Quick Look Ex: I lost all the interest in new XCOM

#1 Posted by Mooqi (217 posts) -

Simply put: everyone who played the original has had their own experience and their own favorite things about the game.

I liked the scope of the missions and the general feeling of being part of an epic global conflict.

The missions they showed on the quick look were always on tiny maps. Those were small, irrelevant skirmishes, not battles.

I loved scouting through a village, checking each and every house for aliens. I loved the gigantic four-story alien vessels, that were very difficult to shoot down and had tons of aliens on board even after it crashed and you started to clear the site.

Firaxis reduced the scope and therefore kind of dumbed it down for me. Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact? Why did Firaxis have to build ridiculously and insultingly dumb missions like "disarm the bomb" with respawning (!!!) aliens that fall from the sky?

Anyways, the quick look confronted my dreams about this game with reality and I guess I have to be thankful for that..

#2 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

#3 Posted by WarlordPayne (700 posts) -

Didn't they say there were 80 maps or something? Two maps aren't necessarily representative of the entire game.

#4 Posted by Mooqi (217 posts) -

I saw ingame footage and the game is not what I want in an XCOM game. It's almost impossible that the things that I didn't see yet can make up for the stuff I saw.

There is no reason for them to show only tiny maps with crap like respawning aliens, civilians that just disappear into thin air if you walk next to them or stupid bomb diffusions if they had huge ones with more "realism" to show...

#5 Posted by Ramone (2967 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

This. How have people not learnt from the whole Hitman: Absolution thing. You can only truly judge a game based on its full release.

#6 Posted by mak_wikus (524 posts) -

Yeah, I'm pissed too, that they didn't manage to show the entire game in one hour.

Wait for the full version, dude.

#7 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11748 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

Firaxis reduced the scope and therefore kind of dumbed it down for me. Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact?

So basically because they didn't make the exact same game that was released in 1994 you are dismissive of it? The core concept of group tactical combat is intact. If you want the exact same game with better graphics, Xenonauts exists. But oh wait. They don't have blaster bombs or psionics in that game. Guess it's not true to the original.

#8 Posted by WarlordPayne (700 posts) -

They said repeatedly that that was a game that the guy had been playing so both of those were just maps that he happened to run into during the course of his game. They weren't two hand picked maps that they were using to show off the size and scale of the game.

I'm not saying that any of the maps are going to be huge but come on, you saw two randomly generated missions and you're going to write it off? That's ridiculous.

#9 Posted by Maajin (1065 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

I saw ingame footage and the game is not what I want in an XCOM game. It's almost impossible that the things that I didn't see yet can make up for the stuff I saw.

There is no reason for them to show only tiny maps with crap like respawning aliens, civilians that just disappear into thin air if you walk next to them or stupid bomb diffusions if they had huge ones with more "realism" to show...

If I had limited time to demo a game and wanted to show a lot of features, I guess I would choose to show a compact map so that encounters and events would happen faster and more frequently.

#10 Edited by Tennmuerti (8107 posts) -

Well I'll be blunt, it's because purely the old audience is not enough to sell the game, according to market research anyway. So they need to make it potentially enticing to a new audience too. Therefore concessions and changes get made. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's just the way it is. Our other options are games like the new Syndicate and the fps X-com game. So I will take the new reduced in scope X-com over something that has barely anything to do with it anyday.

If this sells well, maybe they will think about increasing the scope and complexity further in the sequel, with a bigger playerbase potential already existing. If the player feedback swings that way. Also they did say in that QL that you will find and down (or fail to down) much bigger alien vessels. :)

This is not to say that other potential routes don't exist, for example:

  • do the old school thing through kick starter like project Eternity or Wasteland 2, that became possible only recently, and we are yet to see if they pan out
  • do only a part of the experience to reduce the cost, like Mechwarrior Online is doing
  • do a much less modern looking and less approachable but more hardcore version that appeals to the old audience, like Xenonauts (which i suggest you check out as some X-com people seem to gravitate towards it)
  • do an FPS game vaguely set in the universe of the franchise aka Syndicate and X-com fps games
  • try to walk the line between the old and the new and be it's own game like Enemy Unknown is doing

Pick you poison.

