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.

corpsesarefun wrote:When reloading takes time it's best to reload (using R) in the lulls between fights, I rarely ever use auto-reload.

Its such a reflex for me that I often do it against discretion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:
Didn't we have enough games who removed features like that already? Why can't we have something for the people who like micromanaging again?

For one, there aren't very many of you, if sales figures are to be believed.

Lynata wrote:
In FPS, by what you are suggesting, the ability to hit "R" to reload needs to be removed and replaced by an instant auto-reload when the ammo counter hits 0, as that's the exact same concept carried over.

Comparing an FPS to a turn-based strategy game is not a good idea. What works in one won't necessarily work in the other. For example, a turn-based FPS would be awful.

Lynata wrote:
Or better yet, just do away with the concept of clips and magazines entirely and just use a single big number for all the bullets you have left*.

Not what I'm arguing at all.

dogma wrote:For one, there aren't very many of you, if sales figures are to be believed.

Which I get. Absolutely. But when you make a game based on the original X-Com, why forsake the mechanics that made it great, why not appeal to its true fans? What's the reason behind taking that name and making something else out of it?

An attempt to cash in on the "new generation" that has never played and loved the original is doomed to fail - Dragon Age 2 is a prime example of what happens when you deform an established franchise by focusing on the so-called "untapped potential" whilst simultaneously forsaking its fans. Today's average gamer doesn't want turn-based tactical combat. The only way to pull off a title like X-Com as a financial success is by designing it to be a niche product from the start. See: EVE.

Every little bit you compromise in favour of the majority increases the risk that few people will buy it. The true fans will be disappointed because it's not close enough to what they knew and what they hoped for, and the "untapped potential" will remain untapped because they're disinterested in that kind of title from the start.

Lynata speaks only the truth.

Lynata wrote:

dogma wrote:For one, there aren't very many of you, if sales figures are to be believed.

Which I get. Absolutely. But when you make a game based on the original X-Com, why forsake the mechanics that made it great, why not appeal to its true fans? What's the reason behind taking that name and making something else out of it?

An attempt to cash in on the "new generation" that has never played and loved the original is doomed to fail - Dragon Age 2 is a prime example of what happens when you deform an established franchise by focusing on the so-called "untapped potential" whilst simultaneously forsaking its fans. Today's average gamer doesn't want turn-based tactical combat. The only way to pull off a title like X-Com as a financial success is by designing it to be a niche product from the start. See: EVE.

Every little bit you compromise in favour of the majority increases the risk that few people will buy it. The true fans will be disappointed because it's not close enough to what they knew and what they hoped for, and the "untapped potential" will remain untapped because they're disinterested in that kind of title from the start.

What do you think the core mechanics of X-com are?

nomotog wrote:What do you think the core mechanics of X-com are?

It can be summarized as tactical turn-based combat simulation, the allocation of Time Units to plan and execute the actions of your soldiers from moving to shooting to other misc. things (such as reloads, switching stances, opening doors). This is the system that was used for the first title, its sequel, and (I believe?) Apocalypse as well. It also worked well in a plethora of other successful game series such as Jagged Alliance or Fallout, so obviously you could say it is somewhat proven.

Of course, the basic concept of turn-based combat itself allows for many different interpretations, changing the aforementioned aspects or removing them altogether. All I'm saying is the more you change, the greater is the risk that the end result ends up being not only different in appearance, but also different in success amongst the people you want to sell it to.
Unless the developer didn't plan to sell it to the fans of X-Com from the start. But in that case ... as I said, I do not believe the average gamer to be interested in this genre, anyways.

And whilst the removal of taking reloads into consideration when planning your moves may only be one detail. But it still is a change. And if the sum of changes becomes too large, if the game stops feeling like the original, then it will simply not be a successful remake - for me as an individual, but probably for a number of other X-Com fans as well.

This brings me to a very wise statement once made by Brad Wardell, the CEO of Stardock Entertainment, concerning Master of Orion III:

He took the opportunity to deliver some stern words to those entrusted with a series they did not create: "If you're making a game that ends with '3,' or Something: The Sequel, it should be similar to the original game," he claimed. Wardell noted: "Don't go off and say, 'I have my own artistic vision.' Okay, good -- so call it something else. Don't ride the coattails of the people who came before you to launch your own artistic vision."

