http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/27/truthiness-the-bureau-xcom-declassified/

Its obviously been heavily redesigned from its previous incarnation, at the very least it has become a thrid person game, and while the combat looks a little stilted it at least looks interesting.

Does look alright I suppose. Would have just preferred another RTS like the first though. Will maybe rent it and give it a fair shake.

Somehow it reminds me of LA Noir in terms of its combat.

Not necessarily a bad thing mind you.

Looks very cool to me.

I'll play it cos its X-com, Im not sold on it though.

It seems to me that it would be really difficult to get right. Almost like it looked really easy, how you could give all your blokes orders and time stops while you do it, put gak loads of mines and turrets and stuff down, and then just use your own guy to kick some ass.

I'm intrigued, but it doesn't look my cup of tea, I'd be impressed to feth it they pulled it off and made it as maddeningly addictive as the last few turned based ones.

At least it's not the gak is has been at the beginning.
It does, however, look like way too much pause - resume - pause for a FPS.

 DA's Forever wrote:
Does look alright I suppose. Would have just preferred another RTS like the first though. Will maybe rent it and give it a fair shake.

The Miraxis XCOM is a reasonable 'reimagining' and there is a very faithful remake called Xenonauts currently in beta. There isn't really any need for another straight remake.

When this was first made public it looked dreadful, a cynical cash in that had little if anything to do with the XCOM games. At least now it looks like it may be quite fun.

The command menu doesn't look very smooth but on the other hand the player character didn't actually do anything so I suspect that in the finished game the menu shouldn't really get in the way. My main concern is that the combat will be too much like Mass Effect.

If combat's like Mass Effect, the game might actually be good.

If customization is like Mass Effect, the game might even be great.

I liked the original concept that looked nothing like Xcom, but now it's too much like Xcom and I already have Xcom. I don't really see the need to have a real time version of a game I already have

I like the style. It's like a combination of the setting of L.A. Noire and X-Com: Apocalypse.

I think it helps this game's case dramatically now that we have an "actual" XCOM game out. Now that its done, it'll be a lot easier to get people to accept the idea of doing something new in the XCOM universe.

The original version looked like crap, but this one looks a lot better. I look forward to seeing how it shapes up.

The one thing that bugs me is the setting. I don't see any reason for the 1950s setting at all. And given all the futuristic stuff for the gear, why make this choice?

 curran12 wrote:
The one thing that bugs me is the setting. I don't see any reason for the 1950s setting at all. And given all the futuristic stuff for the gear, why make this choice?

Its meant to show the origins of X-COM. UFO:enemy unknown (the first X-COM game) was set in the late 90's.

X-COM Apocalypse had a futuristic 50's visual style as well.

 curran12 wrote:
The one thing that bugs me is the setting. I don't see any reason for the 1950s setting at all. And given all the futuristic stuff for the gear, why make this choice?

I like it, and it makes sense.

Think of when Roswell happened. I guarantee you that will tie in at some point, even if it's just a cursory mention.

Plus we get a ton of cool cars, clothes and weapons. It'll make for an interesting setting with lots of character (possible cold war tie ins as well) and that goes a long way for making a game cool.

Plus it opens the way for sequels in the time between this game and XCOM: EU.

It makes sense because it has a similar style to X-Com: Apocalypse.

I prefer the old fps look and style.

Currently there's waaay too much pause play pause going on. Like dragon age too much.

It looks like a combination of Mass Effect and Brothers in Arms, which is cool by me.

It kind of looks like it plays like Valkyria Chronicles, which would be great! Now of Sega would only make another VC on Ps3/4...

 Melissia wrote:
If customization is like Mass Effect, the game might even be great.

What kind of customization are you talking about?

My first thought when I opened the link was "Why is that guy wearing a Pip-Boy?". I do see either an M14, or M1 Automatic

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If customization is like Mass Effect, the game might even be great.

What kind of customization are you talking about?

Maybe the weapon and armour mods and levels?

Also the customization that was in its character creation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Maybe the weapon and armour mods and levels?

