2K: XCOM was a success, eats own words

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Hargrimm:
Who ever said anything about it being productive in the first place? People like me are cynical because nobody listens and nothing ever changes.

The industry has changed tremendously in the almost 30 years I've been gaming. Some ways for the better, some ways for the worse. Often it is cyclical. But it's always changing.

I'm just giving you a hard time because the appeal to misleading authority that comes with "I'm a connoisseur" grates on me a bit. What happens if another guy who is even more of a "connoisseur" has a dissenting voice? It's chaos!

I gotta say, I'm rather enjoying the little revival TBS is having at the moment. XCOM is a big part of that. Now if we can get a proper JA followup I'll be over the moon.

BloatedGuppy:

Hargrimm:
Who ever said anything about it being productive in the first place? People like me are cynical because nobody listens and nothing ever changes.

The industry has changed tremendously in the almost 30 years I've been gaming. Some ways for the better, some ways for the worse. Often it is cyclical. But it's always changing.

I'm just giving you a hard time because the appeal to misleading authority that comes with "I'm a connoisseur" grates on me a bit. What happens if another guy who is even more of a "connoisseur" has a dissenting voice? It's chaos!

I gotta say, I'm rather enjoying the little revival TBS is having at the moment. XCOM is a big part of that. Now if we can get a proper JA followup I'll be over the moon.

It's alwyas chaos, has been and will be. If you like something, you're a fanboy/moron/consoletard. If you don't like something, you are a hater/bitter/entitled. It's been that way since the usenet days(the terms change, obviously, but the language remains the same).

While the industry has changed, it wasn't in any fundamental way until the Kickstarter thing got going. Even in the good old days there was mountains of crap appealing to the most common denominator. It's just that the most common denominator has shifted. I guess I am bitter about that (and getting insulted for not going with the flow).
I guess I just assumed with all these great classics available for reference, people would build upon that. You know, Making things better like it's always claimed to be the case.

Some say that it is happening, but I'm not seeing it (again, aside from the Kickstarter thing of course, but I'm not bitching about that). We already had this discussion about the new XCOM. It's at it's core designed more like a boardgame than a simulation. You may think that that is better, but that's a matter of taste. What it didn't do is directly improve the mechanics of the originals.

As for the JA followup, between back in action and the junk like hired gunz that came before it, I'm not seeing it.

Damn.

I would actually have prefered they go the "Call of duty way" considerating how mediocre the actual game is. But I guess hurray for Strategy games. The genre deserves some reconizon, I guess. Plus some people actually liked this thing, so that counts too.

Also the medal of honor game sucked BAD. Its one of the worst games I have played (Me played only because I was horribly bored, long history. It was prety mediocre), but its definitivly just around there. Pretty bad.

In that aspect... this might be somewhat good, the whole xcom thing (I didnt liked it at all... so not sure if this is GOOD or BAD).

BloatedGuppy:
[quote="Hargrimm" post="9.392742.15856328"]snip

You know who you can't win with? Video game fans. They'll bitch and whinge and hyperbolize about EVERYTHING. The relentless, grating cynicism isn't as funny or productive as you might think.

This is pretty much dead on, especially with XCOM.

I've talked to several fans of the original, and of those I've spoken to, they like the new game. They may miss some of the old game's features, but they're pleased with the overall package.

I've also seen some of the more vocal fans of the original making massive flame threads about how the new XCOM is inferior and terrible.

Me? I played the original and I did not like it. Possibly because it hasn't aged well, (I got it about a year ago) but mostly the UI was kinda terrible (to me) and the "meatshielding" practice just didn't sit well with me.

I played the XCOM demo just out of curiosity and boredom, and went from not interested to pre-ordering.

Nothing out there is going to please everybody, and trying to please absolutely everyone seems to backfire.

erttheking:
XCOM is a commercial success. Medal of Honor is a commercial failure. This is certainly an interesting time to be a gamer.

I don't see what's so surprising about it. There was a huge demand for a new X-Com strategy game, so many people bought it. There wasn't much demand for a new CoD style shooter, so people didn't buy MoH:WF. It could also have something to do with MoH:WF being awful.

Doom972:
There wasn't much demand for a new CoD style shooter, so people didn't buy MoH:WF.

I think it's more that with BlOps2 launching less than a month after MoH:WF, most of the demand for a new CoD style game was focused on the new CoD game. Factor in Halo 4's imminent release, and it's pretty obvious EA picked a really bad time to launch it's 2nd string 'CoD clone'.

It could also have something to do with MoH:WF being awful.

Yeah, there is that as well.

Glad to hear Xcom achieved success and proved the strategy genre wasn't dead, all the same i cant help but be...very worried at direction a likely xcom sequel will go, not least because of the near universal appraise that might make devs think that streamlining is the way to go with strategy games.

I loved my first 2 xcom playthroughs despite some serious faults in my eyes, but then i realized the biggest failure of new xcom: how incredibly shallow it is, there is no incentive to replay a 3rd time once you've seen all the game has to offer due to how linear and predictable campaign is. Lack of random elements and artificial mechanics such as limiting you to 1 base and being only able to respond to 1 out of 3 missions is so artificial...
Yeh it forces hard choices is the common rebuttal, but hard choices were forced on you in the original xcoms without such artifical limits, that this new xcom feels it has to rely on this to push the campaign along strikes me as such a cheap and uninmaginitive solution.
Things like the 1 base antartica challenge being completely gone really broke my heart.

So am in this weird position where i enjoy this xcom game for what it is, but have this lingering feeling far too many compromises were made in order to make this experiment work.
Now that strategy games are shown to not be unprofitable, surely the next xcom game is gonna be a true update of the originals and will be suitably complex with all this streamlining crap removed right? Im not so sure, which is why im kinda nervous. I wasnt too bitchy with this new xcom on release as knew it was a gamble, but now that the game is succesful future xcoms wont have this excuse. So am really apprehensive about the future for xcom :/

Frankster:
Glad to hear Xcom achieved success and proved the strategy genre wasn't dead, all the same i cant help but be...very worried at direction a likely xcom sequel will go, not least because of the near universal appraise that might make devs think that streamlining is the way to go with strategy games.

I loved my first 2 xcom playthroughs despite some serious faults in my eyes, but then i realized the biggest failure of new xcom: how incredibly shallow it is, there is no incentive to replay a 3rd time once you've seen all the game has to offer due to how linear and predictable campaign is. Lack of random elements and artificial mechanics such as limiting you to 1 base and being only able to respond to 1 out of 3 missions is so artificial...
Yeh it forces hard choices is the common rebuttal, but hard choices were forced on you in the original xcoms without such artifical limits, that this new xcom feels it has to rely on this to push the campaign along strikes me as such a cheap and uninmaginitive solution.
Things like the 1 base antartica challenge being completely gone really broke my heart.

So am in this weird position where i enjoy this xcom game for what it is, but have this lingering feeling far too many compromises were made in order to make this experiment work.
Now that strategy games are shown to not be unprofitable, surely the next xcom game is gonna be a true update of the originals and will be suitably complex with all this streamlining crap removed right? Im not so sure, which is why im kinda nervous. I wasnt too bitchy with this new xcom on release as knew it was a gamble, but now that the game is succesful future xcoms wont have this excuse. So am really apprehensive about the future for xcom :/

Well it actually makes more sense to force missions.

By mid-game of the OG,you had NO reason even do land-attacks.

You can shoot down terror ships, every ship once plasma cannons are equipped.

once you get plasma and a hyperwave, terror missions never happened because you always shot the UFOs down before they got to the VERY pre-determined cities.

