XCOM2 announced!

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.

**Talizvar**

nomotog wrote:
New thing up. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first
But the procedurally generated approach of XCOM 2 doesn’t stop with the patchwork environments and battlefield locales. For the first time, your squad will not only be tasked with exterminating the aliens in the area, but secondary mission objectives which will cater to the procedurally generated settings. “It might be blowing up one of these buildings to spark the resistance,” Foertsch said. “It might be hacking a workstation, or protecting a device. All these different things you can do that can show up and in dozens of different buildings and areas. And you don't know what you're going to get.

Gah!! It is now like 40k with Maelstrom objectives! (kinda).
Why does it look like they will drop so many carrots for the run-and-gun approach to the game?
Oh I see many a bad scenario my guys will wander into.

**Trondheim**

Talizvar wrote:
nomotog wrote:
New thing up. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first
But the procedurally generated approach of XCOM 2 doesn’t stop with the patchwork environments and battlefield locales. For the first time, your squad will not only be tasked with exterminating the aliens in the area, but secondary mission objectives which will cater to the procedurally generated settings. “It might be blowing up one of these buildings to spark the resistance,” Foertsch said. “It might be hacking a workstation, or protecting a device. All these different things you can do that can show up and in dozens of different buildings and areas. And you don't know what you're going to get.
Gah!! It is now like 40k with Maelstrom objectives! (kinda).
Why does it look like they will drop so many carrots for the run-and-gun approach to the game?
Oh I see many a bad scenario my guys will wander into.

Now whom in the development team thougth this would be a good idea? So not only will be my team be underdogs for quite some time, but we will need to ravage buildings, guard a transmiter and what not too? Wow sounds like I may not enjoy this as much I had hoped. But time will tell as the game just got announced and such

**Crablezworth**

I feel like meld was a good enough incentive to increase movement and decrease overly cautious always overwatched play. I 'm really hoping for more on the world map side of things. that was the weakest part of xcom and where it distanced itself the most from the original.

**nomotog**

Trondheim wrote:
Talizvar wrote:
nomotog wrote:
New thing up. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first
But the procedurally generated approach of XCOM 2 doesn’t stop with the patchwork environments and battlefield locales. For the first time, your squad will not only be tasked with exterminating the aliens in the area, but secondary mission objectives which will cater to the procedurally generated settings. “It might be blowing up one of these buildings to spark the resistance,” Foertsch said. “It might be hacking a workstation, or protecting a device. All these different things you can do that can show up and in dozens of different buildings and areas. And you don't know what you're going to get.
Gah!! It is now like 40k with Maelstrom objectives! (kinda).
Why does it look like they will drop so many carrots for the run-and-gun approach to the game?
Oh I see many a bad scenario my guys will wander into.

Now whom in the development team thougth this would be a good idea? So not only will be my team be underdogs for quite some time, but we will need to ravage buildings, guard a transmiter and what not too? Wow sounds like I may not enjoy this as much I had hoped. But time will tell as the game just got announced and such

People are seeing that as a bad thing? I don't see why. The lack of objective verity was a big problem I had with Xcom. Though the random nature sounds a little off putting.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Trondheim wrote:
Talizvar wrote:
nomotog wrote:
New thing up. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first
But the procedurally generated approach of XCOM 2 doesn’t stop with the patchwork environments and battlefield locales. For the first time, your squad will not only be tasked with exterminating the aliens in the area, but secondary mission objectives which will cater to the procedurally generated settings. “It might be blowing up one of these buildings to spark the resistance,” Foertsch said. “It might be hacking a workstation, or protecting a device. All these different things you can do that can show up and in dozens of different buildings and areas. And you don't know what you're going to get.
Gah!! It is now like 40k with Maelstrom objectives! (kinda).
Why does it look like they will drop so many carrots for the run-and-gun approach to the game?
Oh I see many a bad scenario my guys will wander into.

Now whom in the development team thougth this would be a good idea? So not only will be my team be underdogs for quite some time, but we will need to ravage buildings, guard a transmiter and what not too? Wow sounds like I may not enjoy this as much I had hoped. But time will tell as the game just got announced and such

I'm guessing it will be an optional thing, like meld.
Sure, you don't have to do it, but it would be easier on you if you did.

**pretre**

"Commander, I know you're after the Advent local HQ right now, but a target of opportunity has presented itself. Two blocks west is a transmitter hooked into the local propaganda net. If we can hack it, we can put our own feed out over their signal... blah blah"

**hotsauceman1**

Talizvar wrote:
It looks like they are keeping the "bones" of the prior game so I have high hopes they can focus on many tweaks that were demonstrable with long war.
A bit more money can be spent on story and new content.