For me, this added very little to the ME experience. If a game does something like this, I think it should be more substantive. The trouble is, it can quickly become fiddly.

 Melissia wrote:
Also character customization.

Like? Do you mean, something like in Enemy Unknown?

It'll probably be like Enemy Unknown. I don't think they'll have full facial customization and whatnot.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I don't think they'll have full facial customization and whatnot.

Depending on the what you mean by whatnot, that won't bother me unless everyone looks exactly alike. Facial customization in contemporary gaming has a very low yield compared to the time you put into it. When it first came out it was cool because it was novel; but no one has done anything interesting where it matters in-game. So I've lost enthusiasm for it as just another facebook-like doodad feature. Might as well have a chargen option for picking your character's favorite color. Oh wait, that's item modding.

Ya, it was facinating at first but now I barely touch facial customization.

Plus this is XCom. There's no point spending 10 minutes or whatever customizing a dude when he may just get killed in the first minute of his first firefight.

 Melissia wrote:
Also the customization that was in its character creation.

Ah! I stuck with my two Shepards from ME and didn't deviate from them so I occasionally forget that there is customisation

 Manchu wrote:
For me, this added very little to the ME experience. If a game does something like this, I think it should be more substantive. The trouble is, it can quickly become fiddly

Parts of it were useful, but I'd rather not have to micro-manage every part of my team's equipment.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'd rather not have to micro-manage every part of my team's equipment.

How did you feel about Enemy Unknown?

Isn't this game in the 1950s America? Everyone in 1950 looked the same anyway. Everyone was a white guy in a three piece suit back then. Plus this guys are pseudo MiBs. They're whole schtick was looking the same...

What I meant was, if there is exactly one female and one male design -- such that every agent and civilian looked exactly the same. That would be silly. But since there seems to be little to know face-to-face interaction (a la Elder Scrolls), it's not the biggest issue in the world as long as there is a variety of clothing styles and color palettes.

 Manchu wrote:
How did you feel about Enemy Unknown?

I'll be able to answer that when I get to play it My family arrive on Monday for the wedding, we have the reception the following week and need to finish getting the food in for that, we're trying to get hold of the singer because of a conflict in scheduling, the house still needs a massive clean, the yard isn't finished yet, the pool is almost clean, the kitchen is half painted, we just got the 55 gallon fresh water fish tank completely cleaned and re-stocked, the salt water tank is almost in need of a clean, I spent this morning going for a drug test for a new job, and neither my wife nor I have had time to bless ourselves, so free time is an elusive beast at the minute The only reason I'm on Dakka is because I've got a temp job a desk worker which has a lot of down time.

I will be honest though, I have more tolerance for micromanaging equipment in strategy games than I do for most other types.

 Manchu wrote:
What I meant was, if there is exactly one female and one male design -- such that every agent and civilian looked exactly the same. That would be silly. But since there seems to be little to know face-to-face interaction (a la Elder Scrolls), it's not the biggest issue in the world as long as there is a variety of clothing styles and color palettes.

Pretty sure a lot less then that. They didn't allow women to fight aliens until the late 60s and once again if you showed up at XCom in anything other than a grey and/or black suit the boss would just send you home. Hell he'd send you home even if you just forgot your hat. Alien invasion is no excuse to not look professional.

 Manchu wrote:
Like? Do you mean, something like in Enemy Unknown?

No, something like how you created Shepard in the Mass Effect series.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Pretty sure a lot less then that. They didn't allow women to fight aliens until the late 60s

If it's set in a time when you cannot play a female character, I'm not buying the game. It simply isn't worth my money when I could be buying games that aren't stupid.

It might not have chargen at all. Maybe you're playing a predetermined character like in LA Noir or Red Dead Redemption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Like? Do you mean, something like in Enemy Unknown?

No, something like how you created Shepard in the Mass Effect series.

Kind of a poor example of chargen if you're talking about physical features. I do like the idea of picking different backgrounds but again this wasn't very important in-game.

 Manchu wrote:
It might not have chargen at all. Maybe you're playing a predetermined character like in LA Noir or Red Dead Redemption.

