Given that someone asked on the last Beastcast if they should start the with the older X-COMs from the nineties or skip them, I figured I'd comment here as well.
I agree 100% that you should start with X-COM: Enemy Within. However, if anyone is interested in old X-COM, I would recommend skipping the actual old games and trying Xenonauts and its upcoming sequel. The community overhaul mod for the first game is really great as well. If you want a really robust, modern game that is more in line with the original X-COMs, that's where you should go.
If anyone is interested in old X-COM, I would recommend skipping the actual old games and trying Xenonauts and its upcoming sequel. The community overhaul mod for the first game is really great as well. If you want a really robust, modern game that is more in line with the original X-COMs, that's where you should go.
After several more episodes, Jeff shooting Dan and taking his loot remains one of the most sound tactical decisions ever made by this crew. It should be their lynch-pin strat, at this point.
EDIT: For the love of God, stop screaming, Ben and Dan. People watch this with headphones, and it's terrible to hear a mindless, high-pitched squeal out of no where.
@sansjason: Yeah, that stereotype/stupid joke is vapid, ingrained classism at its finest. It always boggles the mind when people rail about the shitty and exploitative practices of businesses/corporations while freely dunking on the very people for whom they are supposedly concerned.
Speaking of dunking on people: Keep the Jeff-ribbing going. The salt is too damn good. Some might even say it's... fantastic.
I feel like the guys grossly misrepresented the argument for first person only servers. While there are undoubtedly people being chuds and calling third person a "casual" experience and generally being elitist dickholes, there are real and pretty unfair advantages to certain positions (particularly defensive ones) while in third person, even if everyone is in that POV.
Corner peaking and being able to see over cover, including grass and bushes, is the main issue people have with third person view. It gives massive advantages to people in defensive positions because you can turtle up 100% and still maintain full visual awareness. This makes assaulting a position, which would be tough even without third person corner peeking, extremely disadvantageous to the aggressor. It also makes suppressive fire much, much less effective, as the goal of suppression is not just limiting return fire but limiting or negating the enemy's situational awareness by keeping their heads down, thus facilitating fire and move tactics and flanking. Jeff is correct that the peripheral vision is maybe a bit more true to life in third person, in terms of speed of target recognition, but it simulates that in an unrealistic and somewhat game breaking, or at least cheesy, way. Also, if you crank up FOV this becomes much less of a problem (there is a slider coming in the next patch, along with the first person mode). His argument that "it's like if you had a real head" doesn't hold water in the slightest, because there are numerous instances where, to get the situational awareness you have around cover/corners while in third person, one would need to actually expose their head to do so.
I will play in both modes, once first person is out for a variety of reasons. And I encourage everyone to play in whatever mode they prefer, but please don't misrepresent the legitimate issues people have with third person mode and how it can be super cheesy in certain situations. First person is about levelling the playing field in certain situations, providing a slightly more realistic risk reward dynamic to visual awareness, and further facilitating fire and move tactics in squads and duos.
triumvir's comments