Firaxis + XCOM, that is all. - by N'Al
icemann on 8/1/2012 at 19:06
True.
So Bioshock was intended to be non linear (ala SS2 style) interesting. Epic fail on that one.
june gloom on 8/1/2012 at 19:41
What?
Bioshock's level design and System Shock 2's level design was almost identical. Both only gave you the illusion of non-linearity. System Shock 2's levels were not these vast mazes you could get lost in; aside from the fact that a fairly narrow adherence to the ship's design limits how big the maps could get, your progression was a lot like Bioshock in that you'd head for one section, then come back and go to another. The only real difference was that you spent much more time backtracking in System Shock 2.
I can understand why some people would prefer SS2 over Bioshock (even though the older I get the sillier I think that is) but let's not start making shit up.
Koki on 9/1/2012 at 07:39
Quote Posted by Dresden
Final Fantasy Tactics? It doesn't work for RTS, but for Turn Based it's fine.
Complexity is an issue(as always). There's only so much you can put in context menus.
Inline Image:
http://i44.tinypic.com/fkwum8.pngI mean just look at the bar at the bottom of the screen.
icemann on 9/1/2012 at 10:27
Quote Posted by dethtoll
What?
There are several bits in SS2 where you can do 2 levels in the order you choose, where as in Bioshock its a straight up level 1 - > 2 -> 3 and so on. Hence non-linear.
june gloom on 9/1/2012 at 10:51
More like one bit -- you can pick between Deck 4 and 5 and that's really it.
Regardless my overall point still stands -- sure, you can give up on Deck 4 and do stuff on Deck 5 for a while, but each deck follows the same general structure -- to the point where each has its own contained "story arc" as well.
And really, a choice of which of two decks you want to do first is hardly a bastion of non-linearity.
Try again?
Vicarious on 9/1/2012 at 18:01
(
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/09/first-screens-and-details-of-xcom-enemy-unknown.aspx) First Screens and Details of XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Wasn't there another XCOM game?Yes, 2K Marin is developing a previously announced first-person shooter, simply called XCOM. That game was originally scheduled to come out last year, but has since been delayed out of 2011.
How do those games relate to each other?The shooter takes place earlier in the fiction, chronicling the aliens' first attacks in the United States. The strategy game we're talking about here deals with the global response to the later full-blown alien invasion of Earth.
So this is some kind of RTS?No, not in the way the term "RTS" typically applies to games like StarCraft. The real-time element of XCOM is confined to the global view, where the player keeps track of known UFOs and abductions going on around the world. Managing research and development at the XCOM organization's secret base can be done at the player's leisure, and all combat is completely turn-based.
You switch between real-time and turn-based?Yes. When your aerial transport lands at an abduction site, the game switches to a tactical view and you command your squad of personalized soldiers in battle against an unknown alien threat.
So what do you do in the real-time global view?On the strategic layer, players direct research into alien technology, give their engineers and foundries fabrication requests, interact with the nations of the world (who have to be mollified to secure funding for XCOM), intercept airborne UFOs with jet fighters, level up their soldiers and recruit new ones, and dispatch the Skyranger transport to engage alien incursions on the ground.
Is this a remake of the original?Kind of. Re-imagining is probably a better term. Firaxis' XCOM: Enemy Unknown doesn't directly copy the underlying game systems – for instance, soldiers have different stats than they did in the 1994 original – but the concepts are still here. Players still have to manage multiple resources and threats on a global scale in a seemingly hopeless war against extraterrestrial forces with far better technology and capabilities.
Is this going to be dumbed down for the "wider console audience"?Firaxis is undeniably streamlining aspects of the game and removing no small amount of micromanagement, but from what I've seen I wouldn't call it "dumbing down" the game so much as getting rid of tedium and uninteresting mechanics. Soldiers still die permanently, fog of war and line of sight are hugely important in combat, and you absolutely can lose the game if you screw up too badly.
Does it look awesome?I came away from our visit to Firaxis' studio extremely impressed by XCOM: Enemy Unknown. The project is far from done, but I am personally thrilled at the prospect of playing the final game.
Inline Image:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/8003/missionctrl1280.jpgInline Image:
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4485/hqlarge1280.jpgInline Image:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7418/deepwoods1280.jpgKoki on 9/1/2012 at 18:55
Quote Posted by Vicarious
Firaxis is undeniably streamlining aspects of the game and removing no small amount of micromanagement, but from what I've seen I wouldn't call it "dumbing down" the game so much as getting rid of tedium and uninteresting mechanics.
Let me think about what tedious and/or uninteresting mechanics there were in UFO.
...I'll get back to you guys on that one
demagogue on 9/1/2012 at 20:12
This is one of those moments when the answers & even screenshots turn out almost exactly as you imagined they would, practically to the letter.
I like the look of the 3D'ized turn-based tactical part, also pretty much just as I imagined it.
nicked on 9/1/2012 at 21:36
Don't like the wishy-washy cartoony aesthetic of that last screenshot. The base looks cool though.
