Why do you consider "don't like their game that much" as being over dramatic? I am not sitting here in rage and sadness. In opposite to the majority of the guys here I only take serious what has actually been shown to me. And I didn't see a map that fits the proportions I expected.

One guy asked sarcastically if I liked the cruise-ship missions in terror from the deep... I loved them, because the suspense didn't come from an engine spawning aliens into a tiny environment after a trigger was activated. The suspense came from huge numbers of aliens being on a large map looking for me and killing civilians as I proceeded. You could be surprised, you could come late, but you could master such a map by a swift tactical approach. That was a satisfying feeling.

It's not being dramatic, it's sharing opinions and experiences with othe prople who might care.

@Mooqi: Go read some previews from the guys that got a preview build and have played this and the original way more than you have. Maybe that could cheer you up until you can try it out yourself.

http://kotaku.com/5945989/yes-x+com-enemy-unknown-is-really-good

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/13/hands-on-forty-hours-with-xcom/#more-124165

And I quote "With all the burden of expectation and doubt, it manages to be both a hugely respectful reimagining and, all ties ignored, one of the best turn-based tactical games I’ve played in, well, forever."

@Dredlockz: Thanks for the advice. I will probably read those reviews, but all I can see on the screenshots are tiny maps...

@Mooqi Don't you get it, man? They're saving all those huge maps for the last ten minutes of the game! They just don't want you to see them... It's a huge secret. Guess you'll have to buy the game to see them...

Some of the people on this forum really do sound like they work PR for some of these developers.

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...

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Mooqi

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...

The fuck? There's no way the other 78 maps can make up for 2? Are you fucking kidding me? Man, that's insane.

And aliens that can teleport into battle. Thats insane it's so unrealistic!

For what it's worth the small maps are a plus for me. Keep the action tight and focust. But then again i never played the first game so this doesn't have to live up to any lofty expectations.

@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.

@Mister_V: They're aliens. Give them some credit. :D

@Mooqi said:

One guy asked sarcastically if I liked the cruise-ship missions in terror from the deep... I loved them, because the suspense didn't come from an engine spawning aliens into a tiny environment after a trigger was activated. The suspense came from huge numbers of aliens being on a large map looking for me and killing civilians as I proceeded. You could be surprised, you could come late, but you could master such a map by a swift tactical approach. That was a satisfying feeling.

They showed a mission like pretty much what you are describing in their livestream where aliens were killing civilians and turning them into zombie aliens, so the dilemma was either save the civilians and potentially give aliens more time to corner you or not save them and kill the aliens and infected civilians.

http://www.twitch.tv/2k/b/330155062 (Skip to 40:00 for that kind of mission)

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

It's a PC series. What the fuck are you expecting?

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

@BlackLagoon: did you watch the quick look they said that tanks were an option...it can however be ignored altogether...

I've never played an X-Com game. This new game looked interesting enough. I may play it at some point. *shrug*

CONTROVERSY.

the QLEX reminded me a lot of Shadow Watch which was a game I enjoyed a lot. I've never played the original XCOM games although they always attracted me. To be honest though I'm at a stage in my life where mastering battles with 32 troops is probably a bit beyond me and the time I want to put into it, although it probably does make for a more satisfying experience.

For me, when it comes to situations like this where something isn't quite living up to my expectations, I just ask the question: Is this a game experiene I am getting anywhere else? Dragon Age Origins is probably the best example I can remember. I love the BG games, so all the talk of spiritual sequels really enticed me. The more I saw of it, the more I realised that it wasn't going to satisfy my desire for more BGish games (it was way more like KOTOR which was a style I was less keen on). But at the end of the day, it was a game that could scratch an itch that no one else was scratching.

I guess this is more important because I only have the pool of Xbox 360 games to choose from, being unable to afford a decent PC. With this game, I would say that this isn't an experience I can get anywhere else really. I suppose you always then have to ask whether that experience itself is something that you want, so maybe it's not foolproof. But I definitely feel like this is offering me somethin I'm not seeing elsewhere and that alone makes me a little bit interested.