They always go for the middle east, Europe, and China. America, south America, and australia never got terror missions in my HUNDREDS of playthroughs.

Even UFO missions were moot outside supply ships. Shoot em down and forget em.

Once you get to that point, you won the game and don't need to fight another alien again. When you get blaster launchers, nothing can stand up to you even if you do.

Ultratwinkie:

snip

Your first comment confuses me. You have as much reason to do land attacks in OG as new ones: to make your squad more experienced and recuperate ressources. In OG if you succesfully conducted a land mission in a country it would increase your score for that country, so not entirely different to the unrest reduction in new game if thats what you're reffering to.
I ignored ufos being shot down in new xcom towards the end of the game so not like this is something thats been changed.

You can shoot down every ship with plasma in this new game too (except battleships whom you need avengers for, but this was the case in the old game aswell, no difference whatsoever here), and in this new game its considerably easier to get plane and sattelite coverage all over the world (not to mention your main way of making money+reducing unrest).

Hyperwave decoder was a hard tech to get in original, and still required a lot more planning and preparation to have radar+hyperwave decoder coverage+plane coverage for all the globe (so would require dedicated forward bases) as opposed to this new xcom. Just 1 hyperwave decover had a limited coverage so you cant tell me you can just build 1 (which was very expensive and time consuming) and thats it, all the terror woes were solved. For a guy that said he played 100s of xcom games mistakes like these are making me doubt your experience.

Incidentally i enabled the ini settings where the terror ships and such appear in my game so as to give me a chance to intercept them, and i feel game is much better for it. The 1 out of 3 mechanic does indeed force a hard choice on you, i just see it as very artificial and stupid mechanic with no justification for why it has to be (so why cant xcom build another base and another skyranger then?) beyond "just because" and "hard choices!!!!".
Let the emergent gameplay provide the challenge, not limitations like this, if i want to attempt all 3 missions then let me do it, especially given the tiny squad sizes which means i can have a small army in the barracks but only 6 of them max get to do anything.
An alternative solution would be to say terror missions are initiated by drop pod using aliens (hence why you couldnt intercept) but to simply tell the player they will forever be unable to see those ufos or intercept them no matter the tech or ships at their disposal is indefensible imo.

As for terror missions only going for the middle east, either you are horribly unlucky especially if you played 100s of games or...i got no other explanation.
There was terror missions in other countries beside middle east (looking up any xcom lp should show as much) so really not sure how to respond to that.
Now if its from a limited list i can fully believe, as i can also believe new game has a bigger list of possible city names (incidentally i love the nickname feature).

As for UFO supply ships being the most valuable in OG, isnt it the same in the new xcom too?
Not to mention the new supply ship is considerably easier to take then old one imo due to its layout and the knowledge there isnt an ethereal or sectoid commander on the top floor (also boo at removing different alien ranks like engineers or medics who would give you more info about ufo ships, other races or even the alien plans themselves, research is so much drier in this new game, though i absolutely love the little cutscenes showing autopsy).
Incidentally supply ships were usually a sign that there was an alien base there, so had a gameplay function.

And your last comment reminded me of another thing i hate about this new xcom: you aint really in charge of how the game progresses, you follow the campaign trail in a completely linear fasion with little room for variation between playthroughs.

Late game i agree blasterlaunchers and cheapness would mean easy peasy late game, but at least you were in control of your own progression, and dont find the whole stance of looking at the cheap tricks of OG to make the new game seem better by comparison very convincing.
Speaking of blaster launchers reminds me more of how much explosives are gone in this new game :/ Another sad loss, along with different ammo types (oh yeah weapon selection...remember how weapons had different properties and uses against different types of enemies?), but this would have more to do with smaller mission sizes and cover mechanics being more much important.

Ultratwinkie i get you like this game, you were passionately arguing for it even before it was released, but i dont see how you can argue new xcom isnt incredibly streamlined and butchered down in comparison to original. Highlighting originals faults isnt eye opening since ive had more then 10 yrs to go over what id like to see improved in original and am well aware of its weaknesses, but most of all its strengths and in how many different ways the game can be played (again, antartica challenge).
I wont argue there have been some welcome improvements especially for soldier customization and overall presentation (i will never get tired of the xcom landing/troops deploying sequences) in new xcom and that its a "good" game, but i still see it as somewhat wasted potential with far too many compromises made in order to see this game being bought to light.
Ive been able to happily play the old xcom for years and try new things, im not sure i can honestly say the same about the new xcom or that i will continue to play it in a few years time (i think mods will be the main factor in that).

Heck dunno if you saw spoonys review, but am kinda in same boat as him in i wish this new xcom was more then it was despite enjoying the game. Which is why im worried about the sequel and the direction it will take. Not criticizing new xcom for sake of it, i enjoyed my playthroughs and feel its a solid game, just wish sequel really takes the formula to the next level now that its been proven to sell, rather then 2k resting on their laurels and think they can just remake this game with just a few token new features here and there.
Apologies for the tldr post >< This ended up being far more ranty then id have wanted.

If X-com had CoDified, it would have failed miserably and be doomed to obscurity. As TotalBiscuit said, games developers are confused. They try to copy CoD and its lowest common denominator appeal but it only alienates their fanbase whilst attracting too few new players.

Easier to follow trends than be a leader.

The Random One:
It does seem that the gritty military shooter's reign is ending, but something else shall soon rise to take its place as the go-to unoriginal video game concept. Just as happened to the GTA wannabe with a poor gimmick that came before the gritty military shooter, and the gritty beat-em-up before that, and the blocky 3D fighting game before that, and the repetitive 3D platformer before that, and the clunky 2D fighting game before that, and the generic 2D platformer before that, and...

Maybe a bastard fusion of GTA and CoD... it is inevitable. Especially with GTA V coming up soon, people will be all hyped about that and then Grand Theft Army: Modern Gunwars 2 will be a thing.

Frankster:

Ultratwinkie:

snip

Your first comment confuses me. You have as much reason to do land attacks in OG as new ones: to make your squad more experienced and recuperate ressources. In OG if you succesfully conducted a land mission in a country it would increase your score for that country, so not entirely different to the unrest reduction in new game if thats what you're reffering to.
I ignored ufos being shot down in new xcom towards the end of the game so not like this is something thats been changed.

You can shoot down every ship with plasma in this new game too (except battleships whom you need avengers for, but this was the case in the old game aswell, no difference whatsoever here), and in this new game its considerably easier to get plane and sattelite coverage all over the world (not to mention your main way of making money+reducing unrest).

Hyperwave decoder was a hard tech to get in original, and still required a lot more planning and preparation to have radar+hyperwave decoder coverage+plane coverage for all the globe (so would require dedicated forward bases) as opposed to this new xcom. Just 1 hyperwave decover had a limited coverage so you cant tell me you can just build 1 (which was very expensive and time consuming) and thats it, all the terror woes were solved. For a guy that said he played 100s of xcom games mistakes like these are making me doubt your experience.

Incidentally i enabled the ini settings where the terror ships and such appear in my game so as to give me a chance to intercept them, and i feel game is much better for it. The 1 out of 3 mechanic does indeed force a hard choice on you, i just see it as very artificial and stupid mechanic with no justification for why it has to be (so why cant xcom build another base and another skyranger then?) beyond "just because" and "hard choices!!!!".
Let the emergent gameplay provide the challenge, not limitations like this, if i want to attempt all 3 missions then let me do it, especially given the tiny squad sizes which means i can have a small army in the barracks but only 6 of them max get to do anything.
An alternative solution would be to say terror missions are initiated by drop pod using aliens (hence why you couldnt intercept) but to simply tell the player they will forever be unable to see those ufos or intercept them no matter the tech or ships at their disposal is indefensible imo.

