Don't fix what isn't broken.

#1 Posted by drake7uabedu (1 posts) -

Firaxis et al

On behalf of gamers everywhere; all you have to do to make this game AMAZING is a graphical update and some small gameplay (AI for instance) tweaks. Take the example of other older games with amazing gameplay that developers wanted to "improve" upon. The games were mediocre at best and the "improvments" were the cause.

The original XCOM can be run on most phones nowadays with processing power to spare, but people still play it. Not for the bells and whistles and certainly not for the massive pizza sized pixels, it's the gameplay. This is pretty much the Holy Grail of classic computer games. Don't screw it up.

#2 Posted by Cristhian_Cobas (5 posts) -

Though I tend to agree, there's something that needs to be done for new players... I believe this will be appealing to both old hardcore fans and new gamers alike... industry evolves, and everything else has to evolve with it... I've seen teenagers telling me "what a crappy game" when they see me playing the original UFO/XCOM... I just look at them, smile and say nothing... that's when I realize I'm part of a generation of gamers that do have the purchansing power to buy, but that are not as a big group as the FPS or Action game fanboys of today... This game has a lot riding on it... first it can open up Firaxis' devs to making more of these games (maybe some more reimagineings) and other devs to actually make an effort to make great games like this... and the second is to achieve the sales goal so it can become a top selling franchise again (and of course, kill that crappy Microprose shooter that they wanted to make... staying true to the original)

 

Anyways, I'm still rooting for this one... and if it succeeds, it will most likely open up some doors for the genre in consoles (which I believe NEED good strat/squad/tactical games...)

#4 Posted by pbriga (7 posts) -
I agree 101% !
#7 Posted by Zippon (189 posts) -

If they only did a graphical and AI update, nobody would buy it.  People would complain that it was too close to the original and complain that it was a ripoff.  If you want to play the original, play the original.

The gaming culture has changed dramatically in 18 years, like it or not.  And X-COM: UFO Defense has had nearly a half dozen mediocre to awful attempts at a sequel.  Firaxis trying their own spin is nothing new to this franchise.  If you want a shot at enjoying it, keep an open mind and don't expect a straight up remake.  XCOM is a different game, but it still manages to be a lot of fun.

#8 Posted by Valence202 (1 posts) -

I literally just played the demo on Steam about a few seconds ago! I own the old version of this game and in fact I played it about 10 years ago and was hooked , but when I got the old steam version I just wasnt as thrilled with it because the 200 other games I have just pulled me away from it so it sits there downloaded but I never play it! But then I started to see trailers on Gamespot , IGN , PC Gamer , etc... about the upcoming XCOM and I got excited. When I saw a video and heard the developer talk about how he played the game a while back I was very happy that they got someone who respected the games unique quality to modernize it , and then a few weeks,  later last night in fact , around midnight after playing GhostRecon online and being tired getting ready to go to bed I came across the news that XCOM had a demo out so I downloaded it and went to bed. The first thing I did when I got up was play this demo and at first It was like in control of most everything and I became disheartened as I thought for one thing you cant revolve the screen around to gain the needed perspective in combat situations, but later on that worry was assuaged although it was on toggle it is good enough but should be more in players control that will have to be patched , the gameplay and graphics were incredible , I was enthralled , I cannot wait to buy this game , even the presentation of the headquarters the launching of the plane that carries the soldiers to each mission , the way the soldiers look like they are elite but still have that look of a game ( so it is somewhat kid friendly I presume) and after all we all have a kid in us, those of us that play these PC games at an advanced age (ahem) and now feel as though " hey we are now in the golden age of pc gaming , why should I deny myself this moment I dreamed of as a teenager , and then a young adult and now an older young adult! A continually aging young adult! I love these games and this one is special to me. That designer did one hell of a good job , I will play the crap out of this game when I aquire it. and it isn't sixty bucks! Hallaleujah! Bless you 2K! I can't wait to see the endgame I just hope it takes about a month or so to get there! I remember filling up notebooks when I was a teen with my squads stats on it and updating it as they progressed , it was a simple awesome game back then but I still played it more than any other. Again , I say good job developer dude. You are a good doobie.

#9 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -
I agree 2000% with don't fix what isn't broken. Not saying there wasn't broken things in the original, if the just fixed those gave it a nice graphical update expanded the gameplay with the fallout style shots (the original had different armour amount for front back head and legs), if they expanded that so you could target specific body parts and cripple aliens then that would be an improvement. Streamlining features of the game as they call it dose not add anything to the game. I can;t think of a single thing in the original that needed streamlining to make it better, although I did hate mind control as it was unbalanced and annoying. They could have cut that out and I would probably be more happy for it. I think Firaxis think that hunting down the last alien is boring, but it's not. A simple AI tweak could have fixed it if it was that much of an annoyance anyway so... as for the AI whats it like now? improved?
#10 Posted by stan_boyd (4923 posts) -
I disagree, while I did enjoy the old Xcom, I am enjoying this one even more. No longer do I have aliens "camping" outside of my ship and taking over one of my troops and tossing a grenade or firing a rocket killing my ENTIRE squad before I even get a turn. No more do I need to do a crapload of math which I am grateful for, I am not a student anymore I don't want to sit there and do math all day I just want to enjoy the game. Also the pacing is in my opinion is better cause the maps are smaller and I have less troops to worry about. I don't want to spend 2 hours on 1 map.
#11 Posted by dzimm (4651 posts) -

On behalf of gamers everywhere; all you have to do to make this game AMAZING is a graphical update and some small gameplay (AI for instance) tweaks.drake7uabedu

Then you'd have a bunch of whiners saying, "WTF!  This is just the same game I played in 1994 with a graphical update!"

