rezaf
3221
I’m gonna change seats for a bit and admit that at least their solution feels better than those others who tried to modernize classic TBS combat (mostly by making it real-time with pause).
Combat in Altar’s UFO series felt everything but exciting.
The new Jagged Alliance is a tad better, but doesn’t hold a candle to JA2 combat.
XCOM stays turn-based, but blows these out of the water.
Unfortunately, it’s a bit too simplified for it’s own good. Many people here rave no end about it, but I’d wager that, had XCOM replicated X-Com’s system 1:1, just with some numbers hidden in the background, added skills and the modern graphics, people would be raving just the same.
But we’ll never know.
rezaf
Arbit
3222
Having no cover at all gives a huge crit bonus (on the order of 60%), which is probably why you can’t target cover with regular firearms. Flanking is a high risk, high reward strategy unless you can orchestrate it on your terms, typically by luring them into a U-shaped ambush. I’ve been using support with light plasma rifles, scopes, and the +3 movement perk as “outriders” and it’s not uncommon to get a flank here and there. Using heavies with shredder/regular rockets plus grenades to remove cover is also a decent strategy.
My sniper keeps getting killed or wounded so I’ve been forced to adapt strategies a bit.
Yup, I can’t complain when it’s the only game in town. It’s slick enough to make up for some of the things it does poorly. (I originally wrote “the things it loses” but I think it’s important to move beyond X-COM and start looking at this game on its own.)
I keep coming back to the Dragon Age 2 analogy. I can enjoy it for what it is if I approach the game with the right expectations.
Now about that interface…
I’d wager that, had XCOM replicated X-Com’s system 1:1, just with some numbers hidden in the background, added skills and the modern graphics, people would be raving just the same.
You would lose that wager. It’s been shown again and again that gamers aren’t grognards any more. Sure, there’d be like maybe fifty or a hundred of us raving our brains out, but then we’d be sad when the company that produced the game went bankrupt.
At this point, I’m not sure why the lot of you who think that EU is a big disappointment don’t mosey out of this thread and into the Xenonauts one. That’s the game you want, it’s being made, and, well, the reiterative kvetching here is getting old.
tgb123
3225
I saw this question posted on another board and will direct it to the nay-sayers here:
What if the original X-Com never existed, and you had never played it? What would your reaction to this game be if it were an original IP?
JM1
3226
It’s not contentless analysis and there’s some smart posts being made when dissecting the design decisions. Quit bitching.
I can’t forgive the LoS issue. And with that, I mean not the LoS system itself, but the fact there is no clear way for the player to know what a soldier can see and can’t (and where it should move to see without problem), no tool, system or visual indicator. I had already in my short campaign several situations that left me perplexed.
And because how the action system works, I can’t move 1 tile, see if that’s enough to see an alien, move 2 more in the same direction and see if that makes it visible… etc (which isn’t exactly optimal, but that would be better than nothing), because you can’t move an arbitrary number of tiles, even if an action allows you to move 6 tiles, you can’t do it 2, then 2, then the other 2.
The bugs would still be an issue. The small selection of maps would still irk me as well as the LoS problems. Overall, I like the game, but I’d love fixes for these bits. But that’s not really the point, is it? The fact is that X-Com does exist, so Firaxis has to bear the comparison.
But I already played other more complete tactical games, even not counting X-Com. There are few more games in this sub-genre. So I still would have some complaints by previous knowledge that some stuff can be done better.
And even then, years ago, I criticized some things of the original X-Com, even if before that game I didn’t played any X-Com game (because there wasn’t any before it!) so of course the same could, and should happen here.
And I don’t have problems finding flaws in new IPs! :P
Lord knows I hate repetitive forum posting. I still think it’s useful to hash out the game. When I understand something, I’m less frustrated about it. It also helps build consensus so future gamers can go in with the right mindset. That has saved me a lot of nerd rage over the years!
The same, because the things that disappointment me are either independent (poor interface) or didn’t existing in X-COM anyway (flanking, etc.)