As for terror missions only going for the middle east, either you are horribly unlucky especially if you played 100s of games or...i got no other explanation.
There was terror missions in other countries beside middle east (looking up any xcom lp should show as much) so really not sure how to respond to that.
Now if its from a limited list i can fully believe, as i can also believe new game has a bigger list of possible city names (incidentally i love the nickname feature).

As for UFO supply ships being the most valuable in OG, isnt it the same in the new xcom too?
Not to mention the new supply ship is considerably easier to take then old one imo due to its layout and the knowledge there isnt an ethereal or sectoid commander on the top floor (also boo at removing different alien ranks like engineers or medics who would give you more info about ufo ships, other races or even the alien plans themselves, research is so much drier in this new game, though i absolutely love the little cutscenes showing autopsy).

And your last comment reminded me of another thing i hate about this new xcom: you aint really in charge of how the game progresses, you follow the campaign trail in a completely linear fasion with little room for variation between playthroughs.

Late game i agree blasterlaunchers and cheapness would mean easy peasy late game, but at least you were in control of your own progression, and dont find the whole stance of looking at the cheap tricks of OG to make the new game seem better by comparison very convincing.
Speaking of blaster launchers reminds me more of how much explosives are gone in this new game :/ Another sad loss, along with different ammo types (oh yeah weapon selection...remember how weapons had different properties and uses against different types of enemies?), but this would have more to do with smaller mission sizes and cover mechanics being more much important.

Ultratwinkie i get you like this game, you were passionately arguing for it even before it was released, but i dont see how you can argue new xcom isnt incredibly streamlined and butchered down in comparison to original. Highlighting originals faults isnt eye opening since ive had more then 10 yrs to go over what id like to see improved in original and am well aware of its weaknesses, but most of all its strengths and in how many different ways the game can be played (again, antartica challenge).
I wont argue there have been some welcome improvements especially for soldier customization and overall presentation (i will never get tired of the xcom landing/troops deploying sequences) in new xcom and that its a "good" game, but i still see it as somewhat wasted potential with far too many compromises made in order to see this game being bought to light.
Ive been able to happily play the old xcom for years and try new things, im not sure i can honestly say the same about the new xcom or that i will continue to play it in a few years time (i think mods will be the main factor in that).

Heck dunno if you saw spoonys review, but am kinda in same boat as him in i wish this new xcom was more then it was despite enjoying the game. Which is why im worried about the sequel and the direction it will take.

Doubt my experience?

This is a game where you can make more money making crap than actual council funding.

1,200,000? Chump change if you knew what you were doing.

Hard tech to get? You needed a navigator which EVERY UFO had. A small ufo was easy if the aliens had no reaction shots. Small launchers made it laughably easy.

Stun rods meant you can capture aliens after the 18 day construction time. If you knew what you were doing, hyperwave becomes an almost starting tech.

Unlike the new one, a base's hyperwave can cover more than one country than the new one's satellites. You just needed to know where to place bases.

The best place was Europe, since its a bunch of countries concentrated in a small area. Hyperwave basically ensured that those countries will always give you excellent reviews.

Streamlined and butchered? The only thing that was actually missing was the hordes of UFOs that failed to retain relevance in the late game, beyond that nothing changed.

ammo? laser weapons and useless busywork.

grenades? generally useless.

tanks? used for base defense, expensive and useless.

soldiers? cheap and cookie cutter riflemen.

Why no more than one base? ALL BASES WERE INTERCEPTOR AND RADAR BASES in the OG. Why have bases that served very little purpose when in a MODERN military they are specialized? The main base did everything you need. More space than you need.

Why no more than one skyranger? You are no longer a standing army in itself. You are special forces now, not the army The national army takes care of everything else.

You are no longer the imperial guard, you are now a squishier space marine.

Gun types? Heavy plasma blasted everything except a sectopod, but you would have a hyperwave at that point. Damage types are USELESS in the OG.

You control the story? ReallY?

The original game HAD A CAMPAIGN TOO. The only reason you didn't notice it is because the story is buried in the research archives of all things. The story wasn't front and center but it was STILL there.

Capture alien.
Capture leader.
Capture commander.
Win at cydonia and win the game.

That's the ENTIRE story. The ONLY reason it took a long time was because EVERY RANK looked the same. A SHORT story that can be completed in 10-17 hours if you cut through the bullshit.

You STILL research. You STILL produce shit.

XCOM has a changed attitude now. Its no longer optimistic. This isn't 1994 were everything was sunshine and gumdrops, 9/11 happened now everyone is fearful and depressed.

XCOM was always near future of how the current decade imagines it.

In the 90s, we thought the future would be bright, and over the top like an episode of SWAT Katz where we had laser pistols and high tech machinery.

Now, we see the future as a dystopian nightmare with climate change, high gas costs, nuclear war, the machines taking away our privacy, and a new brand of tyranny and corruption we never seen before in human history. And we can't defend against the coming storm of pain.

That's it. XCOM is the same, the only difference is that XCOM went from this:

to grimdark of the future. We no longer view humanity as a strong, unified force for good. We view ourselves divided and weak. Attitudes change over time. Thats the only thing that's different.

As for the terror missions in the middle east.

I said its Europe, China, And the Middle East. also South Africa but the rest of Africa gets left alone 99% of the time.

I think kickstarter is slowly showing publishers that their idea of what is going to sell is hideously marginalised and outdated.

Obsidian made 4 million in a month to spend on developing a game that no publisher would touch. There is no way that's going to go unnoticed.

Ultratwinkie:

snip

Bloody hell this is gonna be the battle of tldrs xP
And i dont have enough will for that so will try to respond to as many of your points as possible in as short as i can make it:

-When you say things like a single hyperwave decoder being all you need to all terror missions or that all terror attacks were only in certain areas (i got a terror attack in tokyo a few days ago in my latest run and remember a recent terror attack on Washington so know that to be BS), it does lead me to question you a bit as i know those things are false. Didnt mean offence by questioning your experience, its just odd you would say things like that, though then again i made a mistake too which i will get to after next point.

-Being able to sell alien stuff to make more money then what council gives you is still in this game so im struggling to see why you bought this up. Especially considering that in new xcom your initial funding is non existent due to having no sattelites up yet so selling stuff is particularly relevant here. Only weird thing is you cant sell what you make unless country requests for it, which is likely a balance feature to avoid being able to just build laser guns and sell them as a money making tool.
OGs problem is that your funding generally couldnt keep up with your expenses so you were forced to sell stuff to make ends meet more and more as game went on.

-As i said, i dont believe pointing out exploits of original game and cheapness to make new game look better as a convincing argument. Original game is over a decade old and is only a few mb in size, going all "well if you knew what you were doing and abused the exploits you can roflstomp the game" isnt gonna sway over the kinda guy who likes to play self imposed challenges such as antartica challenge and who now finds he cant do anything he used to and entire playstyles being eliminated with only "well at least you cant exploit the game x way" being offered as justification for that loss.

-Hyperwave decoder, i concede your right in this actually. Realized i been using ufo extender which means you need to capture an alien leader before using hyperwave decoder (ie:youd need to assault an alien base or a big ship for it), so yeh is a case of mixing up the modded patched ufo i been using with the default one most played (by same account, inventory management is less of a problem for me). So isnt a hard tech to get in vanilla indeed.
But then you needed to place those bases, and those took time and ressources (discared your recurring "lol exploit the game and get unlimited monies" argument, it has 0 worth to me) aswell as support them adequately otherwise aliens would try to seek out those bases and invade them.