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

XCom is not a RTS. Also, I hope you get your revenge on whatever console screwed you over.

@Dagbiker said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

XCom is not a RTS. Also, I hope you get your revenge on whatever console screwed you over.

It's a strategy game. It's bound to a grid (even though they seem to take every effort to hide it by never using the KB/M controls - which is probably due to them being trash like the demo demonstrated), hence KB/M SHOULD be superior. It's an indisputable fact. Just because the XCOM team apparently decided to mimic an analog stick like Ubisoft is irrelevant. It's just like how every FPS controls better on KB/M, unless the dev team fucks it up.

@Terramagi said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

XCom is not a RTS. Also, I hope you get your revenge on whatever console screwed you over.

It's a strategy game. It's bound to a grid (even though they seem to take every effort to hide it by never using the KB/M controls - which is probably due to them being trash like the demo demonstrated), hence KB/M SHOULD be superior. It's an indisputable fact. Just because the XCOM team apparently decided to mimic an analog stick like Ubisoft is irrelevant. It's just like how every FPS controls better on KB/M, unless the dev team fucks it up.

You've still spectacularly missed the point, but please people, let's just burn this quote tree and let this fucking thread die.

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

XCom is not a RTS. Also, I hope you get your revenge on whatever console screwed you over.

It's a strategy game. It's bound to a grid (even though they seem to take every effort to hide it by never using the KB/M controls - which is probably due to them being trash like the demo demonstrated), hence KB/M SHOULD be superior. It's an indisputable fact. Just because the XCOM team apparently decided to mimic an analog stick like Ubisoft is irrelevant. It's just like how every FPS controls better on KB/M, unless the dev team fucks it up.

You've still spectacularly missed the point, but please people, let's just burn this quote tree and let this fucking thread die.

No, I don't think I have missed your "point". I just don't care about it. "Ooh, you're being mean to the console players!" "You should wait until the game is out before saying anything mean about it!" Please. The demo is out, it controls like garbage on the platform THE SERIES ORIGINATED ON. It controls like garbage on the platform the dev team has the most experience with. It controls like garbage on the platform that created the strategy genre when console gamers were still running to the right and tapping the jump button. There is a WEALTH of videos showing that the maps are all tiny. The video showing a "large, non-linear" level was the exact same map that was in the QL EX, with the fire removed. The ship had the exact same 5 room layout. Entry, side room on both sides, sub-core, core.

If Firaxis wants me to believe that the maps aren't all built a certain way, or that one of the input methods isn't completely irrelevant to them, then SHOW me. Because I've played the demo, watched a GREAT deal of videos, and every one of my points has been backed up. YOUR points, conversely, seems to be "stop saying things I don't like in a way I don't like" and then hoping that I'll stop calling you out on it.

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

@Artemesia said:

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

Wow, they even took everything out of the Interceptor parts. Now it's just some clunky, pseudo-vector bullshit where you don't do anything.

I think that everyone should just relax and wait until the game is out. By then, we'll have the full picture of what is or isn't in the game. Not preordering means you'll miss out on bad haircuts and painted armor...not really stuff anyone should care about. Heck, even waiting a few months after the game is released is no big deal. It has multiplayer but that is certainly not the focus of an xcom game.

Oh and, I think people who played the original xcom game and talk about it like it has some sort terror/horror atmosphere need to go back and play it again. It was a great game, but certainly not scary. The music was great and hearing plasma blasts followed by a person screaming certainly lent a bit of atmosphere to this game, but c'mon. In fact, if you haven't played it for awhile, go back like I did and try to sink about 20 hours or so into it. After encountering the 105th ufo, do you shoot it down and yet again go to the crash site, or do you shoot it down over the water so that you don't have to bother with another crash site? The game is still good, but I think people put a little too much stock into nostalgia on this one.