To be fair, Fallout 3 was a pretty good game, and that deviated a bit from the original.

Lynata wrote:

nomotog wrote:What do you think the core mechanics of X-com are?

It can be summarized as tactical turn-based combat simulation, the allocation of Time Units to plan and execute the actions of your soldiers from moving to shooting to other misc. things (such as reloads, switching stances, opening doors). This is the system that was used for the first title, its sequel, and (I believe?) Apocalypse as well. It also worked well in a plethora of other successful game series such as Jagged Alliance or Fallout, so obviously you could say it is somewhat proven.

Of course, the basic concept of turn-based combat itself allows for many different interpretations, changing the aforementioned aspects or removing them altogether. All I'm saying is the more you change, the greater is the risk that the end result ends up being not only different in appearance, but also different in success amongst the people you want to sell it to.
Unless the developer didn't plan to sell it to the fans of X-Com from the start. But in that case ... as I said, I do not believe the average gamer to be interested in this genre, anyways.

I have to disagree with you on the core of x-com. There are a lot of turn based combat games, but I don't call them x-com. For me the core is the interplay between the tactical and global. How the actions in one carry over into the other.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:To be fair, Fallout 3 was a pretty good game, and that deviated a bit from the original.

That's a good point, though I would add that FO3 was an entirely different genre - and it wouldn't have worked if they had tried to pull it off with a squad-based game such as Fallout Tactics, Jagged Alliance or ... well, X-Com.

Although I actually do think that FPS experiments in the X-Com setting can be successful, too, if they pull it off like something akin to Republic Commando or Mass Effect. Ironically, someone did try to make an X-Com shooter and it failed hilariously - though its original idea was pretty good, it only got messed up in development due to budget cuts and publisher interference and devolved from a squad-based trooper game into "one super robot vs aliens".

For the record, I also enjoyed X-Com Interceptor, and this was as far away from Enemy Unknown as you can possibly get. But if you want to stay in the turn-based genre, there's only so much you can do. I could possibly get used to a 3D interface like in Incubation, but for some reason I still think I'd prefer the classic isometric view.

nomotog wrote:I have to disagree with you on the core of x-com. There are a lot of turn based combat games, but I don't call them x-com. For me the core is the interplay between the tactical and global. How the actions in one carry over into the other.

Granted. My criticism is addressing the combat part only. I have not seen enough of how the remake deals with base-building and global response yet, and neither was it discussed up until now.

Well Last I checked, there is only one base and there is no more ammo. The ammo thing bugs me. That was a big part of the interaction.

The actually combat, I am more forgiving on. They could make it a FPS so long as they included all the base building and tac global interaction.

nomotog wrote:The actually combat, I am more forgiving on. They could make it a FPS so long as they included all the base building and tac global interaction.

For me it'd probably depend on how they would pull it off. I could enjoy a squad-based FPS for the combat part nearly as much as I would enjoy classic turn-based isometric tactics. However, each version demands a very specific approach, and for it to be fun they'd have to get it just right, meaning to focus on and exploit all the unique options available in the chosen genre ... rather than trying to create something in-between, be it by dumbing down tactical decisions in the turn-based variant, or by making the FPS too complex.

Also: sigh @ no ammo. I'll be keeping an eye on this remake, but from what I can see it's not nearly as close to the original as I would have hoped. :(

Well there is always xenonauts.

I kinda miss the X-Com setting I've grown to love (Sectoids! Crysalids!), but I have to admit that does sound interesting. Thanks for the hint, I've never heard of this one before.

Lynata wrote:Which I get. Absolutely. But when you make a game based on the original X-Com, why forsake the mechanics that made it great, why not appeal to its true fans?

Because they want to sell copies of the game, and because gaming mechanics have advanced in the ensuing ~20 years since the original was released.

For example, the idea of a turn based game where I can't automate certain tasks is really strange to me, and feels very clunky. Granted I'm only slightly older than the game is, but I'm also the target demographic they're going to appeal to.

Even an "out of ammo" similar to the build notifications in Civilization would be preferable to the current system.

Lynata wrote:
What's the reason behind taking that name and making something else out of it?

Have you seen the other game? Or Syndicate, for that matter?