If that's the case, I have even less reason to give a damn.

Kind of a shame, they were both great games.

It doesn't have a Chargen for the Protagonist. He's some dude called Carter IIRC. Hopefully you can choose the colour of his turtleneck though, that would be neat.

The game does look quite decent i suppose, a slightly more tactical Mass effect i guess. Not really interested though.

 Manchu wrote:
Kind of a shame, they were both great games.

I tried to be interested in LA Noire. Even liked it for a little while, but meh...

I got bored most of the way through it (I had just gotten through the Homocide division missions). Other games like Mass Effect, BL:R and Skyrim pulled my attention away, games where I wasn't forced to have some boring, generic, and incredibly forgettable white dude as my playable character. I've played those characters before. Thousands of times over the course of the last two decades. I'm BORED of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Perkustin wrote:
It doesn't have a Chargen for the Protagonist. He's some dude called Carter IIRC.

Well, that's stupid. One more game I'm not going to get, then.

 Perkustin wrote:
Hopefully you can choose the colour of his turtleneck though, that would be neat.

No, no -- we'll have to wait for Dragon Age 3 for that.

That said, LA Noire did have some memorable lines. Like if you went a specific route with that South American ambassador
Lines like that were the only reason I kept going in that game.

That seems like a pretty extreme system you have there Melissia. Some wars were fought by mostly men. You're not going to play Company of Heroes for example because it's all men fighting?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
That seems like a pretty extreme system you have there Melissia. Some wars were fought by mostly men. You're not going to play Company of Heroes for example because it's all men fighting?

Nothing good will come of this

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
That seems like a pretty extreme system you have there Melissia.

Are you going to start attacking me because I'm not interested in Madden 2013, too? Sports games don't interest me any more than playing a shooter starring some random, generic, and wholly forgettable white guy that the writers will inevitably fail to make me give a damn about.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Some wars were fought by mostly men.

I don't care.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You're not going to play Company of Heroes for example because it's all men fighting?

I already own company of heroes. Played it to death. Same goes for the various World War 1/2 games (like the original CoD line). I've also played far too many RPGs and modern shooters and sci-fi games that force me to play as a dude, too, such as Dead Space. I'm not interested in playing the same old re-regurgitated crap as last year and want something different.

If this offends you, feel free to put me on ignore, because I'm not apologizing or backpedaling on it. I'm not getting this game if I am forced to play as some random white guy that I don't give a rat's ass about. And that's the direction they're heading. I've played that game before, and I'm going to instead spend my money on something that makes me actually care.

I think it's safe to say the new XCom isn't your standard shooter and just because the main character is a white male doesn't mean that somehow it just becomes one.

I think it's strange that if a game had a bunch of things about it that interst you you would pass on it because the protangonist is a white male. It's your money though so you get to prioritize whatever you want.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think it's strange that if a game had a bunch of things about it that interst you you would pass on it because the protangonist is a white male.

Apparently it's "strange" (read: bad) to not want to have to play the same forgettable character over and over and over again, or to want to be able to create your own character or at least have different options than the generic forgettable white dude.

X:Com: The Bureau is already disappointing me and it isn't even about to be released. Meh.

Basing an opinion of a game on its character generation is like basing an opinion of a movie on its actor's facial dimensions.

Sometimes. It's important in RPGs but not every game is or should be an RPG. Some games are about a specific character and their story. Is the white guy over represented as the playable character? Yes, obviously but that shouldn't result in just throwing out the whole game.
As MLK famously said "It's not the pixel shades of the PC that matters but the general story arc which is still best broken into three acts and game play itself"

Ninja'd

 kirsanth wrote:
Basing a game on character generation is like basing a movie on its actor's facial dimensions.

No, it's not-- that's a very bad analogy. I don't interact with a movie. I just watch it. The audience of a movie are nothing more than passive observers, they sit around staring at a screen for a couple hours then it's over.

But I don't just watch a game. I interact with a game. I need to become the protagonist, I effectively AM the actor in the story. I am fully capable of doing so with a generic forgettable white guy-- I just have no desire to, because it's boring.

