Support NeoGAF

[TTG]

I so want to listen to the podcast with the game director, but at some point, I just need to turn the media stuff off and just wait for the game. I've already watched the walk throughs they have up.

 

[Mupod]

I so want to listen to the podcast with the game director, but at some point, I just need to turn the media stuff off and just wait for the game. I've already watched the walk throughs they have up.

I kinda regret seeing too much of this game. I figured they'd only show off a handful of enemy types but based on the number they threw out recently (14) they've shown almost everything. I hope I'm wrong, but man I just can't help myself. I love the developer playthroughs so much, the multiplayer streams/videos are hilarious too.

 

[Nocebo]

Can we quit acting like there isn't anything that couldn't be improved upon in the original XCOM?

I appreciate the concerns over consolitis, but bitching about a cover system which is essentially the same as the first one, but with more information readily available is just silly.

Right back at ya "Can we quit acting like there isn't anything that couldn't be improved upon this version of XCOM?"
I mean really guys, some of you are acting like this game won't have faults or didn't make poor design decisions.

 

[Lombax]

Will the PC version have steam cloud saves?

 

[whalleywhat]

The best thing about checking out that Three Move Ahead podcast was finding out that Tom vs. Bruce is back.

 

[garath]

It's like I listened to another podcast.

They say stuff like "the open spaces are irrelevant" or "here if you force the soldier into an open field they'll get destroyed". The lead designer also says that the open space is a "dead area where the AI doesn't go there".

Yes it is different, and I explained why the mandatory cover mechanic, among the other things, is worse than what the original did. There's no need to get angry.

It's not mandatory. It's perfectly optional. You can leave your soldier out of cover if you would like. It has the same tactical options. Move and shoot from the open or dash to cover, etc.

Arguments like this are best ended by looking at it from a real life standpoint. Is it a better tactical decision to stand next to cover or out in the open? If the original game somehow made standing out in the open for the aliens to shoot you viable (I don't remember that it did), then this is an improvement.

Right back at ya "Can we quit acting like there isn't anything that couldn't be improved upon this version of XCOM?"
I mean really guys, some of you are acting like this game won't have faults or didn't make poor design decisions.

I'm certain there are design decisions that will end up not playing out as well as the first. Positive in fact. However, a lot of the arguments are more nostalgia based than what really might make a better game.

On a completely different note. I have a problem with these types of games. I don't like to lose soldiers. I think my only solution is going to be playing on Ironman from the get go. Make my decisions matter. No rerolls!

 

[Mattdaddy]

Apologies if it has been answered before but does the SHIV, or whatever the replacement heavy weapons platform is called, take up one of the 4-6 soldier slots per mission or is it 4-6 soldiers+1 HWP?

Bumping this question cause Im curious too. Does the tank take up squaddie slots?

 

[Luigi87]

Bumping this question cause Im curious too. Does the tank take up squaddie slots?

From the gameplay shown at PAX (and shortly beforehand) the Shiv does take up a unit spot (IE: they went in with five people, and one shiv).

 

[thefil]

Edit: sorry, trying to fix the image. This is why I wouldn't post from an iPad.

Here is my understanding of what the issue is:

The red dots are potential player locations. I haven't played the original XCOM, but I think thisis aplicable to most cover games. Basically, if large amounts if space are viable to be effective in a 2D space, you have many options.

In a cover game, you essentially can simplify the map to a graph like the one shown, where each node is a potential cover location And nodes have edges between them if you can move between them for one action point. Since you only ever want to be in cover, the other locations 99% of the game just function as the distance measure between two real locations in the gameplay graph.

Some people are considering this simplification to be a reduction of player agency and an oversimplification of tactics. I have no strong opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.

 

[Neuromancer]

But in the original the map wasn't just one huge empty grid. There were things to take cover behind such as walls and other objects. The difference is (as I understand it, again I haven't played the new game) now your guys crouch automatically behind cover whereas in the last game crouching is something deliberate you would have to do.

Playing the entire game with all your guys hiding behind cover doesn't sound really feasible to me, and even if it could be done it would probably not be the best strategy anyway.

But this conversation would probably be better had after we play, since for most of us it's just speculation at this point.

 

[Minsc]

Edit: sorry, trying to fix the image. This is why I wouldn't post from an iPad.