Its possible to make a good, and interesting game using an old IP without bringing in all, or any of, the core mechanics.

Lynata wrote:
An attempt to cash in on the "new generation" that has never played and loved the original is doomed to fail - Dragon Age 2 is a prime example of what happens when you deform an established franchise by focusing on the so-called "untapped potential" whilst simultaneously forsaking its fans.

Dragon Age 2 did well enough to warrant a Dragon Age 3 and, while it wasn't a great game, it was still pretty fun.

If you want an example of an existing property updated using modern mechanics, look at Battlezone.

Lynata wrote:
Today's average gamer doesn't want turn-based tactical combat.

That's certainly true (To a point: see Civilization and other successful turn-based games.), but plenty of people that want turn-based tactical combat also think X-COM is badly dated in terms of its interface, and mechanics.

Lynata wrote:
Every little bit you compromise in favour of the majority increases the risk that few people will buy it. The true fans will be disappointed because it's not close enough to what they knew and what they hoped for, and the "untapped potential" will remain untapped because they're disinterested in that kind of title from the start.

If they re-skinned the old Enemy Unknown I would never buy it, and would consider it an awful game due to the context of what could have been done.

In essence, why would I buy this re-skin of EU for 50-60 USD when I can buy the original for 5 USD?

dogma wrote:Because they want to sell copies of the game, and because gaming mechanics have advanced in the ensuing ~20 years since the original was released.

So in essence they just want to cash in on the name. Well, we'll see how that works. From what I can see, the game tries to appeal to too many people at once and runs a high risk of disappointing both the fans of the original as well as current-gen gamers.

dogma wrote:Have you seen the other game? Or Syndicate, for that matter?

The "other game"?

I've looked up Syndicate. On first glance, it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the original aside from the setting. It's a completely different genre - which is why it's fine. Like I said, I also enjoyed X-Com Interceptor, and I enjoyed FO3. When you plan a shooter, then do that and develop a shooter. However, when you plan for a tactical turn-based game, then ... just do a tactical turn-based game, and not some castrated point-n-click action hybrid?

dogma wrote:Its possible to make a good, and interesting game using an old IP without bringing in all, or any of, the core mechanics.

Depends on what exactly you change. Making a game whose combat is focused on tactical decisions, and then opting to remove said decisions, just sounds like a stupid move to me.

dogma wrote:Dragon Age 2 did well enough to warrant a Dragon Age 3 and, while it wasn't a great game, it was still pretty fun.

By itself, it was pretty fun, aye. But it was a horrible sequel. And you know why? Because it tried to appeal to too many people at once. It alienated fans of DA:O whilst simultaneously not being interesting enough for the crowd BioWare wanted to tap with the changes they made. It sold below expectations, and even the units that it did sell would have been a lot less had the game not profited from the reputation of its predecessor, many people quite simply buying the proverbial pig in a poke because they expected a game like DA:O.

Here's a few interesting charts. Notice the trend difference between sales of DA:O and DA2? http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/7315865/1

I submit that DA2 would have done better if it was closer to its predecessor instead of being attuned to a different target audience. Which is what this X-Com Remake is in the process of undergoing right now as well.

dogma wrote:In essence, why would I buy this re-skin of EU for 50-60 USD when I can buy the original for 5 USD?

Because the original doesn't run on modern systems, sadly.

Also, I've never said that a Remake would have to be an exact carbon-copy of the original. I merely object the removal of such important features instead of adding something that actually fits in with the theme. Of the "Enemy Unknown" style, there have been three titles of the X-Com series - all offered some minor difference, and all sold reasonably why. So obviously it is possible - you just have to follow the same artistic vision. An example: I bet you 10 units of Elerium 119 that a re-skin of EU, only enriched with an optional multiplayer part (co-op and versus, campaign and random maps), would very much sell for 50-60 USD. "Xenonauts" also seems to suggest a few nice little tweaks that would be very much worth adapting, such as having more fighters / UFOs in air combat simultaneously. That is how you do it. Not by ripping apart the very fabric of tactical combat!

Or just get to work on the original game, make it run on modern OS and sell it for 10 bucks instead of 5. I'm sure a lot of people would bite. You reading this, GoG?

