1701

Yeah, but SPM, as you call it, transforms the game into a different genre entirely. I often see this mentioned as a solution to the “problem” of turn-based games, but to me, for example Baldur’s Gate and ToEE combat aren’t similar at all. Heck, in the GoldBox games, Fireball and similar spells OWNED the games for a large range of levels, because you could place them exactly where they needed to go to cause the most damage.
In BG, I remember being terribly excited when I FINALLY got the Fireball spell for the first time, only to discover it was actually of VERY limited use in SPM combat.

The only real problem with the full-scale turn-based engine in the original X-Com was having to move around with no enemy in sight. Both before combat and for example when trying to spot the last enemy.
Why not just adopt the system from Jagged Alliance (or, to a lesser degree, Fallout), where you can go into real-time walking mode when there’s no current opposition? To me, that was the best solution while still maintaining a full-fledged turn-based system. But maybe I’m alone in thinking this way.

rezaf

1702

I bought my first PC when my brother in law showed me Transport Tycoon and X-Com on his new pc and i bought a lovely 486 dx100. I loved those games and all the other classics however I do not look for remakes of those games. It’s almost like asking to be let down.

The new X-Com will be a day one for me because I like what it looks like and not really because i’m hoping it’s that improvement over the original X-Com or a replacement as such. A replacement is what I want in my head and I don’t think anyone can meet those requirements only me and I lack the skills to do that so best treat each game even so called remakes on there merits and don’t get disappointeed when it isn’t what I wished it was and instead enjoy it for what it actually is, or don’t buy it.

So far my day one buys recently have been Borderlands 2, Torchlight 2 and Guld Wars 2 and I am more than happy with all 3 of them and certainly don’t feel ripped off with the amount I spent and i’m confident that Xcom will be the same.

One other thing i have been doing is avoiding all the pre hype and clips etc, I find after watching all that stuff i’ve almost had my fill of the game and have no need to play it, personally I prefer to come in to as fresh as possible

1703

Rezaf is right that real-time with pause (RTWP) changes the tactical game significantly than when using a turn-based system. X-Com: Apocalypse is a great case study since it has both turn-based and real-time options. You can readily see the rules changes the Gollops had to make for each to see how play becomes different under each system.

I don’t particularly like RTWP at all, and I’m glad to see Enemy Unknown going full turn-based.

I like to sit back, have a beer, and think about my moves. And I like to have a very hands-on approach. I see X-Com as an inherently micro-heavy type of game, so I want to be there for everything that happens.

With RTWP, multiple events unfolding on the map pull my attention in different directions, and I can’t fully enjoy the results of all the decisions I’m making. Our minds can only process so much information at once at any given time, too.

I don’t really like the JA or Silent Storm approach of being in real-time until a skirmish breaks out, either. Because if I want to speed up the pacing, I’m then moving soldiers around hastily or in groups to make it easier, which inevitably means that I’m not in the position I want to be in when the shooting starts.

Bringing this back to Enemy Unknown: Neither pacing nor the bug hunt phenomenon is a problem at all. Pacing is smooth because it’s a turn-based system, and the maps are small enough that you won’t be searching forever for the last alien. But more importantly, the game gives away the position of aliens with a pseudo-sound system. If you haven’t come into contact with any aliens for a while, the game shows “soundwaves” (for lack of a better term) emitting from the direction that will take you to where they are.

1704

I listened to the entire interview and have some thoughts on it. It was nice to hear an actual interview, with actual questions, rather than the gushy gushy love love discussions that have been airing over the past few weeks. I think this fact was lost on Jake for the first few minutes, as he was giving his stock answers before realizing “hey, these guys are actually asking design questions.”

I do think the glitch questions were awkward at best, mainly because they have been playing a build 30-60 days of age (at least). They weren’t out of line (they can ask what they want to ask), but I don’t think they made for good interview questions. And I’m not sure how Jake would respond to them since he doesn’t want to paint himself into a corner if one of the glitches is in the final release (hence why they don’t make for good interview questions. The answers aren’t going to be very good). Jake has said on multiple interviews that the shooting-through-a-wall glitch is fixed in the final release. The others (the line of site when inside/outside of buildings and floor) were kind of hard to understand in an audio interview, so I suspect they would be hard for a designer to talk about, definitely, as glitches or otherwise.

Was Bruce joking when he said “I don’t take days off”? If he wasn’t, that comment came off rather poorly (if he was joking, it came off poorly too, I suppose). Maybe he just needed to eat more fiber that morning. He was awfully grouchy.