#11 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

I saw ingame footage and the game is not what I want in an XCOM game. It's almost impossible that the things that I didn't see yet can make up for the stuff I saw.

There is no reason for them to show only tiny maps with crap like respawning aliens, civilians that just disappear into thin air if you walk next to them or stupid bomb diffusions if they had huge ones with more "realism" to show...

Yes, they chose to show the more mellow parts of the game so that they could better explain the systems they have in play. Remember, a whole lot of people (like myself) who are interested in this game never played the older XCOM's, or even anything like them. They might need a better explanation than "here's a screenshot of the UI, let's go!"

It's like showing someone who's never played or seen much of a first person shooter a huge battlefield in, uh, Battlefield and saying "ISN'T THIS IMPRESSIVE!?" No, you need to explain a bit about what the game is and why it's interesting first.

Now, you're not necessarily wrong, it might all be on that small a scale, but I doubt that. I think they've just paced it better than throwing you headfirst into the hard parts of the game; that would be particularly horrible design. Imagine Halo 1 asking you to run through the finale first.

#12 Posted by Animasta (14692 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact?

because this is a new game and not a remake?

#13 Posted by TooWalrus (13203 posts) -
@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

You are asking far, far too much there, guy. 
 
By the way, after watching the latest Resident Evil trailer, I'd rate that game 9.5/10. That game's incredible, you should buy the collectors edition.
#14 Posted by Malphye (413 posts) -

@TooWalrus: Preordered!

#15 Posted by The_Ruiner (1060 posts) -

-shrug- ok

#16 Posted by Socialone (202 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

I don't know much about Xcom, but the whole Dragon Age 2 affair taught me that sometimes previews are more than enough.

Preset character and race? Voiced dialogue wheel? Button mashing combat? Whole campaign in a single city? ''It's Bioware people, have faith, they never failed us.'' A few confirmed core concepts can ruin the whole thing without any doubt before release. I don't know if that's the case here, but I wanted to point it out.

#17 Posted by Mooqi (217 posts) -

The fact that Dragon Age II disappointed me on a whole new level might be fuelling my skepticism about this game.

#18 Posted by Tennmuerti (8107 posts) -

To be fair i think people need to cut the OP some slack.

He/she does not seem to be denouncing it that it will be a terrible game or some such, just that what they saw of the pre release coverage does not match up to their wants from the game.

@Mooqi: I find it's best not to have big dreams for things like this, specific expectations like that are the easiest to shatter.

Also keep your tabs on this game, post release info might swing you back, who knows. And like I mentioned earlier Xenonauts might provide an alternative, or it might dissilusion :P

#19 Posted by Silvergun (297 posts) -

Try playing the cruise ship missions in Terror From the Deep and tell me that going door to door looking for aliens is fun at all.

#20 Posted by living4theday258 (679 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Imagine Halo 1 asking you to run through the finale first.

Technically you do.

#21 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

Good. I don't want you to play good games.

#22 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

@living4theday258 said:

@believer258 said:

Imagine Halo 1 asking you to run through the finale first.

Technically you do.

...OK, that's not entirely wrong, but you're not asked to speed a Warthog through a dying spaceship before you've even been introduced to them.

#23 Posted by Funkydupe (3320 posts) -

Rock Paper Shotgun trying to calm fans of XCOM after the demo:

1) It’s tiny. Not filesize tiny, seeing as it’s six bloody gig, but content-tiny. It’s just the tutorial, which introduces the initial concepts of the game while offering a scripted, cutscene-littered half-hour that isn’t an accurate reflection of the game to come.

2) Going on from that, you won’t see many more cutscenes. Those that you will encounter tend to involve the research and engineering heads explaining their findings when you’re back at base – in terms of in-mission or even pre-mission stuff, there’s almost nothing after the scripted, scene-setting stuff in the tutorial missions. In preview code, anyway: I’d guess at there being more when major events occur in the storyline. But my point is, no you are not going to be constantly interrupted by cutscenes. Promise.