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

Wow, they even took everything out of the Interceptor parts. Now it's just some clunky, pseudo-vector bullshit where you don't do anything.

Are you talking about the lack of UFO DETECTED BLOW IT UP sections? Those are still in. If they weren't, why would there be UFO Crash Site missions?

@Artemesia said:

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

Wow, they even took everything out of the Interceptor parts. Now it's just some clunky, pseudo-vector bullshit where you don't do anything.

Are you talking about the lack of UFO DETECTED BLOW IT UP sections? Those are still in. If they weren't, why would there be UFO Crash Site missions?

...That's not what I wrote at all.

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

Wow, they even took everything out of the Interceptor parts. Now it's just some clunky, pseudo-vector bullshit where you don't do anything.

Are you talking about the lack of UFO DETECTED BLOW IT UP sections? Those are still in. If they weren't, why would there be UFO Crash Site missions?

...That's not what I wrote at all.

That's what I interpreted it as because it didn't really make any relevant sense at all. There isn't even any interceptor footage in the youtube videos.

I like what they did with the universe. Because we get a serious strategy game as opposed to the tone set by the original xcom.

I only saw a bit of that quick look, but what I did see gave me the impression of it being a kinda boring version of valkyria chronicles. Probably not an entirely accurate assessment, but I'm not convinced this game is for me.

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

XCom is not a RTS. Also, I hope you get your revenge on whatever console screwed you over.

It's a strategy game. It's bound to a grid (even though they seem to take every effort to hide it by never using the KB/M controls - which is probably due to them being trash like the demo demonstrated), hence KB/M SHOULD be superior. It's an indisputable fact. Just because the XCOM team apparently decided to mimic an analog stick like Ubisoft is irrelevant. It's just like how every FPS controls better on KB/M, unless the dev team fucks it up.

You've still spectacularly missed the point, but please people, let's just burn this quote tree and let this fucking thread die.

No, I don't think I have missed your "point". I just don't care about it. "Ooh, you're being mean to the console players!" "You should wait until the game is out before saying anything mean about it!" Please. The demo is out, it controls like garbage on the platform THE SERIES ORIGINATED ON. It controls like garbage on the platform the dev team has the most experience with. It controls like garbage on the platform that created the strategy genre when console gamers were still running to the right and tapping the jump button. There is a WEALTH of videos showing that the maps are all tiny. The video showing a "large, non-linear" level was the exact same map that was in the QL EX, with the fire removed. The ship had the exact same 5 room layout. Entry, side room on both sides, sub-core, core.

If Firaxis wants me to believe that the maps aren't all built a certain way, or that one of the input methods isn't completely irrelevant to them, then SHOW me. Because I've played the demo, watched a GREAT deal of videos, and every one of my points has been backed up. YOUR points, conversely, seems to be "stop saying things I don't like in a way I don't like" and then hoping that I'll stop calling you out on it.

This thing is insane!!!

@Sackmanjones: Like staring into the void of time itself!

@Sackmanjones said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@Terramagi

@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.

"The marketing for this game is actively pushing me away."

"PAY THEM 50 DOLLARS BEFORE YOU BITCH, FUCKING ENTITLED GAMERS."

Yes, that is exactly the point he was making and was not at all referring to post-release coverage by the media and/or his peers.

Then what the fuck is the point of pre-release marketing or demos.

I played the demo. It's acting like I'm using an analog stick, even though I'm using the one true input device for strategy games. The maps are cramped and linear - something that can't be just waved away by saying "oh it's just the tutorial" because the exact same thing has been evident in every single developer playthrough, including the QL EX. Hell, you can't even click on the damn squares in the base, because for some god forsaken reason the guys who made CIVILIZATION forgot how to design for something that isn't bound to a menu.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern in your posts.

Psssst - don't tell anybody but he's a bit of a PC elitist.

