Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seems to be just one base though.

It is a much more interesting base though, with several 'unique' buildings with special bonuses. You can also build satelites (and I think hangars) to extend your coverage of the world.

The whole antfarm look of the base is very cool.

Feels less abstract somehow.

Demo on steam is available.
I guess this will make this decision easier.

 Macok wrote:
Demo on steam is available.
I guess this will make this decision easier.

$&#&#&$&%&%

My willpower is going to shatter if I try that.

 Macok wrote:
Demo on steam is available.
I guess this will make this decision easier.

There goes my day off....

Its quite a poor demo. Heavily scripted and the control system is atrocious. I don't think that the actual game will suffer from these problems but the demo did not give a good impression.

Damn, was going to try that out this afternoon...thanks for the report palindrome

Its also really short, I completed both missons in about 20-25 miniutes (including cut scenes).

the control system is atrocious

How so?

Palindrome wrote:Its also really short, I completed both missons in about 20-25 miniutes (including cut scenes).

This makes me sad

Deathshead420 wrote:

the control system is atrocious

How so?

Good point.

*turns to Palindrome*.....?

It is broken into 2 sections, movement and combat. This really breaks up the flow of the game. There are also too many needless key presses which further breaks up the flow. Rather than simply clicking on a target you need to press the space bar, select the ability that you want to use, the target and then press the space bar again to perform the action. It feels very consolised and its quite annoying to use.

The control system on the PC was supposed to have had a lot of work done to it though so hopefully this is an issue that will be fixed on release.

I didn't touch my keyboard once through the demo.


Also how is it broken up in to two phases? You can shoot at any point or move at any point in you turn as long as you have the points to do so.

Edit for being a sleepy speller.

There is a seperate action/combat menu. you can get away without pressing space but it requires pressing a small 'ok' icon.

Hmm, thats annoying. Is combat turn based then? I got the impressino from the trailer that the campaign map was turn based and the combat was real time...?

Combat is turn based. Its not time units any more though. Each trooper gets 2 standard moves/1 more and 1 action/1 action (sniper shots etc).

Ahh i see, thats a shame in a way, but also quite a good concept.

heres hoping the actual release has the interface kinks worked out by then! I wont try the demo just in case it sours my view i think...

Palindrome wrote:Combat is turn based. Its not time units any more though. Each trooper gets 2 standard moves/1 more and 1 action/1 action (sniper shots etc).

That's what I read back then in the previews and what stopped me from actually waiting for this game. :(

"the problem was that people couldn’t map time units to the way that they thought about the battlefield, and so it became a real frustration for people"
-- Jake Solomon

Herpderp.

Kind of like the "ramp rape" was removed because it was "a real frustration" for some people as well, I guess. I wonder what else fell victim to pandering to casuals.

Palindrome wrote:It feels very consolised and its quite annoying to use.

"Console port" ... that's how my flatmate described it to me, too. Apparently, there also is no minimap anymore? And unlimited ammo? Man, in the classic, I was preferring lasers for the sole reason that they were the one type of weapon I could just zap around not worrying about running out of reloads.

I'm going to give the demo a try myself as soon as I find the time, but from all I've heard so far it is, for me, too different to the X-Com I know. Maybe it's just a generational thing. I'm sure it won't be as atrocious as MoO3 as far as sequels go, but the brand name alone isn't enough to convince me. Only serves to reinforce my bias towards "remakes", regardless of whether it's movies or games.

At least they got the looks right, judging from some of the screenshots. Maybe the "visual familiarility" will help me forget the differences, and maybe some of the game's new features will actually be fun.

 Lynata wrote:

"the problem was that people couldn’t map time units to the way that they thought about the battlefield, and so it became a real frustration for people"
-- Jake Solomon
Kind of like the "ramp rape" was removed because it was "a real frustration" for some people as well, I guess. I wonder what else fell victim to pandering to casuals.

To be honest the new system plays very much like the original with reserved time units, the only real difference is that your troopers actually run now

The 'ramp rape' was extremely annoying and I won't miss it in the slightest. It served no purpose what so ever and was the result of flawed game design. I have had virtually my entire squad wiped out in the first turn by invisible enemies, most of my troopers never even left the skyranger, that is in no way fun.