3) The ‘glamcam’ – that third-person or cinematic view that occasionally kicks in for random shots or actions – can be turned off in options if you don’t like it. As can the soldiers’ barks.

4) Yes, squads of 4 soldiers feel too small. But it doesn’t take long to increase it to six (bought with cash at the Officer Training School), which feels a lot more like it – you can control the battlefield and you feel like you have a range of tactical options. I think, ideally, I’d like squads to go up to 8, but 6 doesn’t feel too small – XCOM is designed to have faster missions than X-COM, and that’s part of the overall design rather than 4/6 soldiers being a singular, pointless hobbling.

5) Yes, cover is basically mandatory for survival. At least until you get the flying suits. It is a cover game in a way that X-COM was not. If you can’t abide the need to have everyone in cover, then I don’t know what I can say. But again, it’s about the tactical challenges rather than being Gears of War. With each soldier unutterably precious, part of the puzzle of each mission is how to get close enough to the enemy to take them down effectively without getting killed first.

6) Do not worry about linearity. This demo will barely let you breathe because it’s only the tutorial and some bonus cutscenes, and for that reason I think it might have been a huge mistake. It’s giving out the wrong impression entirely, and it doesn’t reflect the ongoing tension of the constant decision-making the game involves.

7) The keyboard and mouse interface. Yes, it doesn’t feel quite right, does it? The main issue for me is the need to confirm each action, thus meaning two-clicks is required whenever I want to take a shot, reload, suppress or whatever, which can be pretty annoying and mess up flow. But I developed some muscle memory actions pretty quick, learning which skills/actions my soldiers had on which number keys, so I’d hit the relevant numeral then press enter and it’d all happen pretty much immediately. That’s something that’ll come over time – and it will – but it’s impossible for it to happen in this miniscule demo. I’ve essentially been playing it on keyboard alone, with the mouse used purely to select a destination and target. Other than that confirm thing, I’m quite happy with that and have felt zero need to move to gamepad. But yeah, the PC UI is a slightly awkward hybrid of console and PC, and I really wish they’d pushed it further towards the latter.

8) That bland commander guy who speaks and apparently gives orders a) is not you, but some advisor figure and b) fades into the background once the tutorial’s stuff done, from thereon in largely just existing to give mission briefings on loading screens. I was really worried about him too to start with, but he’s just a crutch to introduce initial concepts and, later, to tremble as some alien concepts are introduced. The only characters you’ll hear much from in the game proper are the science and engineering heads, and the shadowy global council in your monthly performance/funding debriefs.

9) You might have noticed that the aliens’ weapons explode if they’re killed. That’s why it rapidly becomes important to take some enemies home alive, in almost every mission (both for extra gear and so you have stuff to sell for hard-to-come-by cash). It’s an entire extra layer of strategy that isn’t apparent from the blast ‘em and get outta there demo/tutorial levels. Similarly, explosives trash everything, so they become something to avoid using unless necessary rather than blow stuff up willy-nilly. This is even more of an issue when assaulting a UFO, whether crashed or landed, because every time the hull or the contents are damaged, by aliens or XCOM members, that’s more cash down the drain.

10) I agree the mission locations aren’t as memorable or characterful as the bright cornfields and sinister grocery stores of X-COM, and that isn’t something that changes in the full game. There’s a reasonable variety of them, and the outdoor ones especially look pretty gripping when they also house a crashed UFO, but I can’t say they strongly conveyed a real sense of place. (Adam, however, thinks they do convey a real sense of place, although the tutorial ones are far from the best.)

11) Abilities. They’re crucial to the game, but not as crucial as shooting aliens is: this is not a game of gimmicky, Warcraft-style powers but of using a small, focused set of actions to support that fundamental activity. Also, bear in mind that you get a choice of abilities whenever each of your soldiers ranks up, so you end up with a squad tailored to your needs (as you see them) rather than a pre-fab one. On Classic difficulty, a couple of hours in you’ll undoubtedly find yourself fielding a squad mostly, if not entirely, made up of rookies without abilities. Everyone else will be dead or injured, so you will have to cope without abilities as well as mastering them. There’s also the psychic stuff still to come, but I didn’t manage to reach that in the preview code.