Anyhoo, I've had actual, decent points brought against my post. I don't change my mind completely, but I think it deserves a full blog post.

So, Terramagi, who wrote the book saying that mouse and keyboard were the "one true input for turn based strategy games"? I'm again delving into a genre I'm not horribly familiar with, but they did put Final Fantasy Tactics on a GBA and it's very much a complex game. You're right, it is a shame that they couldn't be bothered to properly implement M+K controls, and that's a horrible thing, but it's the smug superiority with which you deliver your opinions that I have a problem with. I mean, seriously, "one true input"? That sounds so sad.

PC version isn't very good, tell people about it.

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PC VERSION, GET BACK TO YOUR HOLE. GODDAMN ELITISTS"

And did you seriously just say FFTA was a "complex game"? Fucking really?

You're very good at missing whatever point I'm trying to make.

PC version has problems with mouse and keyboard. Fine. I accept that and have no problem with your complaints about it. Can I make this point clear? You consistently and unfairly put down anything consoles have to offer and consistently raise up PC games beyond the benefits that they actually do have.

For evidence:

one true input for turn based strategy games

Just what makes mouse and keyboard the "one true input" for turn based strategy? Who the fuck said that? You? Gimme a fucking break, there's no reason a controller can't be used in a game where the time you take to make your move doesn't matter. This isn't even about the PC version working or not, it's about the attitude I so often see you bring whenever a discrepancy between PC's and consoles show up.

For the record, I remember someone posting that you can turn off Vsync and it fixes your mouse problem. If you desperately need Vsync then download Rivatuner and run D3DOverrider. In fact, do that with every game anyway, it gives much better performance in my experience.

It's a PC franchise. Saying "it controls like it's a goddamn console port" is an entirely valid worry after 7 years of the platform being shit on.

As for what makes M/KB the best input? Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the genre itself. Were you the kind of person who thought Starcraft 64 controlled well? Or any RTS? If it's on a grid (just because the console version makes the grid invisible doesn't mean it isn't on a grid), mouse and keyboard reigns supreme. It's like saying "I can play Quake just as well on a controller as anybody on KB/M." No, Jimmy, you fucking can't. Your input is inferior. KB/M isn't great at flight sims or driving games, hence why they have sticks and wheels for such things.

XCom is not a RTS. Also, I hope you get your revenge on whatever console screwed you over.

It's a strategy game. It's bound to a grid (even though they seem to take every effort to hide it by never using the KB/M controls - which is probably due to them being trash like the demo demonstrated), hence KB/M SHOULD be superior. It's an indisputable fact. Just because the XCOM team apparently decided to mimic an analog stick like Ubisoft is irrelevant. It's just like how every FPS controls better on KB/M, unless the dev team fucks it up.

You've still spectacularly missed the point, but please people, let's just burn this quote tree and let this fucking thread die.

No, I don't think I have missed your "point". I just don't care about it. "Ooh, you're being mean to the console players!" "You should wait until the game is out before saying anything mean about it!" Please. The demo is out, it controls like garbage on the platform THE SERIES ORIGINATED ON. It controls like garbage on the platform the dev team has the most experience with. It controls like garbage on the platform that created the strategy genre when console gamers were still running to the right and tapping the jump button. There is a WEALTH of videos showing that the maps are all tiny. The video showing a "large, non-linear" level was the exact same map that was in the QL EX, with the fire removed. The ship had the exact same 5 room layout. Entry, side room on both sides, sub-core, core.

If Firaxis wants me to believe that the maps aren't all built a certain way, or that one of the input methods isn't completely irrelevant to them, then SHOW me. Because I've played the demo, watched a GREAT deal of videos, and every one of my points has been backed up. YOUR points, conversely, seems to be "stop saying things I don't like in a way I don't like" and then hoping that I'll stop calling you out on it.

This thing is insane!!!

So if you do not like the game don't buy it, if you do like the game buy it.:-) glad we got that settled.