Here is my understanding of what the issue is:



The red dots are potential player locations. I haven't played the original XCOM, but I think thisis aplicable to most cover games. Basically, if large amounts if space are viable to be effective in a 2D space, you have many options.

In a cover game, you essentially can simplify the map to a graph like the one shown, where each node is a potential cover location And nodes have edges between them if you can move between them for one action point. Since you only ever want to be in cover, the other locations 99% of the game just function as the distance measure between two real locations in the gameplay graph.

Some people are considering this simplification to be a reduction of player agency and an oversimplification of tactics. I have no strong opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.

First the top map is lacking the objects that create the cover in the bottom map, giving it more of an illusion of the no open areas debate instead of specifically a cover system debate.

Second, there is a very big lack of usable cover in the second image. Look at this screen, you can see over 15 objects of cover in a small little area, while your example only shows 5. And that doesn't include the buildings and walls of the building which function like entire strips of cover. Not to mention being inside the building would be just as densely packed with cover locations, perhaps more.

I think if you drew like 30 different circles in your bottom image, and shaded in areas in the first map which you can't occupy, you'd have a more accurate comparison.

 

[Fersis]

I havent played the originals but from what ive read this is Fireaxis take on the series not a 1:1 remake.

Sucks for the hardcore fans though, but what do you want: No new XCOM at all or Fireaxis XCOM?

 

[Neuromancer]

I havent played the originals but from what ive read this is Fireaxis take on the series not a 1:1 remake.

Sucks for the hardcore fans though, but what do you want: No new XCOM at all or Fireaxis XCOM?

This way they get a new strategy game and they get to complain about the minutia. It's a win-win.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I mean really guys, some of you are acting like this game won't have faults or didn't make poor design decisions.

What is the difference between a poor design decision and a design compromise you don't agree with?

 

[garath]

Edit: sorry, trying to fix the image. This is why I wouldn't post from an iPad.

Here is my understanding of what the issue is:



The red dots are potential player locations. I haven't played the original XCOM, but I think thisis aplicable to most cover games. Basically, if large amounts if space are viable to be effective in a 2D space, you have many options.

In a cover game, you essentially can simplify the map to a graph like the one shown, where each node is a potential cover location And nodes have edges between them if you can move between them for one action point. Since you only ever want to be in cover, the other locations 99% of the game just function as the distance measure between two real locations in the gameplay graph.

Some people are considering this simplification to be a reduction of player agency and an oversimplification of tactics. I have no strong opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.

The problem is the people see improved tactical positioning as restricting your movements. You WANT to be behind cover but you don't have to be. You can stand out in the open in the first game AND the 2012 version. Go for it. You're losing a big advantage though. I'm not sure where the supporters of the original are coming from as I don't remember the specifics of the cover system (if there even was one) but the only difference I see here is the cover spots are clearly labelled and the maps are designed that you can maneuver from cover spot to cover spot (as a real life tactical team would) to sweep an area.

 

[Technosteve]

if i can't send in waves and waves of rookies i don't know if i can play this like a jagged alliance style game. I can't let any of my mercs die, and people die in xcom alot

 

[Nocebo]

What is the difference between a poor design decision and a design compromise you don't agree with?

I suppose one can be more objectively quantified and the other is more subjective.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The best thing about checking out that Three Move Ahead podcast was finding out that Tom vs. Bruce is back.

Oh is the latest TMA about this? Does it have Bruce on it? He is the best video game critic by a large margin, so I'd love to hear his opinion on this game. I recall he was a huge fan of the original.

 

[whalleywhat]

Oh is the latest TMA about this? Does it have Bruce on it? He is the best video game critic by a large margin, so I'd love to hear his opinion on this game. I recall he was a huge fan of the original.

Yup, they have Jake Solomon on. It's an interesting conversation.

 

[robin2]

Here is my understanding of what the issue is:



The red dots are potential player locations. I haven't played the original XCOM, but I think thisis aplicable to most cover games. Basically, if large amounts if space are viable to be effective in a 2D space, you have many options.

In a cover game, you essentially can simplify the map to a graph like the one shown, where each node is a potential cover location And nodes have edges between them if you can move between them for one action point. Since you only ever want to be in cover, the other locations 99% of the game just function as the distance measure between two real locations in the gameplay graph.

Some people are considering this simplification to be a reduction of player agency and an oversimplification of tactics. I have no strong opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.

Flawless.

 

[Mindlog]

I havent played the originals but from what ive read this is Fireaxis take on the series not a 1:1 remake.

Sucks for the hardcore fans though, but what do you want: No new XCOM at all or Fireaxis XCOM?

Thing is, we're getting both!
A fantastic revision from knowledgeable fans. This game.
A faithful re-creation from knowledgeable fans. Xenonauts.

 

[thefil]

The problem is the people see improved tactical positioning as restricting your movements. You WANT to be behind cover but you don't have to be. You can stand out in the open in the first game AND the 2012 version. Go for it. You're losing a big advantage though. I'm not sure where the supporters of the original are coming from as I don't remember the specifics of the cover system (if there even was one) but the only difference I see here is the cover spots are clearly labelled and the maps are designed that you can maneuver from cover spot to cover spot (as a real life tactical team would) to sweep an area.

Yeah, I'm not saying I don't agree that the game will probably be good with this cover-based mechanic. I do think it's true though that *if* there is never a situation in which leaving cover is cost-effective, it's functionally a simpler map painted over with something that looks more open, and that fans have a reasonable critical angle. That is a big if, as I have only played and enjoyed the demo and have no idea as to the cost effectiveness will work out.

I think this is a really good example of how balance of risk can affect gameplay. We've all played games where it's too easy to reduce to an optimal strategy that ends up simplifying the gameplay to a repetitive bore, while leaving out parts of the larger interactive space that the developers included. It's important for game mechanics to escape this. For example, games like Gears of War make leaving cover cost effective by letting you use melee items, thus making the cover one of many moving parts in a larger interactive space.

To the people critiquing my image, fair points all. I was just trying to really quickly put something together to show the idea.

Perhaps some good questions to ask: if the game was actually node-based (you could only stop your character behind cover locations) would that bother you? If you play the game jumping from cover to cover, but with the option to stand in the open, and never exercise it, does that make it better? Does unexercised freedom compensate when the optimal strategy is restrictive? Was it ever cost effective to leave cover in the original XCOM games?

To answer the first question myself: I think if the game was actually node-based, there would be sufficient complexity and choice to make it interesting. You still have to manage your flanking and so on. But I think making it so literal would put me off aesthetically.

 

[robin2]

Thing is, we're getting both!
A fantastic revision from knowledgeable fans. This game.
A faithful re-creation from knowledgeable fans. Xenonauts.

There should be also UFO2:Extraterrestrials.. provided it ever comes out.

 

[garath]

Yeah, I'm not saying I don't agree that the game will probably be good with this cover-based mechanic. I do think it's true though that *if* there is never a situation in which leaving cover is cost-effective, it's functionally a simpler map painted over with something that looks more open, and that fans have a reasonable critical angle. That is a big if, as I have only played and enjoyed the demo and have no idea as to the cost effectiveness will work out.

I think this is a really good example of how balance of risk can affect gameplay. We've all played games where it's too easy to reduce to an optimal strategy that ends up simplifying the gameplay to a repetitive bore, while leaving out parts of the larger interactive space that the developers included. It's important for game mechanics to escape this. For example, games like Gears of War make leaving cover cost effective by letting you use melee items, thus making the cover one of many moving parts in a larger interactive space.

To the people critiquing my image, fair points all. I was just trying to really quickly put something together to show the idea.

Perhaps some good questions to ask: if the game was actually node-based (you could only stop your character behind cover locations) would that bother you? If you play the game jumping from cover to cover, but with the option to stand in the open, and never exercise it, does that make it better? Does unexercised freedom compensate when the optimal strategy is restrictive?

The argument you and others are making is as if the non-cover positions don't even exist. That's where you are wrong. It's tactically more sound to stand in cover most of the time but I can see situations where I would have someone like a sniper, move out of cover to take a higher percentage shot. The risk is if he misses he is vulnerable out of cover but it's not instant death in every scenario.

Would the preference be no cover at all and just dumb the game down to "every position is viable and offers no significant advantage or disadvantage other than line of sight"? I really don't get the reluctance to include a more defined cover system. Removal of the cover system would simplify it! You wouldn't have to worry about sacrificing defense for a better shot or line of sight, you just stand in the best shot percentage spot and that's that.

I watched the 2k and Firaxis developer gameplay walkthrough and I saw the 2k guy stand out of cover quite a few times. He had a sniper take a high ground out of cover for more sight and better shots. It's viable in certain circumstances.

 

[Mupod]

Perhaps some good questions to ask: if the game was actually node-based (you could only stop your character behind cover locations) would that bother you? If you play the game jumping from cover to cover, but with the option to stand in the open, and never exercise it, does that make it better?

If you want to see what this is like in a third person shooter format, go try Hybrid. Although I hated it personally.

 

[Zeliard]

From messing around with the demo a bit, there are still points when you can end up out in the open after an otherwise tactically sound move, i.e. using run and gun to get to an area with no cover but where you have a very high chance-to-hit on a certain enemy.

 

[BabeSlayer]

I just watched the MP dev battle. Man this game is looking more and more awesome every time I see it. So hyped for this. Next week is gonna be a good week.

 

[Dram]

So from watching the demo the same character

Spoiler

always survives

the first mission?

 

[sfedai0]

Will this game allow free fire? That is, are you allowed to just fire randomly? I think the demo only allowed you to shoot when a actual target was sighted.

 

[Fersis]

Thing is, we're getting both!
A fantastic revision from knowledgeable fans. This game.
A faithful re-creation from knowledgeable fans. Xenonauts.

Then everyone is happy! YAY! <3

 

[Ponti]

Will this game allow free fire? That is, are you allowed to just fire randomly? I think the demo only allowed you to shoot when a actual target was sighted.

Only with rockets/grenades it looks like.

 

[sfedai0]

Only with rockets/grenades it looks like.

Damn, no more firing randomly in to a cornfield and hitting a Muton in the face.

 

[Chairman Yang]

My prediction: Enemy Unknown is going to be a deeper, more tactical, generally better game than the original XCOM. Gradually, design decisions like the removal of time units, a lower squad limit, and cover are going to be recognized as superior and the original game is going to become painful to go back to.

Hope I'm right!

 

[Hindle]

How much depth is there to the stratgety? Like can I plot ambush tactics, or have a guy draw enemy fire whilst I send the rest into the rear.

 

[thefil]

The argument you and others are making is as if the non-cover positions don't even exist. That's where you are wrong. It's tactically more sound to stand in cover most of the time but I can see situations where I would have someone like a sniper, move out of cover to take a higher percentage shot. The risk is if he misses he is vulnerable out of cover but it's not instant death in every scenario.

Right, and I tried very hard in my post to make it clear I was saying *if* there was never a situation in which it was cost-effective, it would be blah blah blah. If you (who I am assuming knows much more about the game than I do, as I have not been following the media) are confident that this is not the case, then I am confident that Enemy Unknown has a "real" breadth of choice.

I was never trying to suggest that Enemy Unknown is definitively a node-graph game, but moreso just trying to reason out the fear of and argument against the kind of design that creates an overt, systemized cover mechanic.

Consider my posts more of a general game design traps discussion than an XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a shit game discussion.

 

[Mupod]

How much depth is there to the stratgety? Like can I plot ambush tactics, or have a guy draw enemy fire whilst I send the rest into the rear.

You do bonus damage to flanked targets (have your own units on both sides of him) so this is a pretty valid strategy. Just need to make sure your distraction doesn't get swarmed himself, or your other guys don't run into something nasty on the way. I'm sure there's plenty of other options like using flying/grappling hook suits to get around over buildings, or smoke grenades to cover your 'distraction' soldier.

 

[Corky]

Sigh, I'm screwed... my hype crescendo piqued too early! I can't take the wait anymore haha.

 

[Neuromancer]

My prediction: Enemy Unknown is going to be a deeper, more tactical, generally better game than the original XCOM. Gradually, design decisions like the removal of time units, a lower squad limit, and cover are going to be recognized as superior and the original game is going to become painful to go back to.

Hope I'm right!

I can't imagine this game supplanting the original in my heart, which will always be a classic of Western gaming and a personal favorite of mine. That said I'm extremely excited about a more modern take on it, especially coming from a developer of Firaxis's reputation. So far most of the changes sound smart to me. I'm a little salty about levels not being randomly generated but I can understand why they did it.

 

[suaveric]

The latest Three Moves Ahead podcast discusses the cover system a lot. Bruce doesn't hold back, calling the game X-Cover. The lead designer (Jake?) explains exactly why they ended up with the cover system and many other things, including the squad size. Everyone arguing about the changes in this game should give it a listen.

 

[electricpirate]

I haven't been this hyped for a game in a long time. I think it's because I always play Japanese SRPGs, love them like hell for 10 hours and get bored with the incessant grinding. This looks to me like the strategy layer, and progressions systems are far more direct and rewarding than the japanese SRPG systems that involve tons of grinding to level up individual actors. The elements of choice and consequence are also really appealing.

Though I've been playing a lot of FTL, maybe I've had enough choice and consequence.

 

[thefil]

Though I've been playing a lot of FTL, maybe I've had enough choice and consequence.

There is no such thing as too much systemic (like FTL combat and upgrade decisions) choice and consequence. Only too much contrived, pre-mapped choice and consequence (FTL planet choices).

 

[Neuromancer]

The latest Three Moves Ahead podcast discusses the cover system a lot. Bruce doesn't hold back, calling the game X-Cover. The lead designer (Jake?) explains exactly why they ended up with the cover system and many other things, including the squad size. Everyone arguing about the changes in this game should give it a listen.

I've been on partial media blackout for this game so I haven't listened to this podcast for fear of spoilers (not necessarily story spoilers but enemies and specific situations that I would prefer to discover and experience on my own). Do they keep it pretty general?

 

[whalleywhat]

I've been on partial media blackout for this game so I haven't listened to this podcast for fear of spoilers (not necessarily story spoilers but enemies and specific situations that I would prefer to discover and experience on my own). Do they keep it pretty general?

I think they keep it really general. They probably talk more about the original.

There is no such thing as too much systemic (like FTL combat and upgrade decisions) choice and consequence. Only too much contrived, pre-mapped choice and consequence (FTL planet choices).

The latter is the nature of the roguelike. The collision of the two is what makes that game so engrossing.

 

[suaveric]

I've been on partial media blackout for this game so I haven't listened to this podcast for fear of spoilers (not necessarily story spoilers but enemies and specific situations that I would prefer to discover and experience on my own). Do they keep it pretty general?

I still have about 30 minutes to listen to. But so far it's been story-spoiler free. I don't remember anything about specific about alien types. They do talk a bit about the strategy layer some, if that matters to you.

 

[TTG]

I think this is a really good example of how balance of risk can affect gameplay. We've all played games where it's too easy to reduce to an optimal strategy that ends up simplifying the gameplay to a repetitive bore, while leaving out parts of the larger interactive space that the developers included. It's important for game mechanics to escape this. For example, games like Gears of War make leaving cover cost effective by letting you use melee items, thus making the cover one of many moving parts in a larger interactive space.

I have to assume promoting aggressive exploration of the level/terrain was a big concern for them. There's no way this game ends up playing like Uncharted 2, finding good cover and staying there until 85% of the bad guys are wiped out. Too many gameplay videos suggest otherwise.

 

[Neuromancer]

Ok that sounds fine. I'll give it a listen on the way home. Thanks.

 

[thefil]

I have to assume promoting aggressive exploration of the level/terrain was a big concern for them. There's no way this game ends up playing like Uncharted 2, finding good cover and staying there until 85% of the bad guys are wiped out. Too many gameplay videos suggest otherwise.

That's very good.

 

[Corky]

I have to assume promoting aggressive exploration of the level/terrain was a big concern for them. There's no way this game ends up playing like Uncharted 2, finding good cover and staying there until 85% of the bad guys are wiped out. Too many gameplay videos suggest otherwise.

Yeah I've seen the aliens rush the shit out of you and ruining your day.

 

[Mupod]

Yeah I've seen the aliens rush the shit out of you and ruining your day.

That floater teleport is going to be the worst for this, I think. In SP and MP. They are cheap/weak units so sacrificing one with a suicide teleport is fairly meaningless in exchange for getting 2x flanking damage bonus for at least one entire turn. I believe the OXM let's play guy gets obliterated by this at some point...like his whole team gone to one enemy attack.

 

[Zeliard]

In one of the dev vids, Thin Men were just dropping from the sky around them.