The Bureau would have been a better game if they included a customizable main character, or at least a choice between several different characters if they HAD to go with pre-written ones. But they're not going to do that. So it is less than the game it could have been. So I have less desire to own it. It is simple as that.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Sometimes.

All the time.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
that shouldn't result in just throwing out the whole game.

Only according to you, a white male who doesn't have to stretch their suspension of disbelief in order to play these games. When you hear their grunts of pain, or their heavy, manly breathing, you don't have to push aside that instinctive reaction that says "that's not me". When you hear their voice talking in storyline moments, you don't have to stretch your imagination to think "that's me".

I quite get your point though: anyone who isn't a white guy is the "other" who needs to be shunned for not being a white guy, because it's okay to pretend to be a white guy, but anyone who wants something different is weird and bad.

Assuming you are going RPG, otherwise it seems daft.

The idea of a role playing game is not really to (always) create a character, but to play a role.
Thus the term.

D&D rolled random character because the original point of the RPG was to NOT create your own role, but rather to have a game to play a NEW role.

editing to add:
Thus the apt analogy I am sorry you missed.

 kirsanth wrote:
The idea of a role playing game is not really to (always) create a character, but to play a role.

And I have no desire to play the role of a generic forgettable white guy.

 kirsanth wrote:
Thus the apt analogy I am sorry you missed.

I didn't miss it. It was a bad analogy.

After all this time, I still find it weird how people react so negatively to me wanting something different than them when I spend my hard-earned money on games.

 Melissia wrote:
And I have no desire to play the role of a generic forgettable white guy.

You prove you miss it with this.

If you think that the character is forgettable and generic because he is a white guy, there are larger issues involved.

If the character is generic and forgettable, that has nothing to do with it being a white guy.

editing to add:

 Melissia wrote:
After all this time, I still find it weird how people react so negatively to me wanting something different than them when I spend my hard-earned money on games.

React to games you spend money on?
You spent nothing here and stated you won't.
You implied it was because you had to play a white guy, which is forgettable and generic - regardless of anything else possible in the game that you know.

Awesome.

Melissia wrote:

I quite get your point though: anyone who isn't a white guy is the "other" who needs to be shunned for not being a white guy, because it's okay to pretend to be a white guy, but anyone who wants something different is weird and bad.

Wow really Melissia? Where to start Melissia? The Straw Man? The subtle accusation of racism? The assumption of my race? Let's just rest on the fact the only one who's ever said they wouldn't play a character because of their skin colour is you. That's bigotry at its most basic level.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
[snip]

I'm taking this to PMs. this is getting far too off topic.

 kirsanth wrote:
If you think that the character is forgettable and generic because he is a white guy

He won't be generic because he's a white guy, he'll be a white guy because he's generic. It's the industry default, the same exact character that's in almost every other game, and it appears taht The Bureau won't be any differnt.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want protagonists to differ from game to game I mean it seems a bit odd not to play it just because it's a white male but at the same time it seems kinda odd that you almost constantly play a white male...

If that is the case, that would be a valid complaint.

Phrenology isn't.

Your statements are made in ignorance and it comes across.


Bear in mind I have no idea what this game will be like. I thought Enemy Unknown had plenty of combustibility customizability and personification.

Especially in a squad based game. If this one has anything like it cool. If it is better, I will probably think most of it is a waste of time.

Being able to play the exact same game with the same story and character interaction with a different colored/shaped/wtfever character does not, in any way, make a better game.
Making the CHARACTER better does.

 kirsanth wrote:
Being able to play the exact same game with the same story and character interaction with a different colored/shaped/wtfever character does not, in any way, make a better game.

Having choice over your character's origins, fate, and nature always makes for a better game.

Making the story fit the character is most important in a story based game.
If the game is not story based, then the character is basically irrelevant.
The player is. That is when you start seeing sandbox games.
That is really a divergence of RPG as it does what you are stating.