@Silvergun said:

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.

ah!

In the original the Sky Ranger could transport 14 guys to the mission. Was it fun to move those 14 around, no, not in my opinion. I usually just stuck with my best guys or the ones I specifically decided I wanted to rank up depending on the mission. 8 or 6 (as is the case for XCOM) is a good number. Not too few and not too many.

@Mooqi:

There's nothing wrong with waiting for the power of hindsight with the numerous livestreams that'll start airing after people get their hands on it, or checking out some of the other videos on other sites showing the game in play... or waiting for the coveted steam-sale. (Although greenman has been putting on some great sales as well)

The maps do seem smaller, so that does make it easier to predict the general regions where hostiles will appear. The consequences of making mistakes seems the same.

http://www.twitch.tv/2k/b/330155062 Gameplay starts 7:30

Anyway, I'd say, like everyone else, to let everyone preview the game and release their own honest, fully-fleshed view at the game... and probably come to the same decision.

I played the original a few weeks back. It sucked. Comparatively, of course, since at the time of release I loved it. I poured countless hours into it. Sorry, guys, but it's time to hang up the nostalgia and move on. Very few games hold up after two decades, and I wasn't surprised to see the original game suffered horribly from what were, at the time, standard design choices. We expect better. No one is going to buy a copy of the original game with updated graphics. You could sell it for $5 on Live, I suppose, but a full game? No way.

This is a constant argument, though. It happened with Fallout 3, and with every other modern interpretation of older games. People are free to judge games based on narrow, short demos. But it's difficult to take them very seriously. The original game is still out there if you want to play it. Refresh your memory, or, better yet, leave the memory alone and just enjoy the new game for what it is. I wish I'd never gone back and played the game again. It's virtually unplayable by modern standards.

@haggis said:

I played the original a few weeks back. It sucked. Comparatively, of course, since at the time of release I loved it. I poured countless hours into it. Sorry, guys, but it's time to hang up the nostalgia and move on. Very few games hold up after two decades, and I wasn't surprised to see the original game suffered horribly from what were, at the time, standard design choices. We expect better. No one is going to buy a copy of the original game with updated graphics. You could sell it for $5 on Live, I suppose, but a full game? No way.

This is a constant argument, though. It happened with Fallout 3, and with every other modern interpretation of older games. People are free to judge games based on narrow, short demos. But it's difficult to take them very seriously. The original game is still out there if you want to play it. Refresh your memory, or, better yet, leave the memory alone and just enjoy the new game for what it is. I wish I'd never gone back and played the game again. It's virtually unplayable by modern standards.

"It's old, so it's bad."

This is the kind of logic that resulted in 7 years of strawberry jam. Should we throw regenerating health in here too? Perhaps after a turn without being shot, a unit's health returns to normal!

@Terramagi said:

@haggis said:

I played the original a few weeks back. It sucked. Comparatively, of course, since at the time of release I loved it. I poured countless hours into it. Sorry, guys, but it's time to hang up the nostalgia and move on. Very few games hold up after two decades, and I wasn't surprised to see the original game suffered horribly from what were, at the time, standard design choices. We expect better. No one is going to buy a copy of the original game with updated graphics. You could sell it for $5 on Live, I suppose, but a full game? No way.

This is a constant argument, though. It happened with Fallout 3, and with every other modern interpretation of older games. People are free to judge games based on narrow, short demos. But it's difficult to take them very seriously. The original game is still out there if you want to play it. Refresh your memory, or, better yet, leave the memory alone and just enjoy the new game for what it is. I wish I'd never gone back and played the game again. It's virtually unplayable by modern standards.

"It's old, so it's bad."

This is the kind of logic that resulted in 7 years of strawberry jam. Should we throw regenerating health in here too? Perhaps after a turn without being shot, a unit's health returns to normal!