-On streamlined and butchering: this is one thing you really cant argue with me no matter how much you love this game. Less alien types, smaller and non random maps, smaller squad sizes with less flexibilty to equip your troops (no the loadout screen doesnt offer such flexibility, what if you just wanna equip a dude with 6 grenades or just rocket launcher with 2nd guy carrying all the ammo?), the linearity of gun progression as well as more restrictive weapon types, less flexibility in how you approach the game (whether it be some cheap approach that exploits the game or not is irrelevant, again see antartica challenge), less varied combat situations despite handmade maps.

-Laser weapons were good against sectopods and mechanical creatures, ontop of their particularity of using no ammo
Your response about ammo management being busywork is your opinion, fair enough, but i dont agree with you on that and i aint only one who missed good inventory management (dont cite the clunky ui of original as an excuse to take it out, you improve the ui not butcher the whole thing). Fair enough if you feel this is an improvement but i really miss my autocannon explosive ammo :/
-Grenades: I dont think like you do, i want my grenades back. If they are so useless then no harm in leaving them in for those who do right? ;)

-I thought money wasnt a problem?
Regardless, i dont agree with you, besides players that would use tanks as scouts due to their high TUs and all tank runs, with such large squad sizes players could afford to take some tanks to round up their squad if they wish, it was a nice option to have and...blasterlauncher tanks :P
This entire point is moot anyways, there are SHIVS in new xcom which seem to do same role.

-Soldiers are even more cookie cutter in the new xcom default game (thank god for hidden random stats option) even if they aint all riflemen, since when it comes to stats: will and aim, thats all you have.
The only variation comes in the skill..i hesitate to call it tree cos its 2 choices max atm.
This is actually a good example of 1 steps forward, 2 steps back. As barebones as it is, the class and perk system does mean troopers act differently which is cool.
But why on earth only 2 stats? This is an example of butchering down to not get bogged down in stats and numbers which is a shame as i kinda like that, even if you dont agree this is an example of unnecessary dumbing down.

-Who are you to keep making these assumptions about how other people played original xcom? On my side alone i had trooper outposts when id sent out a veteran soldier with a few rookies as a rapid response reaction force (since ufos could strike anywhere and be out of range of main base or maybe the skyranger of main base was damaged?), dedicated scientist and engineer bases, psionic academies as well as the traditional radar and interceptor bases.
If you played OG the exact same way with no imagination, not my fault but you shouldnt use that as the main argument to removing a ton of OGs features just because you couldnlt see the point of having such options in the first place or dismiss it as busywork (did people really struggle that badly with the concept of having to produce ammo for plasma guns?)
If you played just from your starting base, then you were unable to cover the globe so whilst i dont doubt its still possible to win from 1 base (antartica challenge!), you wont be able to intercept most ufos and alien bases would spread with impunity unless you did some research work with the help of a scouting ship+checking up the graphs (ah i missed doing that...).

-The standing army/special forces argument makes no sense to me as justification for only 1 skyranger when i can have 100s of scientists, soldiers, engineers and cover the earth in sattelites and fighter craft, but still only able to use 6 men at a time. I seem to have a good standing army and even air force, so why does my transport vehicle have this limitation?
If we are gonna use 40k metaphors, space marines are kinda famous for responding to situations with flexibility (at least for most chapters) and being able to divide their forces as appropriate. So chapter master might send a single squad to help assist with raiders in 1 sector, send an entire company for a crusade or dispatch a small force led by force commander to bolster the defences of a friendly world.
They dont just have a single strike cruiser that can only manage to respond to 1 threat at a time, what limits the space marines in 40k is lack of personal cos theres only 1000 of them max, not a lack of transport.
Special forces overall are kinda meant to react faster and with more flexibility then standard forces no? This whole stance would have been better used to defend the small squad sizes (and even then its not a satisfying explanation at all) but cant be used to defend the single skyranger approach.

-End game heavy plasma was indeed god. Before that though you got different weapons and ammo types that were better against different aliens and practically innefective on others and it was an important element for non exploit hardcore xcom games even if you didnt appreciate the difference (in which case this would be an argument for further differentiating in the weapons rather then outright removing everything and just making it a purely linear progression with next gun being better in absolutely every respect.), not to mention their handling such as some being more lightweight and others being more accurate whereas in newxcom the progression is purely linear, no reason to take laser rifle when you got plasma rifle.

-I know the original had a campaign which you to piece for yourself, this isnt a revelation to me :P
What i meant by non linear campaign is how the game would progress, the spread of alien bases and your bases being taken out and experiencing strategic setbacks, alien races appearing in different order (encountering mutons or snakemen first rather then sectoids),expanding your bases and control over the globe to respond to how the alien invasion was faring in that particular game, you would advance the story naturally as situation happened and in very different circumstances, all this results in emergent gameplay which seems to be something you "cannot into" as the term goes.
If you just focused on the story important objectives then 10-17 hours is far too generous, cut away the fluff and gearing up your troops to succeed in those missions and it would probably only be 2 hours or so. New xcom when it comes to story missions and presentation does it better no argument there, what i take offence with is how predictable and samey every playthrough is, you dont get any of that organic gameplay that results from actions on the strategic map.
The new xcom is entirely built around the story missions for good or ill,

-Thank god you still research and produce. Not gonna be nitpicky here (besides research reports being dry and boring despite autopsy sequences but thats personal preference i guess) so moving on.
-Im not sure what to say about your last statements besides "mmkay".

Im up for one more tldr reply after this but doubt either of us can convince the other so perhaps i should ask you what you would want of an xcom 2 or where you would like to see improvements? Or do you really feel the game is flawless enough the way it is so sequel should be the same only with moar aliens and equipment (the route im fearing it would go)? Eugh i spent over 30 mins on this post, i might have to revoke what i said about producing another tldr reply xP

Moonlight Butterfly:
Obsidian made 4 million in a month to spend on developing a game that no publisher would touch.

That's not entirely true. It's a game that no publisher would fund development but if Feargus is to be believed, at least one publisher was 'willing' to work with Obsidian if they self funded development... and let the publisher take most of any profit... and surrendered rights to the IP...

Frankster:

Ultratwinkie:

snip

Bloody hell this is gonna be the battle of tldrs xP
And i dont have enough will for that so will try to respond to as many of your points as possible in as short as i can make it:

-When you say things like a single hyperwave decoder being all you need to all terror missions or that all terror attacks were only in certain areas (i got a terror attack in tokyo a few days ago in my latest run and remember a recent terror attack on Washington so know that to be BS), it does lead me to question you a bit as i know those things are false. Didnt mean offence by questioning your experience, its just odd you would say things like that, though then again i made a mistake too which i will get to after next point.

-As i said, i dont believe pointing out exploits of original game and cheapness to make new game look better as a convincing argument. Original game is over a decade old and is only a few mb in size, going all "well if you knew what you were doing and abused the exploits you can roflstomp the game" isnt gonna sway over the kinda guy who likes to play self imposed challenges such as antartica challenge and who now finds he cant do anything he used to and entire playstyles being eliminated with only "well at least you cant exploit the game x way" being offered as justification for that loss.

-Hyperwave decoder, i concede your right in this actually. Realized i been using ufo extender which means you need to capture an alien leader before using hyperwave decoder (ie:youd need to assault an alien base or a big ship for it), so yeh is a case of mixing up the modded patched ufo i been using with the default one most played (by same account, inventory management is less of a problem for me). So isnt a hard tech to get in vanilla indeed.
But then you needed to place those bases, and those took time and ressources (discared your recurring "lol exploit the game and get unlimited monies" argument, it has 0 worth to me) aswell as support them adequately otherwise aliens would try to seek out those bases and invade them.