If you want to tell and create your own story, that is cool beans.
It has its place. It does not mean that telling a story based game in a place that does not meet your world-view is bad.

 kirsanth wrote:
If the game is not story based, then the character is basically irrelevant.

If it really was irrelevant you wouldn't be objecting so hard to someone asking for something different.

Why not?
Is the game not story based we are discussing?

Most(? I think all) of what I asked was regarding story based games.


Editing to add:
When playing ,say, Mortal Kombat, if you could spend weeks customizing simply how Skorpion looks down to facial reconstructive surgery level that would make the game better than it is now?

 kirsanth wrote:
Is the game not story based we are discussing?

It doesn't really matter; my concerns are the same either way. Whether or not it's a sandbox game or a game with a dedicated story, it is still a better game when you have more choice in the character.

 kirsanth wrote:
When playing ,say, Mortal Kombat, if you could spend weeks customizing simply how Skorpion looks down to facial reconstructive surgery level that would make the game better than it is now?

Undeniably yes.

The character creation / customization bits of the Soul Caliber series are the reason why I play it over almost any other game in the fighting genre. Indeed, in X-Com: Enemy Unknown, I modified the ratios of nationality and gender of my soldiers (it defaults to, for example, 67/33 male/female, and certain countries are under-represented) to be more even and enjoyed the game more as a result.

Gotcha.
So a game that looks better is better than a game that plays better AND has a better story.


Totally different pages.

Of different books.

A QWOP fighting game with hours of combustibility to the pixel would stink.

Especially when you port its amazing graphics to the RPG - KILL THE GUY ON THE LEFT!

 kirsanth wrote:
Being able to play the exact same game with the same story and character interaction with a different colored/shaped/wtfever character does not, in any way, make a better game.

Except that it does, because I would enjoy it more. Just like I would enjoy The Bureau more if it had more customization.

If you really have to continue this discussion without at least trying to reference X-Com, maybe you could PM me instead.

So with that said, I'm done until we find more information about the game.

Gotcha.

I meant it in relation to story telling and game development as well as knowledge about it during public pre-game disclosure.

I have nothing to add beyond that.

(Off topic any way. I am somewhat cynical about the game but will at least be keeping an eye on it.)

Games with elements of RPGs or just outright RPGs are almost always better...
The thing is whether a game's story changes based on the colour/gender of the protagonist (Assuming there is no RPG elements and it's just a straight shooter)

If it doesn't then you may as well be playing a robot controlled by aliens that are orbiting the earth and are engaging in super secret black ops missions to mess with the earthlings.
If it does change the way the story will be written then it's actually relevant.

 purplefood wrote:

If it doesn't then you may as well be playing a robot controlled by aliens that are orbiting the earth and are engaging in super secret black ops missions to mess with the earthlings. .

....That sounds awesome. I'd play that.

That scenario needs to be in this game somehow.

(Meh! I tried!

My point is that things like Knights of the Old Republic are not better because you can choose the character. In some points they get worse because they need to be vague or inconsistent in story/background.
Red Dead Redemption was not a worse game because its main character was "stereo-typical" for example. And would have been silly if it had been otherwise.
That said, I totally think there need to be more characters represented.

And yes. It need to be in the game. lol)

Only if they're Fembots....

If there is a difference in black suites and grey suites I would be happy.

If there is a difference between grey suites and gray suites. . . I may just buy it on principle.

Well I hope you have LA Noire. Fine selection of suites. Dark grey, light grey, medium grey....bluish grey.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Only if they're Fembots....

As long as it's not an EDI-style sexbot. Seeing that so early on in ME3 made me wonder if the game had jumped the proverbial shark...

Have not played it. Seemed too much like what we were discussing, really. heh.

b;eh

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

If it doesn't then you may as well be playing a robot controlled by aliens that are orbiting the earth and are engaging in super secret black ops missions to mess with the earthlings. .

....That sounds awesome. I'd play that.

I know right...

Let's take this discussion of chargen options generally to its own thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/539180.page

This game is out today. Anyone playing it?

Installed last night but it didn't unlock until midnight EST and I had to be up at 0430. Will probably get some time in on it tonight.