I hope to see more options of what your people can do in the tactical game and expanded tactics in the strategic part of the game.

There are so many types of tech trees out there in games.
I hope there can be more synergies to make choices harder like you could be more adaptable but specialization gives some perks.

"Path of Exile" is not a really good comparable thing BUT I was always impressed with how hard a choice some things were or ploughing ahead to a perk I really wanted in their passive tree. It is a wee bit nuts:

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, I fully understand PC is superior, and I can build a decent one for cheap. The problem is, I will have to update it and call several people to help me. I dont want to have to worry about "Will gaming system run this" with a Ps4, its put in and play.
I can appreciate how much this game means to you by what madness you are contemplating.
If I were in your position I would wait and see what further discussions they have on the PC only release and see if it is only a temporary thing (as you know I could bet money it is).

I loved the game. I remember thinking one day at the gym "I wish I didnt sell Xcom back" Then I looked up, EW was only 15 on 360. Bought, took a bus home to play it and enjoyed myself.
What im upset is that this will show why the aliens have invaded, I can gleam so much from the previous game and the Trailer, that the aliens want humans for something special. They experimented so much on others, and from what the leading ethereal said it can be so much. It could be a worse invasion force. It could be something might be happening to planet earth as to require us to evolve.
Who knows, maybe the aliens ARE genuinly concerned for humanity.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:
I feel like meld was a good enough incentive to increase movement and decrease overly cautious always overwatched play. I 'm really hoping for more on the world map side of things. that was the weakest part of xcom and where it distanced itself the most from the original.

Until Late Game, when it is all but useless and you have your A team

**Eumerin**

Trondheim wrote:
Now whom in the development team thougth this would be a good idea? So not only will be my team be underdogs for quite some time, but we will need to ravage buildings, guard a transmiter and what not too? Wow sounds like I may not enjoy this as much I had hoped. But time will tell as the game just got announced and such

No, you don't have to. It's clearly stated that these will be secondary objectives. If the mission's going well, then you can give your side a little extra boost. If the mission's a rough one, then you can ignore them and focus on the primary objective.

**malfred**

nomotog wrote:
New thing up. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first

Though modular in nature, buildings in XCOM 2 aren’t procedurally generated, but crafted set pieces, and almost entirely destructible – including their ceilings and floors.

But the procedurally generated approach of XCOM 2 doesn’t stop with the patchwork environments and battlefield locales. For the first time, your squad will not only be tasked with exterminating the aliens in the area, but secondary mission objectives which will cater to the procedurally generated settings. “It might be blowing up one of these buildings to spark the resistance,” Foertsch said. “It might be hacking a workstation, or protecting a device. All these different things you can do that can show up and in dozens of different buildings and areas. And you don't know what you're going to get.

Thanks! Added.

**pretre**

BY DAN STAPLETONThis November, XCOM 2 will appear exclusively on PC (Windows, Mac OS, and Linux), delivered through Steam.

“Yeah, we figured that would surprise some people,” said Lead Producer Garth DeAngelis.

It certainly surprised us. Considering XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Enemy Within initially came out on PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3, and have since even been ported to iOS and Android, narrowing focus to a single platform for the sequel seems to defy conventional game-development wisdom. But if there’s a developer out there that knows how to be successful making PC games, it’s Firaxis. The Maryland-based studio is best known for the Sid Meier’s Civilization series, which (other than the Civilization: Revolution console and mobile spinoffs) has resolutely stuck to its PC roots for 20 years.

XCOM 2 Reveal Trailer - IGN First
03:03
“
Our expertise here is PC. That's our home, and that's where we're really comfortable.

A focus on PC was the only way to make the XCOM 2 that Creative Director Jake Solomon and his team envisioned when they sat down to talk after completing Enemy Unknown. “When we looked at what we wanted to do with the sequel, we had all these very, very ambitious goals,” said Solomon. On his must-have list were high-fidelity characters and environments, better-looking destruction, physically based rendering, and the crown jewel he’d wanted to get into Enemy Unknown but couldn’t: procedurally generated maps. “To do that, we had to use all of our studio expertise … and our expertise here is PC. That's our home, and that's where we're really comfortable.”