-On streamlined and butchering: this is one thing you really cant argue with me no matter how much you love this game. Less alien types, smaller and non random maps, smaller squad sizes with less flexibilty to equip your troops (no the loadout screen doesnt offer such flexibility, what if you just wanna equip a dude with 6 grenades or just rocket launcher with 2nd guy carrying all the ammo?), the linearity of gun progression as well as more restrictive weapon types, less flexibility in how you approach the game (whether it be some cheap approach that exploits the game or not is irrelevant, again see antartica challenge), less varied combat situations despite handmade maps.

-Laser weapons were good against sectopods and mechanical creatures, ontop of their particularity of using no ammo
Your response about ammo management being busywork is your opinion, fair enough, but i dont agree with you on that and i aint only one who missed good inventory management (dont cite the clunky ui of original as an excuse to take it out, you improve the ui not butcher the whole thing). Fair enough if you feel this is an improvement but i really miss my autocannon explosive ammo :/
-Grenades: I dont think like you do, i want my grenades back. If they are so useless then no harm in leaving them in for those who do right? ;)

-I thought money wasnt a problem?
Regardless, i dont agree with you, besides players that would use tanks as scouts due to their high TUs and all tank runs, with such large squad sizes players could afford to take some tanks to round up their squad if they wish, it was a nice option to have and...blasterlauncher tanks :P
This entire point is moot anyways, there are SHIVS in new xcom which seem to do same role.

-Soldiers are even more cookie cutter in the new xcom default game (thank god for hidden random stats option) even if they aint all riflemen, since when it comes to stats: will and aim, thats all you have.
The only variation comes in the skill..i hesitate to call it tree cos its 2 choices max atm.
This is actually a good example of 1 steps forward, 2 steps back. As barebones as it is, the class and perk system does mean troopers act differently which is cool.
But why on earth only 2 stats? This is an example of butchering down to not get bogged down in stats and numbers which is a shame as i kinda like that, even if you dont agree this is an example of unnecessary dumbing down.

-Who are you to keep making these assumptions about how other people played original xcom? On my side alone i had trooper outposts when id sent out a veteran soldier with a few rookies as a rapid response reaction force (since ufos could strike anywhere and be out of range of main base or maybe the skyranger of main base was damaged?), dedicated scientist and engineer bases, psionic academies as well as the traditional radar and interceptor bases.
If you played OG the exact same way with no imagination, not my fault but you shouldnt use that as the main argument to removing a ton of OGs features just because you couldnlt see the point of having such options in the first place or dismiss it as busywork (did people really struggle that badly with the concept of having to produce ammo for plasma guns?)
If you played just from your starting base, then you were unable to cover the globe so whilst i dont doubt its still possible to win from 1 base (antartica challenge!), you wont be able to intercept most ufos and alien bases would spread with impunity unless you did some research work with the help of a scouting ship+checking up the graphs (ah i missed doing that...).

-The standing army/special forces argument makes no sense to me as justification for only 1 skyranger when i can have 100s of scientists, soldiers, engineers and cover the earth in sattelites and fighter craft, but still only able to use 6 men at a time. I seem to have a good standing army and even air force, so why does my transport vehicle have this limitation?
If we are gonna use 40k metaphors, space marines are kinda famous for responding to situations with flexibility (at least for most chapters) and being able to divide their forces as appropriate. So chapter master might send a single squad to help assist with raiders in 1 sector, send an entire company for a crusade or dispatch a small force led by force commander to bolster the defences of a friendly world.
They dont just have a single strike cruiser that can only manage to respond to 1 threat at a time, what limits the space marines in 40k is lack of personal cos theres only 1000 of them max, not a lack of transport.
Special forces overall are kinda meant to react faster and with more flexibility then standard forces no? This whole stance would have been better used to defend the small squad sizes (and even then its not a satisfying explanation at all) but cant be used to defend the single skyranger approach.

-End game heavy plasma was indeed god. Before that though you got different weapons and ammo types that were better against different aliens and practically innefective on others and it was an important element for non exploit hardcore xcom games even if you didnt appreciate the difference (in which case this would be an argument for further differentiating in the weapons rather then outright removing everything and just making it a purely linear progression with next gun being better in absolutely every respect.), not to mention their handling such as some being more lightweight and others being more accurate whereas in newxcom the progression is purely linear, no reason to take laser rifle when you got plasma rifle.

-I know the original had a campaign which you to piece for itself, this isnt a revelation to me :P
What i meant by non linear campaign is how the game would progress, the spread of alien bases and your bases being taken out and experiencing strategic setbacks, alien races appearing in different order (encountering mutons or snakemen first rather then sectoids),expanding your bases and control over the globe to respond to how the alien invasion was faring in that particular game, you would advance the story naturally as situation happened and in very different circumstances, all this results in emergent gameplay which seems to be something you "cannot into" as the term goes.
If you just focused on the story important objectives then 10-17 hours is far too generous, cut away the fluff and gearing up your troops to succeed in those missions and it would probably only be 2 hours or so. New xcom when it comes to story missions and presentation does it better no argument there, what i take offence with is how predictable and samey every playthrough is, you dont get any of that organic gameplay that results from actions on the strategic map.
The new xcom is entirely built around the story missions for good or ill,

-Thank god you still research and produce. Not gonna be nitpicky here (besides research reports being dry and boring despite autopsy sequences but thats personal preference i guess) so moving on.
-Im not sure what to say about your last statements besides "mmkay".

Im up for one more tldr reply after this but doubt either of us can convince the other so perhaps i should ask you what you would want of an xcom 2 or where you would like to see improvements? Or do you really feel the game is flawless enough the way it is so sequel should be the same only with moar aliens and equipment (the route im fearing it would go)? Eugh i spent over 30 mins on this post, i might have to revoke what i said about producing another tldr reply xP

1. FEWER ALIENS?

Here is the ENTIRE spectrum of aliens that you regularly encounter.

sectoids, ethereals, mutons, snakemen, and floaters in the original 1994 game. Reapers were laughably useless and ran away, Muton terror units had the same problem. The only aliens that worked were chrysallids, sectopods, and cyberdiscs.

The difference? RANKS that meant NOTHING 99% of the time. Hardly a "diverse" roster of enemies. The ONLY way to tell the difference was to bring a rookie equipped with a mind probe and sit his ass back at the skyranger so you can tell who is who.

What does the new game have?

2 different sectoids. 3 different mutons. Snakemen are now thin men. Ethereals. 2 different floaters.

That's 10 types of aliens compared to a measly 5 the OG game had. More enemy types than the original.

2. Guns are RESTRICTING? All you would EVER use was Laser rifles or Heavy plasma. The progression would normally be.

Rifles -> Laser rifles -> Heavy Plasma

All conventional weapons were useless. Especially the heavy cannon. Yet the conventional weapons had the most diversity.

Its the SAME ATTITUDE from the original. The only difference is them taking out useless mind probes, and stun launchers. Since stun launchers never made any god damn sense for an alien to have since they would need to go to the cities to abduct in broad daylight. Mind probes served little purpose other than to find commanders and leaders.

3. Experiencing a certain race out of order? It was always the same progression in the OG. The only reason for it to pass you by was that you were sitting on your ass in a tucked away part of the world for months on end.

4. The way people approached the OG was the same. The only time you needed an engineer base was to brute force your way to exploit-ville.

