letdown for me.

I'd LOVE to see the original X-COM to be redone. I just can't play the old one with those awful 320x200 graphics!

BlueTemplar wrote:
MOO3, SotS2, now LoP...

It's hard to be a 4X game developer!

Seems like - Let's hope Amplitude will make it

Naut wrote:
being an xcom veteran from '90, i really hate the simplifications. im only 2 hours into the game, but i had a bad feeling as i played the demo already, and now i fear i wasted my money, and fireaxis lied to me. there is a quite long dev interview on the tubes, where they talk about the good old times what the first part of this great game was like, and that they will try to generate the exact same feelings with the new one.



yeah sure...



what a letdown

I played all the original XCOM games, and I must say I like the new game much, much more. If you like complicated micromanagement then go play the original XCOM; if they just remade XCOM with new graphics then people would say it's bad because it's the same game. I feel they streamlined a lot of things that were necessary to simplify, and updated the gameplay to be more relevant to people and times of this day and age. You can't put yourself on a pedestal and say that you have the supreme opinion of the game; and judging by current reviews from the game, you are most definitely not representative of the majority of people who played the game.

I just saw this on http://www.novacore-studios.de/index.php?lang=en

"We very much regret to inform that the Novacore Studios UG has to quit the operation and further development work because of insolvency. We thank all of our employees and partners for their cooperation during the last two years."

Mansen wrote:
Let me sum it up from a personal viewpoint.



- Re-imagining. A lot of elements have been streamlined - some for the better, some for the worse. Air combat is one of the sad losers of said change.



- Story (and thus game) is pretty short. I finished it in a little under 10 hours straight today - it's good, but ... short.



- RNG rules supreme. If you've ever played a "roguelike" or a game where dice rolls will kill you outright, you know the feeling. Your soldiers will only survive by not being shot at - unlike most aliens, they will disintegrate at the touch of a single shot. Expect to save often in your first campaign.



- Simplification (Yes I've already mentioned it). You only have a single skyranger (personal transport), so you constantly have to make choices as to who to help. It works well in the beginning of the game, but when (if) you end up with 3 full squads where 2 of them have to sit back constantly it becomes an annoyance.



- Base building (and budget in general). The game doesn't hold your hand sufficiently at the start regarding your budget. You have to be really careful with your money and focus on satellites (income) and weaponry. I made the mistake of overexpanding my base initially and was severily underfunded for the first half of the game (thank god I didn't lose anyone)



- Ground combat. It feels great - you have to weigh their gear and skill progression heavily. My sniper ended up being a godlike flying death machine.



So yeah - I like it. I think it was worth the money - but I won't be replaying it for a while (even though it invites replays due to all the RNG drama and relative short length)

being an xcom veteran from '90, i really hate the simplifications. im only 2 hours into the game, but i had a bad feeling as i played the demo already, and now i fear i wasted my money, and fireaxis lied to me. there is a quite long dev interview on the tubes, where they talk about the good old times what the first part of this great game was like, and that they will try to generate the exact same feelings with the new one.



yeah sure...



what a letdown

nats wrote:
This is why I am not buying XCOM for another few weeks until I have seen exactly what the game is like from the non fanbois who have played it. You just can't trust reviews, you can't trust gaming mags, and you can't trust a lot of developers or publishers these days.

Let me sum it up from a personal viewpoint.



- Re-imagining. A lot of elements have been streamlined - some for the better, some for the worse. Air combat is one of the sad losers of said change.



- Story (and thus game) is pretty short. I finished it in a little under 10 hours straight today - it's good, but ... short.



- RNG rules supreme. If you've ever played a "roguelike" or a game where dice rolls will kill you outright, you know the feeling. Your soldiers will only survive by not being shot at - unlike most aliens, they will disintegrate at the touch of a single shot. Expect to save often in your first campaign.



- Simplification (Yes I've already mentioned it). You only have a single skyranger (personal transport), so you constantly have to make choices as to who to help. It works well in the beginning of the game, but when (if) you end up with 3 full squads where 2 of them have to sit back constantly it becomes an annoyance.



- Base building (and budget in general). The game doesn't hold your hand sufficiently at the start regarding your budget. You have to be really careful with your money and focus on satellites (income) and weaponry. I made the mistake of overexpanding my base initially and was severily underfunded for the first half of the game (thank god I didn't lose anyone)



- Ground combat. It feels great - you have to weigh their gear and skill progression heavily. My sniper ended up being a godlike flying death machine.



So yeah - I like it. I think it was worth the money - but I won't be replaying it for a while (even though it invites replays due to all the RNG drama and relative short length)

This is why you never preorder until you know the game is practically finished, and even then you dont preorder unless the forum is ecstatic, and even then you dont preorder until you have seen some good playthroughs or played a very good demo. And even then you dont preorder, you wait for the game to actually be released and played for a few weeks.



Endless Space was an exception for me which shows how high my early expectations were (shame they have dropped the ball over the last few months but I have hopes for the next few months). Just goes to show sometimes even the best games publishers with the best intentions still make mistakes! I doubt I will ever pre-order a game again.



This is why I am not buying XCOM for another few weeks until I have seen exactly what the game is like from the non fanbois who have played it. You just can't trust reviews, you can't trust gaming mags, and you can't trust a lot of developers or publishers these days.



Of course this is not entirely Novacore's fault it is also the publisher's, Kalypso's, fault for choosing and then not guiding what was obviously a new, badly managed and inexperienced outfit, releasing an obviously terribly bugged game and conning kids out of their money, and then failing to give them the support and resources to get it fixed afterwards. Won't be buying a Kalypso game ever that's for sure. So the actual list of publishers I actually will buy a game off is steadily growing smaller. I am even starting to have doubts over Paradox and that's bad.



Kaylpso getting away Scot free though is not right, they should be sued over this at the very least.

So glad I never gave them a cent.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Isn't the UI something more important? I heard that was also a major sore spot.

Of course, but the game has to have more of the mechanics straightened out, otherwise you have all the bells and whistles without the content. Even though the UI is usually between both aspects.