Here’s what I think, a silly old theory of mine: if you weren’t already cynical towards this remake there’s a good chance the small amount of stuff that’s in the demo would have had you excited about the possibilites the full game might hold. If you’ve been bitterly expecting failure, the fact this demo is, quite frankly, a stinker that’s far too superficial and does a poor job of representing the obsessed, tense experience of the wider game is going to confirm your fears about it. It’s lovely, so lovely to see a pre-release demo of a big game, but that doesn’t mean this was the right demo. It needed to be bigger, and it needed to contain a good hour or two of playtime, but I guess that was deemed giving too much away. They should have given more. Maybe they will yet.

#24 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1145 posts) -

I would like to formally make a proposal that we abolish the phrase "dumbing down" when talking about video games especially ones yet to be released.

Please?

#25 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4816 posts) -

@Ramone said:

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

This. How have people not learnt from the whole Hitman: Absolution thing. You can only truly judge a game based on its full release.

That's a bullshit logic loop. The whole point of stuff like the Quick Look EX, trailers, gameplay demos, and even demo releases is to entice gamers to purchase said game. What the OP said is that, based on what the developer/publisher has chosen to show him, he's not interested in the final product. If you are, great, more power to you. He's not. Get over it.

#26 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Mooqi said:

I saw ingame footage and the game is not what I want in an XCOM game. It's almost impossible that the things that I didn't see yet can make up for the stuff I saw.

There is no reason for them to show only tiny maps with crap like respawning aliens, civilians that just disappear into thin air if you walk next to them or stupid bomb diffusions if they had huge ones with more "realism" to show...

Yes, they chose to show the more mellow parts of the game so that they could better explain the systems they have in play. Remember, a whole lot of people (like myself) who are interested in this game never played the older XCOM's, or even anything like them. They might need a better explanation than "here's a screenshot of the UI, let's go!"

It's like showing someone who's never played or seen much of a first person shooter a huge battlefield in, uh, Battlefield and saying "ISN'T THIS IMPRESSIVE!?" No, you need to explain a bit about what the game is and why it's interesting first.

Now, you're not necessarily wrong, it might all be on that small a scale, but I doubt that. I think they've just paced it better than throwing you headfirst into the hard parts of the game; that would be particularly horrible design. Imagine Halo 1 asking you to run through the finale first.

It takes them like half an hour to actually start explaining how the game works in the QL. And that's just because Ryan prompts them. Besides, with a maximum of six soldiers, I doubt the maps get all that much larger than they already are.

#27 Posted by Funkydupe (3320 posts) -

The demo was terrible at showcasing the flow of the game. Releasing the demo was a huge mistake.

#28 Posted by ToTheNines (723 posts) -

I can understand your pain there, buddy. As UFO Enemy Unknown being my favorite game of all time, I was hoping for the them to built onto the core aspects of the game, not just built a new concept from scratch. But it's too early for me to complain and I think you might have jumped the gun a bit.

The game might not be the x-com I dreamt about, who knows. But it looks to be a competent game in it's own right.

#29 Posted by Turambar (6785 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

Simply put: everyone who played the original has had their own experience and their own favorite things about the game.

I liked the scope of the missions and the general feeling of being part of an epic global conflict.

The missions they showed on the quick look were always on tiny maps. Those were small, irrelevant skirmishes, not battles.

I loved scouting through a village, checking each and every house for aliens. I loved the gigantic four-story alien vessels, that were very difficult to shoot down and had tons of aliens on board even after it crashed and you started to clear the site.

Firaxis reduced the scope and therefore kind of dumbed it down for me. Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact? Why did Firaxis have to build ridiculously and insultingly dumb missions like "disarm the bomb" with respawning (!!!) aliens that fall from the sky?

Anyways, the quick look confronted my dreams about this game with reality and I guess I have to be thankful for that..

I'm guessing you missed the part where the Firaxis guy noted that the UFO in the game was one of the smaller ones? Larger UFOs implies larger maps.

#30 Posted by NoobSauceG7 (1247 posts) -

XCom: Enemy Unknown looks incredible. I am really excited for it.