The scientist bases were useless and took too long to build. All you needed was 2 labs and you can sick 100 scientists on practically every tech and get results almost immediately.

5. HWPs took 4 squad slots. That is too costly, since the plasma cannon was overkill and had less damage than the normal heavy plasma.

Plasma tank did 110 damage.

Heavy plasma does 115.

For a tank that takes up 4 soldier slots, that is not cost effective.

4 heavy plasmas do 460+ damage. Do you really want to replace that with a 110 damage behemoth that costs a million dollars and takes one shot and dies? Since 90 health is pretty much NOTHING to late game heavy plasma aliens?

6. BEFORE you get heavy plasma? Heavy plasma is able to be found in the early game, since rushing for a craft plasma cannon meant you got a strong foothold. Plasma pistols and rifles were useless. You didn't even need to research the plasma guns in order of size. Just rush heavy plasma.

After the 1-3rd mission, you had the majority of the arsenal the aliens had. After the 2nd month you should be clearing out the warehouse of everything else except plasma or lasers.

XCOM gave everything up front. You should have had enough plasma/lasers to outfit a sizable group by the second month and selling everything else.

As for XCOM 2:

Either a less colorful terror from the deep or have the the "big bad" the Ethereals kept harping on about should come along.

RhombusHatesYou:

Moonlight Butterfly:
Obsidian made 4 million in a month to spend on developing a game that no publisher would touch.

That's not entirely true. It's a game that no publisher would fund development but if Feargus is to be believed, at least one publisher was 'willing' to work with Obsidian if they self funded development... and let the publisher take most of any profit... and surrendered rights to the IP...

My impression was that the publisher was talking about a new project, not Project Eternity.

RhombusHatesYou:

Moonlight Butterfly:
Obsidian made 4 million in a month to spend on developing a game that no publisher would touch.

That's not entirely true. It's a game that no publisher would fund development but if Feargus is to be believed, at least one publisher was 'willing' to work with Obsidian if they self funded development... and let the publisher take most of any profit... and surrendered rights to the IP...

What happened was a publisher approached Obsidian and wanted to use their name to fund another Kickstarter project. Obsidian would make it but the publisher would keep most of the profits and retain the IP rights.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/09/19/publishers-wanted-obsidian-to-use-kickstarter/

Tien Shen:

RhombusHatesYou:

Moonlight Butterfly:
Obsidian made 4 million in a month to spend on developing a game that no publisher would touch.

That's not entirely true. It's a game that no publisher would fund development but if Feargus is to be believed, at least one publisher was 'willing' to work with Obsidian if they self funded development... and let the publisher take most of any profit... and surrendered rights to the IP...

What happened was a publisher approached Obsidian and wanted to use their name to fund another Kickstarter project. Obsidian would make it but the publisher would keep most of the profits and retain the IP rights.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/09/19/publishers-wanted-obsidian-to-use-kickstarter/

Yeah I know I was on the Kickstarter chat when he said it, it's bloody despicable. Obsidian basically get nothing out of that deal and the publisher makes 100% profit as the backers are paying for it. They must have been on crack if they thought Obs would go for that.

The Crotch:

RhombusHatesYou:

Moonlight Butterfly:
Obsidian made 4 million in a month to spend on developing a game that no publisher would touch.

That's not entirely true. It's a game that no publisher would fund development but if Feargus is to be believed, at least one publisher was 'willing' to work with Obsidian if they self funded development... and let the publisher take most of any profit... and surrendered rights to the IP...

My impression was that the publisher was talking about a new project, not Project Eternity.

Hmmm... Yeah, I didn't mean Project Eternity. The afternoon bourbons share part of the blame for me not making that clear and shall be punished by being drowned in bourbon.

Still, my actual point was that Publishers were already quite well aware of the potential of kickstarter and are just trying to figure out how they can exploit it for themselves... and do it in a way that doesn't look like they're abusing the crowdfunding system (ie, keep their names out of it).

Ultratwinkie:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/10/31/xcom-enemy-unknown-a-success-more-dlc-coming.aspx

Take-Two, the parent company of 2K Games and Rockstar Games, said XCOM: Enemy Unknown was a commercial success and that fans can expect to see more content for the game sometime next year.

"The title is proving to be a critical and commercial success, with strong digital sales and a near 90 average review score on Metacritic," Take-Two said in a statement. "XCOM: Enemy Unknown is being supported with two downloadable add-on content packages available this year, with additional content planned for 2013."

The two content packs that were previously announced include the Slingshot Pack and the Elite Soldier Pack.

Take-Two did not disclose any sales numbers for the game at this time, however.

I am honestly surprised in this day and age. Its now official.

What was that about strategy games being "not contemporary?" Again?

Oh yeah, 2K is eating its own words.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/13/2k-strategy-games-not-contemporary/

Its a damn miracle a non-FPS XCOM happened at all, now its a double miracle that 2K got a return out of it by following the original formula instead of going all Call of Duty on it.

So what do you think? Will this have any impact on the industry? Possibly challenge the notion that gamers are "retards that need their hand held?"

Will it challenge the notion that you NEED to follow COD to make a profit?

So what do you think?

Anything that leads to more people being too distracted to call me a dumbass for enjoying FPS games is great.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Obsidian basically get nothing out of that deal and the publisher makes 100% profit as the backers are paying for it.

Not to mention that you could bet a vital organ that the Publisher would have a list of demands for the game to conform to...

But they woud pick up the tab for Marketing and Distribution... pfft... pffffffttt.. BWAHAHAHA!

Sorry, couldn't help that.

Ultratwinkie:

All conventional weapons were useless. Especially the heavy cannon.

Lolwut? At soon as i read that you lost some credibility in my eyes, i know xcom players who would crucify you for speaking of their weapon of choice like that (hint: it has to do with ammo types).
Gonna try and rush through this post as fast as i can, having said id do one more tldr post and all.

Regarding alien variety, a brief look up puts it as 15 vs 11:
http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Alien_Life_Forms_%28EU2012%29
http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Overviews_of_Aliens
Very well if you don't count in ranks for OG (i feel commanders should count as another entitiy due to being palette swapped+having way better stats same as honor muton guard or hvy floater, but k, il roll with this), then you're right, alien variety in new game is better despite there being less races overall, it just seems to be more varied as you'd encounter forces from a specific race separately as opposed to a mish mash of everything.

That thing of assuming how you played OG was way everyone played it (screw your maths, i want a tank in my squad, with a squad size of 24 i can get away with it, not to mention just looking at damage output comparison is just silly), you did it again, and making false assumptions to boot (nope the race progression in OG wasnt linear, its well documented and not infrequent to start with mutons or snakemen instead of sectoids. Cant believe you didnt see this in your "hundreds" of games.) aswell as citing exploits of the original game or obvious weaknesses which ive said before isnt a particular convincing argument, especially given the prevalance of patches that fix things you keep bringing up.

So yeah your stance falls flat with me because you keep pushing this "lol i exploit vanilla game, get heavy plasma each time, gg xcom" approach, gratz dude you broke the game and beat it easily in a ways that weren't intended, i get it but isnt swaying me as i didnt use those exploits and have patched my game.

Otherwise to end on a more friendly note, k so you seem pretty cool with new xcom and dont want any big changes, very well ill respect that. But doesnt change my feelings: new xcom is xcom lite and has very limited replayability (though i have great hopes the modding scene might "save" the game in this regard), i am hoping the next one will reduce the "liteness" somewhat whilst continuing to expand on its strengths (character customization, presentation, its quite flashy for a strategy game gotta admit). We will see when time comes.