Based on the previews alone, I think there will be two main criticisms of XCOM. The first is the one goes like this: “I imagined a certain type of game in my head and you didn’t make what I was imagining, therefore I am going to criticize your game.” I think there’s little that can be said in rebuttal to that type of sentiment and I think a lot of people have imagined an XCOM sequel a certain way, so when this XCOM sequel doesn’t deliver what was in their imagination, they are going to be critical. I don’t know how fair that is, but I’ve seen it in most of the XCOM threads I’ve read (this board and others).

I think the other criticism is the PC interface and I think there’s some merit to that one. I’m as big a fanboy for this upcoming release as you’ll find outside of the developers themselves. And I think the PC interface is playable with a K&M, but it’s clearly not designed for a PC w/ a K&M. It was designed to work across platform and then the two control types were made to work with the design. I can’t say which came first - the developers have said that both were made independently - but it sure seems like the console controller is a better fit. Even on a PC. I think that’s what Bruce was intimating at, although not so successfully in my opinion.

1705

I quit listening to Three Moves Ahead a few years ago when Bruce grilled some poor sap about his design choices with so fine and immediate a granularity that I was left with zero idea of what the game was like. Is this interview like that?

1706

I am going to answer here.

First, BG and similar aren’t a good example at all. I also disliked the BG combat. It isn’t a good example because that engine had something weird going on behind, it seems it was really doing a turn based simulation and on top of it disguising as Real Time. Something like that, I can’t remember the details. Of course, the problem was that the D&D system implemented was turn based.
In fact that’s the second problem, the didn’t adapt well the D&D system because they should have done a more liberal adaptation, the original system (from the pen&paper RPG) was designed with turns and actions in mind, so stuff like spells and special actions didn’t translate gracefully to their SPM system. A good SPM system is fully real time from conception to execution, except there is a solid interrupt system for the player to act.

In your example, it seems more they didn’t balance the Fireball spell for a real time world. They should have upped the projectile speed to make easier to hit the enemy, or maybe raise the blast radius. Translating faithfully the original 2nd edition rules is just hilarious, as it’s a very gamey abstract system (apart from turn based!), while if you are making a SPM system (real time) you need something more based in reality.
Can you fire fireballs (sic) at the ground? Like firing a rocket to the enemy feet in Quake? I don’t think you could in BG. It’s exactly the same principle than in Quake: it’s hard to hit someone moving with a moving projectile (the fireball) so it’s more effective to aim to the ground. That’s the kind of thought that you need when you implement stuff in a SPM game, think first how would be in real life.

But I agree with you in part: Ultimately, SPM is a different system with different feeling than traditional turns.

Talking about SPM vs turns, I have some curiosity of how would play a Civilization game with SPM. Think Paradox games but more on the light side, and in exchange covering from Prehistory to the future, civ style.

Tomorrow, if I have time, I will make a post of how I would have done a new Xcom. (edit: so all of you can disagree with me and call my crazy :P)

1707

I agree. He rubbed me the wrong way a couple of times. I don’t think the questions were out of bounds at all and I really did enjoy hearing Jake’s detailed responses. Bruce could have been less of a prick, though. Not saying he really IS that way - it’s just how he came across to me here.

1708

That’s the impression I had listening to him nit-pick his way through the interview process. It’s good to make the developers squirm to promote things like fixing broken design or something, I agree, but otherwise… not a lot of fun to listen to, as someone who (unlike Bruce, clearly) actively likes what we are getting in 7 days.

Also, maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t the lead design the wrong guy to attack over some bugs? Wouldn’t that be more the pervue of the lead developer or programmer or something? Jake isn’t doing all the coding/bug fixing, is he?

1709

Sorry if people thought I was grouchy or that I don’t enjoy XCOM - I thought it was clear that I liked the game. What I don’t enjoy is pointless sportcaster-style interviews: “How hard was it to get in there and play hard? Do you think you can take today’s performance to the next level? What kind of motivation are you going to take into next week’s game?” So much of game writing/interviewing seems to be exactly this. Because I approach 3MA as a design show, I am interested above all in why designers make the decisions that they do, and what the consequences of those decisions are. For example, the small squads and focus on cover introduce a whole set of design problems to overcome. I’m interested in hearing about those. That doesn’t mean that I disagree with the choices, or that I would have done something different if I were a designer (which I’m not) - I just want to hear people talk about the decisions they made and why. I’m not sure why this is interpreted as an attack, although I welcome suggestions. It sounds like people hear: “why did you do this?” and think it means “I think you were wrong to do this.”

For the record, I did enjoy playing the XCOM build I had, and simply had a lot of questions about why they did it that way.

The “I don’t take days off” thing was definitely a joke, sorry that it didn’t fly.

1710

Two instances stood out to me. In the build up to asking about the cover system you mentioned how the cover strait-jacketed the level design, or something. Then the bit about the zoom level – really aggro tone. You had an argument with a Solomon sock puppet while he was on the line!