#12 Posted by stan_boyd (4923 posts) -

[QUOTE="drake7uabedu"]On behalf of gamers everywhere; all you have to do to make this game AMAZING is a graphical update and some small gameplay (AI for instance) tweaks.dzimm

Then you'd have a bunch of whiners saying, "WTF!  This is just the same game I played in 1994 with a graphical update!"

Ha ha so true, look at all the people who complain about CoD just putting out the same game with new maps over and over :P
#13 Posted by drwaldy (6 posts) -

Disagree 100%. I loved the original, still do. But this game improves on it in nearly every aspect. It simplifies, not dumbs down. Multiple base management became a pain in the ass later on in the game. Not worrying about time units is GREAT. 6 units (easily upgradable) is a perfect amount for the size of matches. You can rotate the camera if you can't see something properly. Etc. etc.

And if you want to play a mere graphical update, go play Xenonauts.

#14 Posted by branes (12 posts) -

I disagree, while I did enjoy the old Xcom, I am enjoying this one even more. No longer do I have aliens "camping" outside of my ship and taking over one of my troops and tossing a grenade or firing a rocket killing my ENTIRE squad before I even get a turn. No more do I need to do a crapload of math which I am grateful for, I am not a student anymore I don't want to sit there and do math all day I just want to enjoy the game. Also the pacing is in my opinion is better cause the maps are smaller and I have less troops to worry about. I don't want to spend 2 hours on 1 map. stan_boyd

 

And there is the reason why this game is not very good. It's appealing to just this attitude. I don't want to have to think too hard in a game. I don't want to spend 2 hours on one map. So, here's my response. Don't play XCom because that's what XCom was..a turn-based, time consuming, brain numbing, move by careful move, soldier by soldier, tactical combat game. It was a micromanager's dream game, like MOO and CIV but with really great combat.

When you take that away, you no longer have XCom. You have a nice modern 3rd person sci-fi team shooter with a few strategic features with the XCom named tacked onto it. No better, in fact, in some cases, worse than UFO: Aftermath and all the other XCom wannabees. Sorry, but this game is just another wannabee with the old name.

#15 Posted by stan_boyd (4923 posts) -
Have you played it, the tactics and difficulty are still there. Its just the number crunching has been done for you in the background. If you don't build your squad right and do your research right you can get to a point where its impossible to win and have to start all over again. I had to restart twice because I made bad decisions. I thought if I beef up my armor and weapons right away I could be successful. But what good are those weapons and armor if your interceptor is too weak to shoot down alien ships, and what good are weapons if your soldiers minds get possessed too easily and start using those weapons on you. What good are advanced weapons when you have a mission that involves taking an alien alive.
#16 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

I played the orginal and I dont remember all this so called number crunching. It was a fairly simple game but had great depth.

As long as you still had TU to respond to counterattacks you were covered. I also used to position my team into cover with firing arcs. I dont get all these threads that bang on about how complex it was because it wasn't.

Im going to reserve opinion on this until I have played it.

#17 Posted by dzimm (4651 posts) -

[QUOTE="stan_boyd"]I disagree, while I did enjoy the old Xcom, I am enjoying this one even more. No longer do I have aliens "camping" outside of my ship and taking over one of my troops and tossing a grenade or firing a rocket killing my ENTIRE squad before I even get a turn. No more do I need to do a crapload of math which I am grateful for, I am not a student anymore I don't want to sit there and do math all day I just want to enjoy the game. Also the pacing is in my opinion is better cause the maps are smaller and I have less troops to worry about. I don't want to spend 2 hours on 1 map. branes

 And there is the reason why this game is not very good. It's appealing to just this attitude. I don't want to have to think too hard in a game. I don't want to spend 2 hours on one map. So, here's my response. Don't play XCom because that's what XCom was..a turn-based, time consuming, brain numbing, move by careful move, soldier by soldier, tactical combat game. It was a micromanager's dream game, like MOO and CIV but with really great combat.

When you take that away, you no longer have XCom. You have a nice modern 3rd person sci-fi team shooter with a few strategic features with the XCom named tacked onto it. No better, in fact, in some cases, worse than UFO: Aftermath and all the other XCom wannabees. Sorry, but this game is just another wannabee with the old name.

You've been on about this for the past several days, but I wonder if there is any substance to your criticisms.  Layering on the complexity and busy work isn't the same as adding depth, so your basic premise that the original XCOM had more depth because it was ostensibly more complex doesn't prove your point in and of itself.  Depth comes not from the complexity of various gameplay systems but from how those systems interact.

For instance, Enemy Unknown could be made more "complex" by adding an extra button to the interface that has to be clicked in order for your units to kneel and take advantage of cover, or an extra step could be added to grenades that would require you to manually "pull the pin" before throwing, or perhaps after sprinting, you have to explicitly order your soldier to ready his weapon again since he lowers it during the sprint, or tell him to face a specific direction at the end of his turn, and so on.  Would this additional complexity really make the gameplay any deeper?