Focusing all of Firaxis’ efforts on the PC made logistical sense to DeAngelis, too. “Internally, with a relatively small team for the size of the game that we are, to be able to say we can focus on our platform that the studio has a pedigree for, and that X-COM: UFO Defense has a pedigree for, as PC-only... it just made a lot of sense, and that's how we wanted to dedicate our time.” XCOM 2 runs on a heavily modified version of Unreal Engine 3.5 (Firaxis’ customizations are too extensive to easily move to Unreal 4), which in some ways has been rewritten to the point of being “unrecognizable,” and it’s much simpler to make that work on one platform than three or more at once.

Concept art of XCOM's new mobile base, the Avenger.
Despite being on the run, XCOM soldiers will still have access to advanced hair-care technology.

Advent Troopers dig in against an XCOM assault.
Advent Captains are stronger versions that can buff nearby troopers.
Advertisement
An XCOM Ranger prepares to ambush an Advent Captain and Soldier.
The terrifying evolved version of the Sectoid. Nice teeth!
“
We talk about ‘What is the experience like on PC? What does the mouse feel like?'

“When we have our meetings, when we talk about stuff, we only talk about PC,” said Solomon. “We talk about ‘What is the experience like on PC? What does the mouse feel like in this experience?’” The most obvious change resulting from those conversations is how the team is optimizing the interface to be mouse-and-keyboard friendly, moving UI elements and grouping them logically so that buttons we’re likely to press one after the other aren’t placed on opposite sides of the screen. “It will certainly be recognizable, but there isn't one UI widget that's the same,” said Solomon. We’ll also see more tactical information (such as detailed explanations of why your chance to hit is increased or decreased) displayed on the tactical interface, since Firaxis can now count on players sitting closer to their PC monitors and being able to read smaller text. And though Firaxis plans to add it in the future, the current plan is to launch without gamepad support.

Running The Numbers
Does this decision make business sense for XCOM’s future? 2K isn’t sharing sales figures for XCOM: Enemy Unknown or Enemy Within, or how sales broke down across the PC and console versions, so it’s impossible to say for sure. However, using publicly available Steam data, third-party site SteamSpy unofficially estimates 2.6 million PC copies sold since October of 2012. (That figure does factor in numerous deep Steam sales where it’s sold for as little as five dollars, and its inclusion in HumbleBundles.) Reliable console version sales numbers are difficult to come by, though based on failing to chart in the NPD top 10 retail games for October 2012, it’s safe to speculate that console audiences didn’t flock to XCOM.

XCOM 2 Reveal Trailer - Rewind Theater
19:51
Meanwhile, XCOM: Enemy Unknown’s popularity has endured on Steam. It’s maintained a spot in the Top 100 Steam games ever since day one, initially peaking at 70,000 concurrent players, and still averages between 3,000 and 4,000 peak concurrent players more than 18 months after its Enemy Within expansion came out. (Note: Steam’s peak concurrent players figure is the number of people playing simultaneously; daily total player numbers would be considerably higher, but are not publicly available.) Redirecting the resources that would’ve been necessary to release XCOM 2 on multiple platforms toward making the PC version better and more replayable makes a certain amount of sense – especially if Firaxis can turn XCOM into a game that rivals Civilization in bang-for-the-buck longevity.

“
Solomon wouldn’t rule out a console version.

As for the chances of XCOM 2 making its way to Xbox One and PlayStation 4 at some point in the future, Solomon wouldn’t rule it out, but it won’t happen any time soon. “We're certainly not opposed to that, but I can assure that's something we're not even discussing yet,” he said. He added that the PS4 and Xbox One would likely be technically capable of running XCOM 2, but developing all of these features for multiple platforms simultaneously would be impossible for Firaxis to do.

Of course, the one thing that a console version of XCOM 2 wouldn’t be able to handle at all is modding, which Solomon and DeAngelis consider to be one of it’s biggest features and key to offering the kind of long-term replayablity and value people have come to expect from the makers of Sid Meier’s Civilization. We’ll have more on how Firaxis is embracing modders in XCOM 2 next week.

**mattyrm**

Is there anything better than Xcom? I hope this is a little similar to Xcom Apocalypse, it certainly seems that way in some massive mega city.

As I have aged I play games a lot less, only RPGs and turn-based strategies really hold my interest these days, but I routniely play Xcom.

I think in the last 5 years I have reinstalled and played all of them again, I think I completed Xcom Apocalypse again only about 2 years ago...