#31 Posted by Turambar (6785 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ramone said:

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

This. How have people not learnt from the whole Hitman: Absolution thing. You can only truly judge a game based on its full release.

That's a bullshit logic loop. The whole point of stuff like the Quick Look EX, trailers, gameplay demos, and even demo releases is to entice gamers to purchase said game. What the OP said is that, based on what the developer/publisher has chosen to show him, he's not interested in the final product. If you are, great, more power to you. He's not. Get over it.

The OP's comment of it being impossible that anything he has not yet seen in the game is going to entince him is what everyone is considering to be really dumb.

#32 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4816 posts) -

@Turambar said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ramone said:

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

This. How have people not learnt from the whole Hitman: Absolution thing. You can only truly judge a game based on its full release.

That's a bullshit logic loop. The whole point of stuff like the Quick Look EX, trailers, gameplay demos, and even demo releases is to entice gamers to purchase said game. What the OP said is that, based on what the developer/publisher has chosen to show him, he's not interested in the final product. If you are, great, more power to you. He's not. Get over it.

The OP's comment of it being impossible that anything he has not yet seen in the game is going to entince him is what everyone is considering to be really dumb.

Then that's a failure on the marketing's part. They haven't shown him anything that interests him in the game. How exactly is that the OP's fault?

#33 Posted by George_Hukas (1317 posts) -

@NoobSauceG7 said:

XCom: Enemy Unknown looks incredible. I am really excited for it.

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

See what I did there?

#34 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Turambar said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ramone said:

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

This. How have people not learnt from the whole Hitman: Absolution thing. You can only truly judge a game based on its full release.

That's a bullshit logic loop. The whole point of stuff like the Quick Look EX, trailers, gameplay demos, and even demo releases is to entice gamers to purchase said game. What the OP said is that, based on what the developer/publisher has chosen to show him, he's not interested in the final product. If you are, great, more power to you. He's not. Get over it.

The OP's comment of it being impossible that anything he has not yet seen in the game is going to entince him is what everyone is considering to be really dumb.

Then that's a failure on the marketing's part. They haven't shown him anything that interests him in the game. How exactly is that the OP's fault?

Maybe so, but we're saying "Yo, dude, don't judge the whole game based on an hour of gameplay until it's out and you've either played it or a lot of people have talked about it".

Dragon Age Origins. Good game, right? Well, what if you sat and watched someone play the Fade area and then judged the whole game on that? And it's not like the part they showed was anywhere near that bad, just on a small scale. Plus, here:

@Turambar said:

@Mooqi said:

Simply put: everyone who played the original has had their own experience and their own favorite things about the game.

I liked the scope of the missions and the general feeling of being part of an epic global conflict.

The missions they showed on the quick look were always on tiny maps. Those were small, irrelevant skirmishes, not battles.

I loved scouting through a village, checking each and every house for aliens. I loved the gigantic four-story alien vessels, that were very difficult to shoot down and had tons of aliens on board even after it crashed and you started to clear the site.

Firaxis reduced the scope and therefore kind of dumbed it down for me. Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact? Why did Firaxis have to build ridiculously and insultingly dumb missions like "disarm the bomb" with respawning (!!!) aliens that fall from the sky?

Anyways, the quick look confronted my dreams about this game with reality and I guess I have to be thankful for that..

I'm guessing you missed the part where the Firaxis guy noted that the UFO in the game was one of the smaller ones? Larger UFOs implies larger maps.

#35 Posted by august (3846 posts) -

RUINED FOREVER

#36 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@Mooqi:

You should play the demo dude.

Online
#37 Posted by NoobSauceG7 (1247 posts) -

@George_Hukas said:

@NoobSauceG7 said:

XCom: Enemy Unknown looks incredible. I am really excited for it.

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

See what I did there?

Yes sir....No longer excited :P

#38 Posted by Turambar (6785 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Turambar said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ramone said:

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

This. How have people not learnt from the whole Hitman: Absolution thing. You can only truly judge a game based on its full release.

That's a bullshit logic loop. The whole point of stuff like the Quick Look EX, trailers, gameplay demos, and even demo releases is to entice gamers to purchase said game. What the OP said is that, based on what the developer/publisher has chosen to show him, he's not interested in the final product. If you are, great, more power to you. He's not. Get over it.