The original runs on my computer. I picked it up on steam. For 10 bucks actually. So they did that for you already.

Xenonauts is a neat case. The game is getting no press and half of the developers are basically working at cost. There dosen't look to be a lot of money for turn based computer games. Things have just moved on so much in that time. Can you picture a AAA turn based game at $60. It's taking a ton of dedication to the original property to make these new X-com games anywhere close to there original form.

The fact that we are getting a full on turn based x-com game is a good thing. A good thing. Swapping out TUs is pennies compared to what they are keeping.

Lynata wrote:So in essence they just want to cash in on the name.

Well, yeah, that's why people remake games and buy licenses. I can make a game absolutely identical to the new Mechwarrior, call it Giant Doom Robots, and it won't sell nearly as well.

Lynata wrote:
The "other game"?

Click on the left side.

Lynata wrote:
However, when you plan for a tactical turn-based game, then ... just do a tactical turn-based game, and not some castrated point-n-click action hybrid?

I can make a tactical, turn-based game without replicating X-COM.

dogma wrote:
I submit that DA2 would have done better if it was closer to its predecessor instead of being attuned to a different target audience.

I think it would have done better had it been a better game, and the original was a better game, but I don't think the issue was alienating fans.

dogma wrote:Because the original doesn't run on modern systems, sadly.

I played it on the computer I'm using right now. If I can play Mutant League Hockey on my PC, you can play X-COM.

Lynata wrote:

Because the original doesn't run on modern systems, sadly.

Actually it does. You need DosBox, a wonderful little program that comes with all the features needed to play old games. Even sound.

I just picked up UFO defense on Steam out of curiosity. I liked what I played, but I've got some learning to do. Like learning not to walk into a blind corridor *ZAP*

Reminds me of a tabletop game. Especially with gakky dice rolls.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Actually it does. You need DosBox, a wonderful little program that comes with all the features needed to play old games. Even sound.

On Win7?

Hmm? May have to investigate. The experience I have with trying to run older games is that if they work at all, mouse speed is completely fubar - which of course becomes an issue in a game like this. But I guess it's worth a try.

DickBandit wrote:I just picked up UFO defense on Steam out of curiosity. I liked what I played, but I've got some learning to do. Like learning not to walk into a blind corridor *ZAP*

Haha, I think we all did that at some point when first playing the game. Sadly, in the remake this risk will apparently no longer be part of the features as you'll always be able to shoot regardless of how far you walk. Meh.

DickBandit wrote:Reminds me of a tabletop game. Especially with gakky dice rolls.

I hear ya. It gets funny when your squad levels an entire building trying to hit a sectoid peeking out of a window.
Ammoless laser rifles ftw.

Yes, DosBox is compatible with win7. Both of my machines have win7, and both are capable of running X-Com on dosbox.

dosbox works in windows 7
My xcom apoc keeps crashing anyways though :(

Awesome, thanks for the hint! I'm aware that DosBox is compatible with Win7, it's just that not all games run equally well on it.

Apparently (at least according to this post), the version on sale on Steam is different than the boxed one I purchased back in the day - seems like they tinkered a bit with it, resulting in the game better adapting to high processor speeds. This was a huge problem I had with the good old MoO2 as well until I got the GoG version which only has a slow mouse (fortunately this doesn't really detract from the fun).

Also stumbled over this mod now: http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:Seb76#UFO_Extender
Sounds pretty interesting...

Sorry if someone has already posted this, a link with some screen shots, as well as an explanation of how the game will operate. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/26/advanced-tactics-exploring-xcom-39-s-combat-part-1.aspx

Definitely looking forward to this!

Lynata wrote:Awesome, thanks for the hint! I'm aware that DosBox is compatible with Win7, it's just that not all games run equally well on it.

Apparently (at least according to this post), the version on sale on Steam is different than the boxed one I purchased back in the day - seems like they tinkered a bit with it, resulting in the game better adapting to high processor speeds. This was a huge problem I had with the good old MoO2 as well until I got the GoG version which only has a slow mouse (fortunately this doesn't really detract from the fun).

Also stumbled over this mod now: http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:Seb76#UFO_Extender
Sounds pretty interesting...

Wow, this looks like a really cool looking mod. Does it work for the DOS version, or do I have to use the cd/windows copy?