Oh and I bought Xenonauts a few months back, if anybody hasn't heard of, or played that game, I heartily recommend it. I'm somewhat stunned by the mediocre reviews personally, I find it far more elegant than the original, especially the lack of energy and the way you don't wind up checking for lone aliens in cupboards after 99 turns.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/xenonauts

**Silent Puffin?**

mattyrm wrote:

I think in the last 5 years I have reinstalled and played all of them again, I think I completed Xcom Apocalypse again only about 2 years ago...

I have never completed Apoc. I always get to the same mission in the alien dimension with the multiple megaspawn and give up in disgust after my entire squad gets repeatedly wiped out (again). Its a shame that Apoc's end game is quite flat, once you can mount effective raids on the alien dimension there is nothing that the aliens can really do to stop you (aside from all those damn megaspawn of course).

I really hope that some of the concepts in Apoc make their way into this new game, not least factional politics and espionage.

I backed the Xenonauts kickstarter and unfortunately it is too brutal for me: I dislike losing many of my little minions in these sort of games and they drop like flies in Xenonauts, even on normal difficulty. Its obviously a really good game though and arguably much closer to X-COM than XCOM.

**mattyrm**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
mattyrm wrote:

I think in the last 5 years I have reinstalled and played all of them again, I think I completed Xcom Apocalypse again only about 2 years ago...

I have never completed Apoc. I always get to the same mission in the alien dimension with the multiple megaspawn and give up in disgust after my entire squad gets repeatedly wiped out (again). Its a shame that Apoc's end game is quite flat, once you can mount effective raids on the alien dimension there is nothing that the aliens can really do to stop you (aside from all those damn megaspawn of course).

I really hope that some of the concepts in Apoc make their way into this new game, not least factional politics and espionage.

I backed the Xenonauts kickstarter and unfortunately it is too brutal for me: I dislike losing many of my little minions in these sort of games and they drop like flies in Xenonauts, even on normal difficulty. Its obviously a really good game though and arguably much closer to X-COM than XCOM.

I found that the endgame in Apoc was pretty easy, once you get those fething teleporters it just sorta makes the whole thing a bit of a cakewalk. Teleporting type C toxiguns are just insane, the whole thing seemed to just turn into "walk a bit, see an alien out of the corner of your eye, teleport behind him to be greeted by a massive clump of aliens, slaughter them all with two guys"

The last mission was pretty hard because there were so many, but I got around that by reloading the level and taking 6 or 7 of those crazy missile launchers and then blowing the gak out of absolutely everything.

As for Xenonauts, they seemed to snap shot a lot more and I lost more men, but still only about 15-20 on a playthrough, maybe knock the difficulty down to easy if you are really struggling, because its a hell of a game.

**hotsauceman1**

So, Modding is required for long term viability for Xcom?
Why not just make a game that people want to play again and again?

**streamdragon**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, Modding is required for long term viability for Xcom?
Why not just make a game that people want to play again and again?

A long article on why they chose to focus on PC development, and you choose to focus on just the last sentence regarding modding.

**hotsauceman1**

I no, I see, I still think it is Utter BS
"We are not good at making Console games"
Then why did you make a great Xcom?
"Modding is required for 2"
Console players dont give a damn about moddin"
"Keyboard and mouse is Deh best"
Alright then why where the controles for #1 just as good on a controller.
Firaxis has screwed over people that loved their game and it is slowed. And quite frankly this "PC Elitist" gak is getting old

**streamdragon**

What you think they said: "We are not good at making console games"
What they actually said: "We are more comfortable and better skilled at making PC games."

What you think they said:"Modding is required for 2"
What they actually said: "We think modding will be great for the long term replayability of our game"

What you think they said: "Keyboard and mouse is dah best"
What they actually said: "We had to completely overhaul the UI to work better with KB/M"

What you think they said: "PC MASTER RACE! HEIL GATES! HEIL WOZ!"
What they actually said: "..."

**hotsauceman1**

I never said those. They made a GREAT Game, and they could easily make another great Xcom2 game. These guys screwed over a significant of their fanbase.
And what im saying is im tired of hearing arguments that PC players are the best and are the only ones deserving of a great game such as Xcom

**Talizvar**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I no, I see, I still think it is Utter BS
"We are not good at making Console games"
Then why did you make a great Xcom?
"Modding is required for 2"
Console players dont give a damn about moddin"
"Keyboard and mouse is Deh best"
Alright then why where the controles for #1 just as good on a controller.
Firaxis has screwed over people that loved their game and it is slowed. And quite frankly this "PC Elitist" gak is getting old

I feel that reading between the lines:
- They "heavily modified Unreal 3.5" and there is probably a real fear that trying to port over Xcom2 to console would be unstable.
- Due to the lack of expertise with consoles, getting others up to speed or building in the compatibility from the get-go they may feel impacts their deliverable time too much.
- The crew they have that is writing the code are not familiar enough with console to properly "allow for" in their code console peculiarities or limitations similar to the above statement.
- There may have been some lessons learned with the various controllers there may be a "we learned from that issue and it will need careful consideration", some "gotchya's" we are not aware of.