The OP's comment of it being impossible that anything he has not yet seen in the game is going to entince him is what everyone is considering to be really dumb.

Then that's a failure on the marketing's part. They haven't shown him anything that interests him in the game. How exactly is that the OP's fault?

Read it again. He said he doesn't believe anything in what he hasn't seen can sell him on the game. I'm guessing you didn't read that correctly. If you think that's reasonable, then I can't help.

#39 Posted by BlackLagoon (1433 posts) -

@Turambar said:

I'm guessing you missed the part where the Firaxis guy noted that the UFO in the game was one of the smaller ones? Larger UFOs implies larger maps.

Only to a point. The limited squad size would make maps as large as the original a real tedious affair, and wouldn't really make sense with the more aggressive, faster paced gameplay they're focusing on.

#40 Posted by ArtelinaRose (1854 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

Firaxis reduced the scope and therefore kind of dumbed it down for me. Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact? Why did Firaxis have to build ridiculously and insultingly dumb missions like "disarm the bomb" with respawning (!!!) aliens that fall from the sky?

Because there's no market for that sort of game anymore, at least not in a mainstream sense. You can't invest millions of dollars into a product that caters to a very small demographic of people that want a very specific type of game and expect a return positive enough to warrant continuing. Firaxis set out to make a modern recreation of X Com, one that can appeal to both fans of the originals and people that have never played X Com or a game like it and that are, frankly, really terrible at video games. If you're old enough to appreciate the original game(s), you probably have some skill behind them playin' hands of yours and unfortunately people like you are no longer the prime demographic. Even difficult games like Dark Souls are lauded more for their "trial and error" and "try and try again" gameplay than "It was really tough, but because I am good, I got through it."

The scope has been decreased in that you no longer pack nine dudes and a tank into your Skyranger because it was a conscious design decision to take focus away from throwing waves of Rookies at UFOs and dropping it down to four-to-six guys to reinforce the idea that XCom is a small organization made up of elite soldiers. You have less guys, but they are all individually more capable than anything you had in the original games. I never felt like I was the leader of an elite organization made up of the best of the best in UFO Defense because my UFO breaching strategies tended to consist of "send rookies in until I win" or "if there are scary things, walk rookies in with primed grenades so they die and take them with them." Which is really funny now that I think about it, because in order to save humanity I ended up having to devalue human life.

And if you think the "disarm the bomb" mission is stupid, remember that the original X Com did not have anything like that. I, for one, welcome the change of pace and actually having objectives to go for in missions beyond just shooting all of the aliens to death. Complaining about the respawning enemies that weren't actually respawning but coming in to ambush you is silly because if anything, enemies coming from out of nowhere and surprising the hell out of you is a CORE part of the X Com experience. How many stories have you heard that either began or ended with "and then a Chrysalid I hadn't noticed came out of nowhere"?

#41 Posted by stalefishies (332 posts) -
@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

I'm going to avoid the quote pyramid and just weigh in my 2 cents.

This idea of always having to wait for the full release to judge everything is absolute nonsense. If I were to show you a level of a game that involved fists reaching out of the screen and literally punching you in the face, then no matter the quality of the rest of the game, you'd probably be right to judge it as a game you wouldn't want to play, unless you're, like, into that shit or something. Likewise, if I were to give you a game demo where the level you play was the greatest thing you'd ever seen, you'd be right to get pretty damn excited about the rest of the game, even if the rest of it happened to be complete assbuckets on release.
 
The real question you have to ask is: 'Is what I'm seeing likely to be representative of the final product?' Here, the OP is probably wrong about the small maps being representative; there are likely to be much larger maps in XCOM, but they're not going to show them off in a demo because they're just too long to fit in. However, when the OP has issues about dumb mission objectives and infinite aliens, it is a safe and sane assumption that there's going to be more of them in the rest of the game. After all, I think it's fair to say that Firaxis don't want to misrepresent their game, so they're not going to show the mission with respawning enemies if there's only one in the entire game. So, depending on what OP wants out of a new XCOM game, I don't think it's unfair to dismiss it even based on this one demo.
 