No. Its not going to change the industry because the industry is either less or more shallow then your opinion of it. Many developers do what they want and don't care much for flash-in-the-pan things like 'this one game was good, let's copy it!' and others follow the current trend, which usually is not set by a single game.

Also, boo on you for your statements. Plenty of strategy games get made today and XCOM is just one of them. The statement 'retards that need their hand held' also makes me want to punt baby seals since it displays the kind of gross ignorance of basic game design that plagues far too many gamers.

Frankster:

Ultratwinkie:

All conventional weapons were useless. Especially the heavy cannon.

Lolwut? At soon as i read that you lost some credibility in my eyes, i know xcom players who would crucify you for speaking of their weapon of choice like that (hint: it has to do with ammo types).
Gonna try and rush through this post as fast as i can, having said id do one more tldr post and all.

Regarding alien variety, a brief look up puts it as 15 vs 11:
http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Alien_Life_Forms_%28EU2012%29
http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Overviews_of_Aliens
Very well if you don't count in ranks for OG (i feel commanders should count as another entitiy due to being palette swapped+having way better stats same as honor muton guard or hvy floater, but k, il roll with this), then you're right, alien variety in new game is better despite there being less races overall, it just seems to be more varied as you'd encounter forces from a specific race separately as opposed to a mish mash of everything.

That thing of assuming how you played OG was way everyone played it (screw your maths, i want a tank in my squad, with a squad size of 24 i can get away with it, not to mention just looking at damage output comparison is just silly), you did it again, and making false assumptions to boot (nope the race progression in OG wasnt linear, its well documented and not infrequent to start with mutons or snakemen instead of sectoids. Cant believe you didnt see this in your "hundreds" of games.) aswell as citing exploits of the original game or obvious weaknesses which ive said before isnt a particular convincing argument, especially given the prevalance of patches that fix things you keep bringing up.

So yeah your stance falls flat with me because you keep pushing this "lol i exploit vanilla game, get heavy plasma each time, gg xcom" approach, gratz dude you broke the game and beat it easily in a ways that weren't intended, i get it but isnt swaying me as i didnt use those exploits and have patched my game.

Otherwise to end on a more friendly note, k so you seem pretty cool with new xcom and dont want any big changes, very well ill respect that. But doesnt change my feelings: new xcom is xcom lite and has very limited replayability (though i have great hopes the modding scene might "save" the game in this regard), i am hoping the next one will reduce the "liteness" somewhat whilst continuing to expand on its strengths (character customization, presentation, its quite flashy for a strategy game gotta admit). We will see when time comes.

1. The teirs are always the same.

starts are:

Sectoids or floaters.

Mid game:

Snakemen or possibly Mutons. Longest period of the game.

End game:

Ethereals or mutons. Maybe even snakemen. Mostly muton.

The difficulty is bugged, meaning it always follows beginner rules after the first battle.

2. commanders do NOT get anything different in terms of looks. In fact, the muton commander doesn't even appear in the game with his red leotard. Hell, he shouldn't even exist since mutons are documented to only be soldiers.

This is assuming your UFO extender doesn't run mods. Which it most likely does.

3. in the XCOM wiki it expressly states the plasma cannon on the HWP does the same damage as the laser cannon variety. The only difference is the accuracy. Which alone is useless since it has a base of 60.

I remember screening soldiers for anything below 50-60 accuracy. Since anything below means they are useless. It also means shorter training times where my soldiers turn into late game master snipers with the damage of heavy plasma.

4. There may be "less races" but the only ones taken out are the useless ones that do nothing but give you freebies in the battle scape.

hell, you can even say the same for the original floaters, because their super power was going to the second floor and staying there. Floaters were the bud of every joke in XCOM not directed at the reaper.

There is a reason I call floater terror mission squads the "loser brigade."

Twilight_guy:
No. Its not going to change the industry because the industry is either less or more shallow then your opinion of it. Many developers do what they want and don't care much for flash-in-the-pan things like 'this one game was good, let's copy it!' and others follow the current trend, which usually is not set by a single game.

Also, boo on you for your statements. Plenty of strategy games get made today and XCOM is just one of them. The statement 'retards that need their hand held' also makes me want to punt baby seals since it displays the kind of gross ignorance of basic game design that plagues far too many gamers.

Actually 2K thinks very low of gamers. They view gamers as 10 year olds who need to be told everything.

Its why I asked if this will debunk that mentality.

Ultratwinkie:
snip

You are really going to have to take my word about snakemen or mutons being the first race used in place of sectoids im afraid (i wish some other xcom vet would pitch in and confirm this), i am not BSing you on that and its not a mod related change.

Also the commander thing might be mod related i guess, in which case i insist if you ever replay old xcom to check this page out: http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Game_editors The first 2 being particularly relevant, getting both ufo extender and xcomutil to work together is orgasmic and makes for best possible OG experience.

And what i meant about HWP not being judged just on firepower is that its also a very solid unit that you can rely on tanking some hits and not dieing (in theory...) and with its high TUs it made a great unit to scour ahead or first unit out of skyranger.

Also regarding floaters, the flanking mechanic gave them a welcome lease of life in new xcom, definitly agree with the loser brigade classification xP Id always sigh in relief when i realized it was floaters back in OG.

KissmahArceus:
I'd love to see Syndicate using the XCOM:Enemy Unknown engine and expand upon it.
Hell, I just want more TBS games for 360!

It's just the Unreal engine, actually.

And, after an 18 hour session with the game I can say this with complete certainty: dear sweet god, I hate that game's interface.

More than once I sent some trooper to an ignominious death because it appeared that I was clicking to send said trooper to the edge of a ledge when instead I had actually told them to jump off said ledge into the slavering jaws of countless monsters and space horrors.

Beyond that, though, it's pretty good.

Frankster:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

You are really going to have to take my word about snakemen or mutons being the first race used in place of sectoids im afraid (i wish some other xcom vet would pitch in and confirm this), i am not BSing you on that and its not a mod related change.

I am pitching in and confirming this. I've had Snakemen as the first enemies I've encountered.

BloatedGuppy:

Metalhandkerchief:
The Secret World, while shell-shocking/ confusing reviewers into exploding their review scales...

Almost a million people played in the beta. Less than 1 in 5 bought it on release. Retention of even that tiny pool of customers has been below 50% (mind you, that is industry standard). Are we STILL playing "blame the metacritic" when it comes to TSW's shitbag sales? Are we EVER going to cast a critical eye on the game itself?

I blame a number of things for TSW's poor sales.

1. Funcom's poor beta, which portrayed the most boring/ campy/ clichéd zones of the game and never let players even get as far as see the first few faction-specific missions, which is incidentally the first "OMG THIS IS AMAZING!!!one!1" hook of the game (after Blue Mountain, before Scorched Desert)

2. The many optional features of the game that were confusing to beginners, making new players feel overwhelmed.

3. The lack of a great tutorial. I bet 99.9% of the people who didn't end up buying it didn't know of all the quality of life features built into it, like the search function in the skill wheel.

4. Guild Wars 2. Not a better game, but definitely hyped harder.

5. Most if not as many as 9 out of 10 reviewers made it really REALLY obvious in their review that they never played past the first 2 zones.

6. So, to summarize, partly I do blame Metacritic. Simply because "reviews" from sources as mentioned in #5 should not only not be displayed on a website that is supposed to "help" consumers picking games, but also because those "critics" should be beaten with a heavy spiked stick.

KoudelkaMorgan:
Its funny how I have no experience with the previous Xcom games, and had zero interest in the new one but after watching the Angry Joe review and ZP it actually sounds like something I'd be into.