1711

I honestly got a “I don’t like this and this is why” sort of vibe from almost every question you asked Jake, or observation you made about the game. He seemed to be into it though, and rolled with the punches admirably, and gave some great insight into why some things are they way they are.

It actually wasn’t clear you liked the game - even by the end of the podcast, it seemed like you wanted it to be something else, by and large.

1712

PLEASE ask these kinds of questions next time. I would love to hear that show.

1713

You could, absolutely. I got very good at estimating the radius for a fireball, to the extent I would place my frontline fighters in position to hold the line, and land a fireball just far enough away to snag the enemies engaging my frontline, but not my brave warriors. Horribly exploitative, but there you go. There was plenty worse!

1714

I don’t agree with this at all.

I think the glitches that were mentioned are really bad. There is no way they should be in the final game. While Jake might not have been the right person to ask, it was not out of bounds to ask it, and Jake could simply have deferred if he did not know the answer.

I’m not suggesting that Jake did not do a good job, or that he was combative.

I get leery of the notion that things like this are not problems, because I have seen too many games where people who want the game really badly are willing to overlook obvious problems that really detract from the game and immersion. I don’t want the game so badly that I’m willing to play something where people shoot through walls. I want to know that it really is fixed, and I have not yet heard any confirmation that this type of screw up really is gone in the final release.

1715

Well, I didn’t want to pick the most obvious example which I liked just as little: the UFO series.
Does the real-time-with-pause work? Sure.
But does it feel the same as (or even very similar to) turn-based combat?
No way.
And especially in the UFO series, I was rather underwhelmed by the feel of the combat.

I actually didn’t think the BG style combat was that bad (I especially liked it in IWD2), I merely wanted to say that it’s very DIFFERENT and as thus not a suitable “update” (or rather replacement) to turn-based combat, provided the feel of the game is supposed to remain similar.
(Btw., I think you could aim FBs at the ground. But they had a casting time, and wherever you aimed, chances were the situation had changed by the time your mage got the spell off…)

Heh, funny that you would mention a Civ game in this style, as I mentioned this possibility some time ago in a discussion about a possible Civ6. I’d very much like to see a Civ game with DRASTIC changes such as this, but I’d rather have them name it spinoff-style (ala Civ:Revolutions) to avoid alienating the fanbase. But that’s a different discussion altogether.

@Savillo: You could enter combat-mode anytime in JA/S2, and maintain it as long as you saw fit, iirc. It was just that you COULD run the game in RT if you wanted to, which was a nice option to have, imo.
If you prefer full-fledged TB, no problem, just never leave combat (or immediately re-enter it if the game takes you out of it when no more enemies are in sight). If you prefer a faster pace, continue in RT.
Very academic discussion anyways. In this game, the path has long been set, same holds true for Xenocide, I guess, and god knows how long it’ll take until someone else makes another sequel, spiritual or official.

rezaf

1716

It may have “solved” some pacing problems when aliens weren’t around, but created a host of other problems based on the interplay between the TB and RT modes and didn’t actually make the “last bug hunt” any better. And also generally sucked.

My first reaction to anyone saying that real-time with pause is what everything should do is “Fuck you, no.” If I am playing a tactical squad game where what everyone does matters I don’t want to fight RTS “your attention is a resource” antics by pausing every fraction of a second. If you give orders and unpause to see what happens in spot then you can’t see the direct effect of orders elsewhere and stuff is left running on autopilot. As rezaf pointed out, it actually really drags the game out and hurts the pacing more than it helps when situations become complex. Trying to interrupt things to give orders can be a pain in the ass at the best of times, and if you’re doing something that requires attention to multiple units and can result in permadeath it becomes odious. I feel like I should add this is why I stopped playing some games and don’t ever think about going back to them.

I actually thought some of the Firaxis developer comments on why the game had to be turn based were really great at explaining why RTWP is not some pancea to be applied to everything.

1717

The I-Go-You-Go tactical battle model is what I consider a pillar of the classic X-Com experience. I’m glad Firaxis kept that.

And yes, I know that makes me one of the heathens that did not like the real-time option in Apocalypse.

1718

wethereyetwethereyetwhetereyet?

1719

Take your time, Firaxis! I still have to play the BF3 expansion pack, wrap up rFactor, and finish Torchlight II when my co-op friend gets back to town.

1720

I loved the Freedom Force games because they had real time with slowmo, rather than pause. Set to 1/8th or 1/16th speed and it was vastly superior to pausing. You could clearly see what was happening in the battle and it kept a bit of tension in the game without feeling overwhelming.

Also it looked totally sweet.