In all honesty, what makes the #1 reason for programmers to want to code for the PC only: less limitations.

You can always up the PC requirements for hardware and that used to be par for the course to play the latest hotness of software.
Programmers like artists like their "freedom": "What do you mean I have only 2gig or ram to play with?", 32bit system? Really?, 0.5gig HD footprint only? (??).

Irritating things like memory optimization, loading timing, processor usage are all strong considerations.
Many of these old timers are trained to be lazy programmers because they were never required to write tight code.
The new generation of tablet and console programmers have the "proper" habits of this generation of computing.

<edit> BUT anyone a decade away from retirement would remember programming prior to the PC in the early years of console and it would be same-old-same-old to them.
Ah, Atari 2600, Intellivision... I do not think of myself as a console gamer but I was heavily in my early years.

**nomotog**

PC only is OK, but it means you have to deal with PC limitations. The thing that bugs me is that people think PC is the platform for graphics, but it's really not. If you want to sell a game on fidelity, then you should sell it on console because your just not going to be able to guarantee that fidelity to all your customers on PC.

**Silent Puffin?**

nomotog wrote:
PC only is OK, but it means you have to deal with PC limitations.

Which are?

**Talizvar**

nomotog wrote:
PC only is OK, but it means you have to deal with PC limitations. The thing that bugs me is that people think PC is the platform for graphics, but it's really not. If you want to sell a game on fidelity, then you should sell it on console because your just not going to be able to guarantee that fidelity to all your customers on PC.

I am a little confused on this statement.
Consoles are geared toward "TV" resolutions and currently "full" HD runs at 1080p = 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixel).
Many mid-end monitors run at 2560x1440.
A quick search on a "cheap" video card ($43) max resolution is 2560x1600 (PNY - GeForce GT 610 1GB DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card - Black).
My card is a Radeon 6870 and is over 5 years old and blows the dust off the before mentioned card and can hit resolutions far greater than any monitor I could afford.

Fidelity can only be guaranteed to whatever hardware the person is running that was new within the last decade.
(2005: Windows XP professional released that year, Dual-core processors released).
If there was a console release you would not typically be able to play the game on a PS3(2006) or Xbox360(2005) at this point.

**nomotog**

Talizvar wrote:
nomotog wrote:
PC only is OK, but it means you have to deal with PC limitations. The thing that bugs me is that people think PC is the platform for graphics, but it's really not. If you want to sell a game on fidelity, then you should sell it on console because your just not going to be able to guarantee that fidelity to all your customers on PC.
I am a little confused on this statement.
Consoles are geared toward "TV" resolutions and currently "full" HD runs at 1080p = 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixel).
Many mid-end monitors run at 2560x1440.
A quick search on a "cheap" video card ($43) max resolution is 2560x1600 (PNY - GeForce GT 610 1GB DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card - Black).
My card is a Radeon 6870 and is over 5 years old and blows the dust off the before mentioned card and can hit resolutions far greater than any monitor I could afford.

Fidelity can only be guaranteed to whatever hardware the person is running that was new within the last decade.
(2005: Windows XP professional released that year, Dual-core processors released).
If there was a console release you would not typically be able to play the game on a PS3(2006) or Xbox360(2005) at this point.

It's just that you never know what settings your customer will have. You have people trying to game with intel graphics, so your never going to be able to guarantee that the game will look as good as it dose in the screen shots.

**mattyrm**

I have to disagree about PC limitations as well, I certainly am not an "elitist" PC owner, but they dont seem to have many, other than the fact they are more expensive obviously.

I love my consoles, but PCs have few limitations, its probably why they are much more expensive!

You get what you pay for.

Plus, I don't mind Xcom on a console since they redesigned the UI, but I still prefer it with a mouse and keyboard, the same can be said of almost every strategy game I have ever played.

**Grey Templar**

I would contend that PCs are actually less expensive because they last much longer than Consoles do, and they can be used for many more things as well. Plus you can upgrade them single parts at a time, if your graphics card is out of date you only need a new graphics card, not a whole new device. A PC can do everything a Console can, and ten times more besides.