I managed to play a bit of it last night and found it ... just okay. TBH I haven't gotten into the meat of the game yet. So far, I think the combat system is pretty interesting. It's like Mass Effect 2 or 3 except the action continues -- in ultra slow-mo -- while you're assigning orders to your squad mates.

That's cool. Quasi-time limit.

Yeah -- your guys can get shot and killed while you're thinking about what order to give them.

I made the mistake of playing on Veteran and holy moly is it kicking my butt.

I'm not too far in, but I'm really enjoying it so far as a game. I will echo the many sentiments that this probably should have been a different IP entirely, not an X-Com game. It's weird to see things like Elerium and Skyrangers from other X-Com titles discussed like it ain't no thang; makes me wonder why I had to research Elerium in X-Com! Guess that might all get explained at the end, but I get the feeling it'll be a "wipe that protocol droid's memory bank" moment.

Like Manchu said, the third party squad combat is interesting, and your dudes can and will get shot to pieces if you spend too long trying to tell them what to do. I think the AI needs a little boost though. If I tell a dude to get behind cover and snipe someone, I don't expect him to move to cover, then stand next to it.

Yeah, this game does not mess around. I made it through Rosemont last night after a bunch of reloads. Combat feels exciting and deadly. When the sectapod appeared, I was like -- I'm just a dude from the 60s here! Turns out that was enough, if only barely.

Minor spoiler

I was really surprised by how intense combat can be. And when you start to get it, it feels like you're either good or just flying by the seat of your pants -- which, to me, exactly matches the theme and story of the game.

I'm still really enjoying this game ... it makes me want a new Dragon Age!

Seriously, this game is basically Mass Effect 2 in America in the 1960s -- except the named NPCs don't join your party.

So why do I want a new Dragon Age then? Because Mass Effect 3 already came out foolz.

Imagine Mass Effect combat with a boring, predictable story and plain, boring chracters along with ok graphics. Tadaaa. Disappointing game. I like the not-pause-but-slow-motion thingy, love it in Game of Thrones as well.

I hate the single button both for attacking and moving.
The number of times when I press it while having red crosshair and Carter orders his minions to charge blindly forward. Especially with mutons. It's super fun to restart from last save because the game hates me.

I kinda like the characters. They may not be the best out there (at the point where I am) but at least there is no Thane.

Thane? As in ME2 Thane?

What's wrong with him? He's awesome.

Well I'm going to get it. One of these days...

 Medium of Death wrote:
Thane? As in ME2 Thane?

What's wrong with him? He's awesome.

Yes, ME2 Thane. I don't want to derail the thread too much but he is among my top3 (possibly *the*) most annoying characters in a videogames I liked (liked videogames, not the characters).
The short answer: For me he's just a conglomerate of clichés. I cannot stop rolling my eyes when he's talking.

 Macok wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Thane? As in ME2 Thane?

What's wrong with him? He's awesome.

Yes, ME2 Thane. I don't want to derail the thread too much but he is among my top3 (possibly *the*) most annoying characters in a videogames I liked (liked videogames, not the characters).
The short answer: For me he's just a conglomerate of clichés. I cannot stop rolling my eyes when he's talking.

*cough* I am dying from an unhealable disease *cough* my son has left me but I want him back* *cough* *cough* pity me Shepherd! PITY ME!

 Macok wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Thane? As in ME2 Thane?

What's wrong with him? He's awesome.

Yes, ME2 Thane. I don't want to derail the thread too much but he is among my top3 (possibly *the*) most annoying characters in a videogames I liked (liked videogames, not the characters).
The short answer: For me he's just a conglomerate of clichés. I cannot stop rolling my eyes when he's talking.

I'm not sure if you noticed but the entirety of the Mass Effect series is a conglomerate of cliches. It is a reconstruction of the Space opera that makes heavy use of tropes and cliches throughout. If youare going to call out one character as being bad because it uses cliches than you might as well call out the entire series.