I’m pretty sure I’d still love the same things too, like attachment to high rank officers.
That would be me and several of my friends. And you would be having a whale of a time with this game and spending way too much time playing it and worrying about keeping your men alive. Your main concern would be for the camera issues and known bugs to be resolved in the first patch and maybe some interesting DLC to come out at some point (more maps too?). But you certainly wouldn’t be worried about the comparison points which get brought up repeatedly.
I’ve been gaming since way before X-Com but never played it. And, from what I’ve read, I don’t miss it.
Wendelius
Oh, that explains a lot.
Every time any of my soldier is out of cover and there’s an alien anywhere they’re basically dead meat, even when I thought they were surely a safe distance away.
Yeah, I think they could have easily had a preview where when a space is selected, they give you a preview of what aliens would be visible by that unit in that space, maybe just a mini version of the alien heads to give a count of how many. especially when dealing with vertical levels, it can be very frustrating to have no indication whatsoever.
Quaro
3233
Well put. Combat feels a bit too much like trying to game the system in Diablo or whatever, where you inch ahead and aggro a group, clear it, and move on. You never feel like the aliens are playing the same game you are on the battlefield.
I can see why this change makes combat vastly more accessible for many though. And it is still enjoyable.
rezaf
3234
Like I wrote, we’ll never know. People (non grognards) seemed to cope with the AD&D rules, for example, just fine, when most number crunching was hidden in the back.
Didn’t I just write that XCOM made the best effort so far at trying to modernize the classic TBS combat formula?
Whether or not Xenonauts is the game I/we want remains to be seen - it isn’t out yet. Some of the things I read during the Kickstarter made me a bit wary, but the game isn’t out yet, so it’s too early to judge.
That’s because they’re not. At least until you wake them up, and even then they first get their free turn. They were successful in “forcing” a certain momentum to be maintained in combat, but a very high price had to be paid.
And between combat, when no opponents are on screen, everything feels almost as slow as in the OG, because you have to be VERY careful, even on Normal.
rezaf
Reemul
3235
Oooooh keep your knickers on :D
Even those of us that are questioning stuff are also saying we really like the game and so on but we are also discussing the game and it’s faults, positive aspects along with everything else.
I assuming you mean only for already-visible aliens? If you let players “scan” for unseen aliens that way, that would be pretty broken. If only already-visible aliens, I can see it being very confusing to a lot of players. Also, if just a count, then you won’t know what alien would be the ones visible.
I could see a reverse tool maybe working: click on an already-visible alien to have the squares from which he’s visible indicated. That would move away from the current streamlined approach, though.
Yeah, I was thinking aliens that were already visible. I suppose it might be confusing, but it would be nice to get some indication. Some kind of preview function of some sort.
Another thing, on the 360, at least, you only seem to be able to get info-view details about your troops by clicking LS when they’re active, or on enemies by targeting them and clicking LS. So, if a unit has already exhausted his moves, or if the only unit that can see an enemy has exhausted their moves, you can’t get details on them. That’s a little annoying, although I assume on PC you can just right click them or something.
Tom’s review reminded me that boardgames bring more than just abstraction. Some of them rely on dice to create interesting situations. I’m new to boardgames and still have a love/hate relationship with dice. They didn’t always work for me in XCOM. Last night I was playing the final mission and an enemy missed me with two point-blank flanking shots. I didn’t think “wow, he survived at tremendous odds and saved the day!” I scoffed and thought the game should’ve punished me for a bad decision.
Tom also mentioned difficult decisions. I live for tough decisions in videogames, but I think toward the end of my game I crested the Chick Parabola on those. Classic Lite makes the decisions too easy because the entire squad becomes superhuman and breaks all the rules all the time.
But I need to be ready for the dice on Ironman (or the bugs). It’s a tricky position. I’m guessing in the end I’ll conclude that Ironman is the only way to go.
and it is a thing of beauty