I wasn't all that interested either. Before it came out people kept saying it'd be great, but it didn't pique my interest. Then a friend bought it and suggested I tried it.

Downloaded the PC demo, 5 minutes in I decided I wanted to get it.

Something of a rarity really considering most demo's tend to put me off of games, rather than buy them.

It won't make much difference on a large scale; people take video games too seriously now to go too far out of the established comfort zone, and until that changes on the whole, stuff like Call of Battlefield will be a standard. People freak the fuck out when they see something as a challenge against their identity, and developers certainly don't mind having to put out less work for the masses to eat it up, either.

On a small scale, this might make smaller developers more willing to try something new, but what most developers don't know in general - and high-profile ones don't care about, because it requires more work - is that almost any game that's pretty good and finds its way into the public eye will sell. Yeah, you have to pander to certain presentation standards, as it won't win over the more shallow consumers' initial attention without it, but on the whole, once you've got them, all you have to do is make a game that's not bad, which isn't as hard as it's made out to be.

In short, X-COM hasn't done anything crazy. It just did what most games with millions of dollars behind them should: attempt to bring its own kind of experience to players. It wanted to have its own identity, despite the nay-saying, and it did that while giving people a good game. Good for them, and for the industry.

Hargrimm:

I've had Snakemen as the first enemies I've encountered.

Cheers for that. *brofists*

Xenonauts is shaping up to be a lot of fun. :D

Metalhandkerchief:
I blame a number of things for TSW's poor sales

We're derailing and BADLY off topic, but I do want to reply to this.

Metalhandkerchief:
1. Funcom's poor beta, which portrayed the most boring/ campy/ clichéd zones of the game and never let players even get as far as see the first few faction-specific missions, which is incidentally the first "OMG THIS IS AMAZING!!!one!1" hook of the game (after Blue Mountain, before Scorched Desert)

Fair. Beta was a mess, but it still got to show off investigative missions, which were the strongest selling point of the game, and did NOT show off the tedious loot/raid treadmill shackled onto the back end.

Metalhandkerchief:
2. The many optional features of the game that were confusing to beginners, making new players feel overwhelmed.

I don't buy this. Genre fans tend to be very savvy, and TSW was not THAT complicated. I've never quit a game because it seemed too deep and compelling.

Metalhandkerchief:
4. Guild Wars 2. Not a better game, but definitely hyped harder.

Well for starters, I'll disagree, although I think they're closer in quality than their respective fan bases would indicate. I would like an explanation, if you feel capable of supplying one, of the ENDURING hard on that TSW fans have for GW2. I spent a lot of time on TSW forums, and the level of vitriol there for GW2 was literally off the charts. We're talking stream of conciousness, profanity laden tirades about every single feature under the sun, with a degree of boiling hate people usually reserve for serial killers or mortal enemies. I've run into MMO tribalism before, and I know it's de riguer to hate the competition, but I've never seen such concentrated loathing for a competitor before...particularly a competitor that hadn't even been released yet. I heard a few half-assed explanations at the time...everything from "TSW is the thinking man's game!" to "Adults prefer zombies and conspiracies to fantasy!", and frankly they all gave me a headache.

RANT ON. I'll say it now, and this is not directed to you, but at those forums...I've never run into such a pack of insular, rabid, xenophobic, hateful fanboys (and god I hate that word, but it applies) as the crew on TSW forums. The thought that you could (GASP) enjoy more than one game was absolutely alien to these people. Just the snottiest, shittiest, most hateful community imaginable. RANT OVER.

Metalhandkerchief:
5. Most if not as many as 9 out of 10 reviewers made it really REALLY obvious in their review that they never played past the first 2 zones.

6. So, to summarize, partly I do blame Metacritic. Simply because "reviews" from sources as mentioned in #5 should not only not be displayed on a website that is supposed to "help" consumers picking games, but also because those "critics" should be beaten with a heavy spiked stick.

And this is my second problem, which brings me back to "we're blaming Metacritic?". If the basic premise is that reviews can be bought and paid for and reviewers are unprofessional shills, then I have to ask...why weren't THESE reviews bought and paid for? Is Funcom too NOBLE to buy reviews? Why are they meant to be biased FOR some games, and biased AGAINST others, in unison? Why is it the degree of their bias always happens to mirror in inverse the bias of the person accusing them?

Further, why was the community so quick to hand-wave the bad review scores, and so quick to embrace the high user scores, right down to Tornqvist himself referencing them in a state of the game address? I might add there was over 100 10/10 user scores on day one of the game's release. Little fishy, wouldn't you say? Those same scores on any other game (say, GW2) would have been immediately vilified and dismissed by TSW community. Instead, they were embraced and celebrated as the "true" reflection of the game's quality.

I see people very quick to endorse critical reviews when they echo one's beliefs, and very quick to dismiss them as corrupt or bankrupt when they do not.

I'll give you my own reasons for the poor reception TSW got. I'm not going to blame metacritic. I'm not going to blame the PLAYERS, as one long thread on those forums hilariously tried to do. I'm going to blame...

1. Funcom. They had a (richly deserved) reputation for questionable launches, earned with AoC and AO. A buggy, flawed beta quite rightly raised specters of both those games in the minds of potential buyers.

2. Launch Window. Releasing your game immediately before two higher profile titles in MoP and GW2 was the height of stupidity. That it wasn't ready for prime time yet made a bad situation even worse. A Halloween launch window would've positioned them nicely to siphon off fickle fans from both games, and captured an audience looking for something spooky to play, and given them more time to polish the game.

3. Lack of ambition/daring. TSW actually suffers to some degree from TOR-itis. It has some brilliant innovations that are very welcome, and then staples them to the side of very anachronistic (and not particularly compelling) MMO. As a single player or co-op game, with no tedious MMO time sink mechanics, this could've been a very special title. Instead, it got tagged as "ambitious but flawed", which is pretty much on the nose. That its best features have a niche appeal is also problematic, but there is room for niche games in the industry.

4. Triple dippin' in the land of FTP. You know as I do this is a matter of some contention in the community, and rightly so. I'm a fan of the old-school sub model where you plunk down your $15 and get EVERYTHING, but this is the new school sub model where you plunk down your $15 and oh look here's a cash shop on the side. Yes, the cash shop was cosmetic and relatively benign, but the optics were TERRIBLE for new players, especially since the rubbish character creation could've badly used some of that cash shop swag to beef it up closer to industry standard. Even having a sub fee is extremely problematic in today's MMO genre, as everyone and their son is floating out FTP models which are leeching away players in what is already an incredibly over-saturated market. It's very hard to compete with "free" unless your game has an overwhelming strength it can bank on, like WoW's staggering content depth, or EVE's sandbox appeal. TSW, as a baby-faced IP with limited launch content and plenty of growing pains, had nothing to justify the cost.

I actually kind of like TSW, but then I like games. I've been a big fan of Ragnar for a long time, and I really like that they tried to push things in some new directions. I'm sad at how badly it bombed, it's one of the most crushing failures for a launch MMO of all time, and I think it could have been avoided. But I HATE the community, and I HATE the excuses, and I HATE the hard-on they have for the competition. One of the most recent threads I read on there before just ditching the forums and not looking back was a long diatribe about how TSW was too GOOD to ever be popular, because you could only be one or the other, and rather than get a stack of infractions for sharing my opinion of that perspective I decided enough was enough and I just didn't want to deal with these people any more.

TLDR - Funcom has no one to blame for TSW's horrible sales but themselves.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked