Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Sn1p3r187, Feb 20, 2016.
It is more like the older X-Com's than the new ones so take that into consideration.
Well maybe it's time to jump into those then. I sort of knew it was based more on the old ones mostly because of it's somewhat dated art style and the fact that the description on steam says it's based on UFO Defense. From what I understand Enforcer is the one to avoid much like The Bureau for the newer games.
Basically the first three X-Com games were the best. The third one lesser so.
Alright I will check them out once I get done with Mass Effect which may take a few days, I can use this as a break between 1 and 2.
Terror from the deep was shit.
A lot of people like it though. It was more of the same except underwater.
No way, easily my favorite. Probably because it was the first one I played and the game that turned me into a proper gamer. It had its issues, but I love the atmosphere of the game.
A big question here would be- how could the developers improve Xenonauts? And how could Xenonauts in some way compete with XCOM? I think some of my preferences do go to Xenonauts in some regards like say the atmosphere. Pretty similar to the original UFO: Enemy Unknown. There was a really depressing atmosphere surrounding all of Xenonauts because of the Cold war. A world already on the brink of destroying itself and then an alien invasion force shows up. But XCOM does get my praise for trying something new. I just think with EU it needed to get implemented better. Haven't played XCOM 2 so I don't know if they improved the system a little more.
About the combat system. With Xenonauts and UFO: Enemy Unknown I kinda gotta say now. After playing XCOM EW it feels like the old systems are just sluggish, slow, and boring. It was like playing chess by mail. I mean sure the TU/AP system works well for Fallout when you only have one character to command. But with games like Silent Storm and tactical games that use the AP system it just feels slow and sluggish. I wonder how the 2 point turn system present in XCOM EU and XCOM 2 would work for a game like Fallout 2 or a single player RPG.
I'd ditch the unwieldy TU system for an action point one ALA Fallout (especially Tactics) or Divinity Original Sins personally. Action points work because you can make every single one feel meaningful when you have 10, maybe 12-13 maximum, thus design and balance the game accordingly. As I said somewhere else, when you have 56 or 73 or 81 TUs it becomes needlessly complex if you ask me, and memorizing the TU cost of every single menial action gets boring fast.
I'd also make the AI less cheaty somehow. People can complain about the pod system in the XCOM games all day long, but Xenonauts had even more bullshit moments such as aliens walking in range of your soldiers and instantly gibbing one, or even a few times snipe you from outside visual range.
Also more battlefield options. Now, I'll admit I never finished Xenonauts, so it may be that the lategame gives you loads of nifty toys, but from what I played you didn't get that much new stuff, mostly stat upgrades as you went along the techtree and soldiers got incremental skill increases. Compared to XCOM2, where you get loads of soldier abilities as well as ammo types, grenade types, psychic powers, support items and heavy weapons, it was sorely lacking. Taking 50% shots en masse is only fun for so long.
And an art style that doesn't look bland. I'm aware that they don't have Firaxis's ressources and can't make everything flashy, but Xenonauts was painfully boring to look at. Technical limtations are one thing, but a more inspired art direction would do the sequel some good. No need to go crazy, just inject something interesting in the package.
I do like that XCOM doesn't occupy all the market in its genre, and that a game that tries to emulate ye olde ones can prosper alongside Firaxis's re-imagining. The fanbases of the two games are also surprisingly friendly towards each other, albeit I assume it's partly because many players just enjoy both franchises.
Oh, what could've been with Fallout... ah, off-topic again, nevermind.
Well that is very true right there. That's why I like Fallout's system. But I have to ask if Wasteland 2 does the same thing as Fallout in regards to APs? I also might be in a crossbattle in RPG brainstorming for a custom system that's reminiscent of XCOM called TBAS (Turn based action system) with room for a lot of improvement and more turn slots, or going by the AP system prevalent in Fallout, Front Mission, and Wasteland. It's conflicting sometimes.
Well, you know my stance on it by now. I don't at all think AP's or TU's are bad, but if I were to make a turn-based tactical game I'd look at an actions-per-turn system. A big problem with an AP-based system is to make every AP balanced and equally useful. Which basically never happens. Say your character has 5 AP. Firing their gun uses 3 AP. On level-up, if there's a chance to get +1 AP it's often a no-brainer, since that single AP has such a big effect. But next time you might gain +1 AP on level-up, it's not nearly as useful. And as I wrote to you before, such a system usually ends up with the side with the most AP clearly at an advantage. Hence anything that gives extra AP trumps everything else.
I would say that in game design, it's better that you plan it on paper (so to speak) as an AP-based game first. Then, once you've got all the actions and the balance done right, if it's possible, you can simplify it down to a matter of actions per turn with only a few number tweaks.
After all, if there's a large variety in the actions you can take during a turn, then it doesn't really matter whether it's per-turn or per-AP because the only major difference between the two are incremental values, which in a tightly balanced game does not matter too much in the end, I think.
Yeah. Maybe as to what Ilosar said. The AP system would be more of a bitch to work with if you given too many damn APs that it makes every action seem meaningless. I'll acknowledge Fallout and Wasteland's AP system works. Works well with one character. But now my question is- Can the two turn system work the same with one character in a game similar to Fallout? I can see the Two turn system is superior but I gotta know if it works well with one character too.
I bought Xenonauts before it was completed and enjoyed it as a little tactical game, but the ending was still bugged at that point so I couldn't finish. The (then) very limited number of combat maps also became dull to play on. The final version has a lot more maps but I still failed to finish as even with them I still ended up playing what amounted to the exact same missions on the exact same terrain over and over again. For me a proper map randomizer would have made this a much more enjoyable game - wasn't that one of the features of the original XCom?
Otherwise I'd say it is a good update of old XCom. The tech descriptions are often funny and well written, and the grand strategy and tactical combat both work well. Base attacks and terror missions are suitably difficult.
Personally I missed the development of psionics which in old XCom made late game combat very different and sometimes made otherwise fairly useless soldiers useful. Likewise late game megaweapons like the Blaster Launcher. These pushed the player to make major tactical changes, which kept things interesting.
It might be nice to see the game engine used to recreate the old Laser Squad/Rebelstar Raiders games. I'd be happy to equip Corporal Jonlan and kill Sterner Regnix in his toilet one.. more.. time.
Hahaha, glad you liked it to an extent.
That makes some sense. In some way XCOM EU I still think TU's are there. They just were silently integrated into the game in the two turn system. But overall I think the two turn system is a bit faster than using AP's or TU's