**flamingkillamajig**

All this coverage of xcom 2 get anybody to play enemy unknown or within like me? I keep getting my *** handed to me in impossible ironman runs. There's just nothing i can do. I've even used scopes more successfully esp. with laser weapons and used rooftops and walls to block line of sight while i chuck grenades over them but to no avail (helps get rid of enemy cover so your guys with scopes can light em up). I don't even bother with the french convoy mission. Sad thing is things were going well until i was hit with the hammer twice. Once in a terror mission and in various other bomb disposal missions where you have to hurry. It doesn't help either that light plasma rifles just cut through you regardless of armor mostly. Using scopes, grenades, some flanking and high ground helps considerably though. Chrysallids still owned me in terror missions and it didn't help fighting wave after wave of baddies with some of my vets getting in medbay or dying to the extent i couldn't get an officer training school up and no more squad members.

**Melissia**

Oh boy, pc console fighting again.

Aaaanyway, this is surprising, but still, understandable.

**Destrado**

Melissia wrote:Oh boy, pc console fighting again.

Fight the good fight.

Talizvar wrote:
nomotog wrote:
PC only is OK, but it means you have to deal with PC limitations. The thing that bugs me is that people think PC is the platform for graphics, but it's really not. If you want to sell a game on fidelity, then you should sell it on console because your just not going to be able to guarantee that fidelity to all your customers on PC.
I am a little confused on this statement.
Consoles are geared toward "TV" resolutions and currently "full" HD runs at 1080p = 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixel).
Many mid-end monitors run at 2560x1440.
A quick search on a "cheap" video card ($43) max resolution is 2560x1600 (PNY - GeForce GT 610 1GB DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 Graphics Card - Black).
My card is a Radeon 6870 and is over 5 years old and blows the dust off the before mentioned card and can hit resolutions far greater than any monitor I could afford.

Fidelity can only be guaranteed to whatever hardware the person is running that was new within the last decade.
(2005: Windows XP professional released that year, Dual-core processors released).
If there was a console release you would not typically be able to play the game on a PS3(2006) or Xbox360(2005) at this point.

XCOM will run on my 2009 macbook, albeit at a lower res than the native 1280x800. The nvidia 9400m and my C2D cpu are way under what you'd get today with a cheap motherboard and a pentium-k, and even with intel graphics the game should work at 720p or even 1080p in low settings.

The 6870 is still a great card for 1080p. You might not run everything maxed out, but it's still a solid gaming card. I'm installing one on my living-room htpc to try out steam os.

**mattyrm**

Melissia wrote:
Oh boy, pc console fighting again.

Aaaanyway, this is surprising, but still, understandable.

You can enlighten me Mel, I don't show up much these days.

Exactly what is the argument against a PC? I play both console and PC, I don't think there are many limitations to either personally, but I'm curious that there is actually an argument. If you can afford $1000 for a PC, you buy one don't you? I think most "arguments" boil down to people feeling they have to pick a side even though they really don't.

The only time I never owned both was when I was skint, and I only owned a Gamecube! As soon as I grew up and went to work I have always had both, so its hardly like I'm not on the fence. I have a PS3 and a Wii as well, I still play them all.

What is the limitations of a PC exactly other than money? If you have the cash, a PC can do everything a console can, and it also has more options, I even have a Gucci control pad for my PC. I'm genuinely curious as to what the argument against them is, because I love my consoles, but I always prefer strategy games on PC just because the mouse and keyboard works better. Nazi Zombies was always better on the PS3 because its parsimonious and easy to use and it never failed to match me inside a minute, but it doesn't preclude me from liking the PC as well surely?

**Talizvar**

Melissia wrote:
Oh boy, pc console fighting again.
Aaaanyway, this is surprising, but still, understandable.

No worries on a "fight".
I tried to give some ideas of why-oh-why PC release only.
The note on PC limitations was a genuine confusion since fairly old machines can run the Unreal engine handily.
Console is the bigger market-share for games so the arguments are rather silly.
Tablets and Xbox in general show the trend toward an appliance form factor of computing.
I personally found the last 5 years to have the least push in PC hardware requirements.
It was quite intentional to point out Xbox 360 and PS 3: they pretty much set the standard for hardware requirements.
Steam, the more popular game delivery is becoming an operating system / console if they have their way soon.

It all seems to be converging rather than diverging: console and PC at this time have little to differentiate other than those times software developers are pushing hardware limits or my guess here is operating system compatibility limits.

Plus, anyone missing out on a new Xcom release makes me sad.