In fact, the situation is very similar to Wolpaw's Law. You can judge an awful game to be awful even without completing it as long as you can safely say that what you've played is representative as the game as a whole.
 
I'll also point out that if you've ever preordered a game, you've gone completely against your own advice.
#42 Posted by Funkydupe (3320 posts) -

Fun to think about.

With XCOM I don't think the illusion is supposed to be that the XCOM organization are the only ones fighting. The progression in the game will tell us more.

I might not like the Disarm a Bomb mission scenario, as I know it'll by design grind my troops to mincemeat on higher difficulty settings. The random enemy spawns after the defuse is a killer. However. If someone called it in that an alien artifact, possibly a bomb was sighted in or near a populated area with actual aliens confirmed guarding it, I'd hope there'd be a response team like XCOM flying in specifically to deal with that. Its nice to have some variation that makes sense. Like the local city SWAT or Bomb Squad, except we're expected to cover the entire globe with specialized competence. On some of the missions we're sent to in the game, it is actually smart to have a small tactical squad instead of an army.

I'm guessing XCOM is so small because it is only the spearhead, the tiniest, but supposedly the sharpest end of the blade. Nobody thought about reinforcing its width before it was too late.

Nobody believed aliens would attack Earth, so why would governments stuff tons of funds monthly to an organization like XCOM.

#43 Posted by JJWeatherman (14558 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

While you have a point, it's not like what we all saw was an insignificant look at the game. It was an hour long and even contained commentary by the developers. I think what we'e seen should give people a good idea of if the game's for them. That is the whole point of a quick look, after all.

Your point would be more apt if we were commenting on a trailer.

#44 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@Artemesia said:

I never felt like I was the leader of an elite organization made up of the best of the best in UFO Defense

You weren't supposed to. That's the point. X-Com was a horror game with amazing strategy elements. This new game is just Final Fantasy Tactics but with aliens. And like, that's not an awful prospect, but why call it X-Com?

To try to pull in that "very small demographic" you just mentioned and get maybe a handful of bucks? To pay homage to a game series these creators love by making something that's barely like it? Or is it to just dress up their new game with X-Com's name so they can turn to their demographic and say, "This one's got street cred!" while that very small demographic of original X-Com fans just shouts in the corner about how it isn't, but no one can hear them. Because they're too small.

#45 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1791 posts) -

@Mooqi said:

Why can't people just recreate an old game by updating the graphics and keeping the core intact?

I have never understood this. It's like the people who keep asking for a Final Fantasy 7 remake. Why? It's already there. I'm not saying that these things must be brought in an entirely different direction (like that weird shooter XCOM), but if you're going to update a game, then you might as well try to add some new innovations in gaming from the past however many years since the game came out.

And, honestly, that Quick Look EX was the worst demo of gameplay I've seen for XCOM: EU. They didn't even explain what Overwatch is, or some of the more basic battle mechanics. If you want to see better footage (that may not even change your mind), go check out the hour long demo they put online a few weeks back.

#46 Posted by Funkydupe (3320 posts) -

Black Mesa updated HL1 and I thank them for it.

#47 Posted by triple07 (1196 posts) -

Sounds to me like you should just play the original XCOM because you want a very specific thing that no one is going to make ever again.

#48 Posted by prestonhedges (1965 posts) -

@Viking_Funeral said:

but if you're going to update a game, then you might as well try to add some new innovations

Don't forget about taking a bunch of stuff out. You have to do that, too, apparently.

#49 Posted by Funkydupe (3320 posts) -

Its the same thing with Video Game based Movies. Trying so hard to please a bigger audience than the fans of the video game.

#50 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Wait.

For.

The.

Full.

Fucking.

Release.

You have no way of knowing for certain if the game really is as you think it is until it's been released and people have had plenty of time to play it.

You can tell if you like or dislike a game based on people playing the game in a non-E3 type environment. If theres an hour long gameplay, it gives you more than enough time to see if you like the general game mechanics or how it handles.

You don't need to wait for the game to released to have interest or not

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.