 Melissia wrote:

The character creation / customization bits of the Soul Caliber series are the reason why I play it over almost any other game in the fighting genre. Indeed, in X-Com: Enemy Unknown, I modified the ratios of nationality and gender of my soldiers (it defaults to, for example, 67/33 male/female, and certain countries are under-represented) to be more even and enjoyed the game more as a result.

The only thing I care about this post (and conversation) is this. "How do I edit this?" I really only want nations that I believe would actually have people to contribute to the project in my force.

So pretty much, any NATO, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zea. in my XCom force. Anyone else has no business being there in my eyes. I would love to edit it so Nigeria stops making up a 1/4 of my soldiers.

Is it really 67/33 m/f? I swear I had more females then males lol.

 Galdos wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

The character creation / customization bits of the Soul Caliber series are the reason why I play it over almost any other game in the fighting genre. Indeed, in X-Com: Enemy Unknown, I modified the ratios of nationality and gender of my soldiers (it defaults to, for example, 67/33 male/female, and certain countries are under-represented) to be more even and enjoyed the game more as a result.

The only thing I care about this post (and conversation) is this. "How do I edit this?" I really only want nations that I believe would actually have people to contribute to the project in my force.

So pretty much, any NATO, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zea. in my XCom force. Anyone else has no business being there in my eyes. I would love to edit it so Nigeria stops making up a 1/4 of my soldiers.

Is it really 67/33 m/f? I swear I had more females then males lol.

It's random. The ratio isn't exactly absolutely. I think you can change the available countries in the ini files as well.

I cannot really blame the developer studio alone for the game - it's been reworked a lot and thus must have been a major pain in the wrist to go through. What I really disliked the game for is it constantly breaking any immersion - let alone failing at even creating it!

Nobody seems to be surprised that aliens landed, they are there and everyone is like "Oh, aliens. Cool.". Worse: when new aliens appear, your squad even knows their NAME, even when it's the first time appearing. And worst of all: alien weapons are just randomly lying around and you can just pick them up and instantly master using it. What the hell. Old XCom games had that right: you could pick them up, but you sucked at using them and couldn't reload. You know, because it's GODDAMN ALIEN TECHNOLOGY.

Very, very disappointed about the game, I really planned on buying it because I liked the potential the game had: experience the Xcom universe from a more personal perspective. Lots of potential that was ultimatively wasted.

Poor story, rather poor characters, no immersion, bad AI, breaking with the game's universe's lore, fluent, but repetitive combat, mediocre graphics, interesting, original scenario.

3.5/10.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galdos wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

The character creation / customization bits of the Soul Caliber series are the reason why I play it over almost any other game in the fighting genre. Indeed, in X-Com: Enemy Unknown, I modified the ratios of nationality and gender of my soldiers (it defaults to, for example, 67/33 male/female, and certain countries are under-represented) to be more even and enjoyed the game more as a result.

The only thing I care about this post (and conversation) is this. "How do I edit this?" I really only want nations that I believe would actually have people to contribute to the project in my force.

So pretty much, any NATO, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, New Zea. in my XCom force. Anyone else has no business being there in my eyes. I would love to edit it so Nigeria stops making up a 1/4 of my soldiers.

Is it really 67/33 m/f? I swear I had more females then males lol.

It's random. The ratio isn't exactly absolutely. I think you can change the available countries in the ini files as well.

I like having it random. It's interesting having my best soldier and savior of Earth be a Saudi.

The Bureau is mostly disappointing given the inevitable comparison to Enemy Unknown. Indeed, the Bureau actually includes characterization and interpersonal plot ... but largely to no narrative effect. The setting had great potential for depth of immersion but like most things about the game it's pretty half-assed. The characters are unforgivably bland if competently voice-acted. On the bright side, the combat (i.e., 90%+ of the game) is fiercely fun. The trouble is, it needs to be more varied and supported by an actual story.

The reason this game makes me want to play Dragon Age is because it lacks what Dragon Age does well -- a compelling, detailed setting -- while doing what Dragon Age failed at twice: fun gameplay.

Spoony made a review.

He was not pleased.

Spoilered for NSFW