Turn based is the only way I would have bought the game

Palindrome wrote:To be honest the new system plays very much like the original with reserved time units, the only real difference is that your troopers actually run now

Well, I'll see how it feels and if I can "adopt" to it - but I know already that not being able to combine different actions the way I want will be a feature sorely missed. Ultimately, to me the interview sounds like it was dumbed down in favour of players who are unable to plan ahead and may be overchallenged by the "traditional" squad tactics. Actually makes me think this is what led to the squad size cap as well...

It's no secret that games have become more and more casual, and somehow it's sad when something like X-Com becomes less complex because of it.
I also read that this remake will support modding, so perhaps the fans will provide a more "purist experience".

Palindrome wrote:The 'ramp rape' was extremely annoying and I won't miss it in the slightest. It served no purpose what so ever and was the result of flawed game design. I have had virtually my entire squad wiped out in the first turn by invisible enemies, most of my troopers never even left the skyranger, that is in no way fun.

Okay, I admit this is entirely individual preference. And I didn't like it when it happened either (which was very rare) - but as someone else mentioned, the mere risk made things feel more dangerous, and thus more exciting. It's why potentially frustrating games like FTL feel so refreshing to some!

I've linked this article before, and it concerns itself more with MMOs, but I feel it also applies to gaming in general: http://www.wolfsheadonline.com/the-emasculation-of-mmos-part-1-how-convenience-replaced-risk

The original one was mostly save/RNG/save/RNG.
Fun, to be sure; but it was not "hardcore" as people seem to imply. It just did not pull punches from its use of RNGs.
The new one seems to allow the same style of interaction, for those so inclined.

It almost cannot have a worse "minigame" for intercepting aliens, either.

I enjoyed Valkyria Chronicles, and it had a similar battle system to this - though very, VERY much simplified.
It is one of my favorite changes, actually, outside of the UI.

"RNG"?

I tried google, but all it suggests is "random number generator" which I think is not what you mean ...

Either way, to me, missing TUs would seem to mean that the "style of interaction" is utterly alien (do-ho-ho) compared to the tactics you could pull with the original. Standing up to shoot from behind cover, then kneeling down again? Yep, won't work anymore. Not moving at all and just firing your gun as much as you can? Well, you can still do that, but you're just going to waste a "move action" and you won't be able to shoot more than you'd have done if you moved.

Maybe I missed some important enlightening info about how actions work in all those previews and reports and interviews, and it's not as bad as it sounds, but for now it all reads incredibly dumbed down to me, with lots of options no longer available because they were considered too complex for the current gamer generation. I guess I'm just being rather pessimistic, but I've been burned by overhyped remakes way too often. :/

It is exactly what you think it means. The challenge of the first game was 100% because they used a RNG and did not pull the punches from its use. YOUR skill did not matter anywhere near as much as people remember. Your team's skills were even a craps shoot until you got past 5+ missions of dealing with the mean RNG.

If you did not save during a mission, each one would take dozens of tries, no matter how "skilled" or "tactical" you and your team were.

And yes, you can shoot from cover in this one.

You can have two shoot actions in this, also. Generally used for a stronger shot, but I have not seen anything show it isn't both.

TU's were an artificial result of the tech at the time. Having team members with more TU's will be no different than ones that can move farther or shoot more, for example. The fact that you CAN break up a move action to fire, makes TUs seem just silly now.

Just finished it. Not thrilled but not sad either. But I definitely think it's too pricey.

On one side: at least it's something new. I don't want the same game with different graphics / few updates.
It depends on how some ideas are executed. Are there any more statistics linked to the soldiers or is it only 7-8 levels with one skill on each? Is every rookie sniper always the same? Are there many scripted heavy missions? How about replayability?

I didn't like that I could see them going into overwatch.
It's more about position and cover (like every game nowadays).
Anybody know if day/night mechanic is still in? Seems like no, because spotting is not a main issue now. You always know where the enemy is even if both you and him are hiding. It's no longer look-around-fest or patiently-go-through-every-single-little-black-spot-on-the-map (TM) like the original.

Palindrome wrote:
There is a seperate action/combat menu. you can get away without pressing space but it requires pressing a small 'ok' icon.

Double tapping keyboard number works. Or double clicking the icon. Got used to it very fast.

kirsanth wrote:It is exactly what you think it means. The challenge of the first game was 100% because they used a RNG and did not pull the punches from its use. YOUR skill did not matter anywhere near as much as people remember. Your team's skills were even a craps shoot until you got past 5+ missions of dealing with the mean RNG.

I don't see how that is supposed to be a problem? You've got a similar mechanic in all strategy games and even pen&paper. "MY" skill was about using my squad, its equipment and its time units in the most efficient way. Sure you can miss with two shots just as you can miss with one, but your chances are better.

kirsanth wrote:If you did not save during a mission, each one would take dozens of tries, no matter how "skilled" or "tactical" you and your team were.

I never saved and reloaded during a mission, and I did not have the problems that you are describing here. But maybe that's just because I learned after the first hurtful encounters that I should avoid the bigger UFOs until I had better equipment.

I don't even remember if saving during a mission was actually possible... Either way, sometimes squad members just die to stupid stuff like bumping into a Chrysalid after opening a door with their last TU. That's all part of the game, part of the risk, and part of the fun. Sure it was frustrating when you lost a particularly good soldier. But the very knowledge that this could happen made it exciting!

kirsanth wrote:And yes, you can shoot from cover in this one. You can have two shoot actions in this, also. Generally used for a stronger shot, but I have not seen anything show it isn't both.

So how exactly do these actions work, what is possible by combining them, what actions do you have available? Obviously not as much as with TUs, but how exactly are people limited?

kirsanth wrote:TU's were an artificial result of the tech at the time. Having team members with more TU's will be no different than ones that can move farther or shoot more, for example. The fact that you CAN break up a move action to fire, makes TUs seem just silly now.

Now your wording sounds weird. If it truly offered similar possibilities, they wouldn't have needed to do away with TUs in the first place. From the interview, their very reason to abolish time units was to make stuff more streamlined, with the game deciding for you what you can "break up" and what not.

Macok wrote:You always know where the enemy is even if both you and him are hiding. It's no longer look-around-fest or patiently-go-through-every-single-little-black-spot-on-the-map (TM) like the original.

I probably sound weird for saying so, but I'm even going to miss this.
Thanks for the "review"!

Theres always Xenonauts.

Apparently the aliens don't hide, they actively hunt you. No more scouring the map for that last sectoid hidden in a tiny room.

The problem is in execution.
As example I think D&D games at level 1 are worthless, especially if combat is involved.
The bad guy rolls a '20' and you roll a new character.
That is how the original x-com started.

Saving mid-mission was possible, but regardless it gets back to your examples. The game did not only kill you for dumb stuff like you imply. It (and apparently this one too!) kill you for doing everything RIGHT. Oddly, that is not a bad thing to me. However, there needs to be a actual means to progress through this besides RNGs, which is what the first 100% relied upon.

The weird wording is basically saying that the current model is basically TUs in real time.


The first two points seem contradictory, and to some extent are, or at least can be. You are describing gameplay that I imagine from something like Dark Souls (which I love!). "Don't do that stupid gak and you won't die!" That is not the game we are talking about. In Dark Souls, if you played perfect, you won perfectly. And it was tactical and strategic.

X-COM, my first mission was against cyber-discs.

Don't get me wrong - I loved the first game. It's just one of the ones I put on a list as having aged badly and am psyched is being redone by people that seem to want to remake a modern version of the first one, instead of just reskinning it.

(see the X-COM FPS for an even worse option)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Macok wrote:You always know where the enemy is even if both you and him are hiding. It's no longer look-around-fest or patiently-go-through-every-single-little-black-spot-on-the-map (TM) like the original.

I probably sound weird for saying so, but I'm even going to miss this.

Wait, really?

That's not right from what I saw - unless maybe you mean the multiplayer?

If so, I agree with Lynata

 kirsanth wrote:


That's not right from what I saw - unless maybe you mean the multiplayer?

If so, I agree with Lynata

Its not true. I don't know to what extent LOS exists in the full game but I have no reason to think that its any different to the original.

I have window 7 64 and I can't even get the demo to work. What I am hearing though is not good, they apparently went all skyrim with the ui for consoles sake and that has me super pissed. I'm sick of these bland cross platform made by committee f***ing games. At least it's not a free to play micro transaction scam but I'm sure that's how the sequel will go.