There are plenty of old games that age well/are still completely playable. And to be frank the argument that something is old, therefore it is unplayable is pretty trite, because how was it playable in the first place? Granted conventions may have changed, and the way we see gaming standards have changed for sure, but we can't really apply those standards to old classics. You can say that certain mechanics show age, thus make the game artificially difficult or whatever (not saying that with xcom, I'm just providing an example of a statement), but you have to put it in the context of the era.

I was looking forward to the new xcom, because I never actually played any and when I downloaded a copy off of steam, the game was pretty bad at telling me how to actually play it (again thing about games in the past). I could have done research and looked for .pdfs of manuals or whatever, but I just didn't want to put in the time at the moment. That doesn't mean I think the game is bad, it is just going to be a time sink for me to actually learn how to play, which I didn't have time for at the...time. However, hearing that the PC controls are bad is kind of a slap in the face to me. I could go on a whole tangent about how many games that were born on the PC get "consolized", then when they return to the PC, the games are often just shitty ports. I thought that Firaxis knew better but apparently not.

Games have evolved, game mechanics that didn't work, or sucked died off, and mechanics that did work lived on. Thats why old games tend to be worse by today's standard. I am not saying all old games are horrible and should never be played, I my self own over 40 GoG games, and check weekly. But when people spend 60$ on a game, they aren't going to buy a game with dated mechanics. They want a stud, an alpha male.

I'm glad i didn't play the original, cause then I'd be a cynical, frustrated prick.

Reading through this thread is really bumming me out. The amount of cynicism and hate for XCOM games both old and new being thrown around is crazy. Fans of the old game hating on changes, others complaining that not enough changes have been made to update the game, and other haters hating just for the hell of it...I guess Firaxis can please nobody.

@Artemesia said:

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

Wow, they even took everything out of the Interceptor parts. Now it's just some clunky, pseudo-vector bullshit where you don't do anything.

Are you talking about the lack of UFO DETECTED BLOW IT UP sections? Those are still in. If they weren't, why would there be UFO Crash Site missions?

...That's not what I wrote at all.

That's what I interpreted it as because it didn't really make any relevant sense at all. There isn't even any interceptor footage in the youtube videos.

Uh, yes there is. He shoots down a UFO before one of the missions. It's the mission with a crashed UFO. And it looks nothing like the screenshot you posted. There are no buttons to hit and his ship just attacks by itself. Though I suppose he could be playing an early build or something?

@haggis said:

I played the original a few weeks back. It sucked. Comparatively, of course, since at the time of release I loved it. I poured countless hours into it. Sorry, guys, but it's time to hang up the nostalgia and move on. Very few games hold up after two decades, and I wasn't surprised to see the original game suffered horribly from what were, at the time, standard design choices. We expect better. No one is going to buy a copy of the original game with updated graphics. You could sell it for $5 on Live, I suppose, but a full game? No way.

This is a constant argument, though. It happened with Fallout 3, and with every other modern interpretation of older games. People are free to judge games based on narrow, short demos. But it's difficult to take them very seriously. The original game is still out there if you want to play it. Refresh your memory, or, better yet, leave the memory alone and just enjoy the new game for what it is. I wish I'd never gone back and played the game again. It's virtually unplayable by modern standards.

What's wrong with modernizing something by streamlining the UI and controls, but keeping the complexity and the freedom? Fallout 3 did that. It showed that these things are not mutually exclusive. That's why it was so successful. Because they modernized a classic, and did it right. It just doesn't look like this remake is doing that (judging from the trailers, and the text previews, and the developer interviews, and the hands-on previews, and the screenshots, and the gameplay features, and the website blurbs, and the insight from people who have played it, and the unedited YouTube Let's Plays, and whatever else apparently isn't sufficient for judging a game before it's released).

@Chaser324 said:

Reading through this thread is really bumming me out. The amount of cynicism and hate for XCOM games both old and new being thrown around is crazy. Fans of the old game hating on changes, others complaining that not enough changes have been made to update the game, and other haters hating just for the hell of it...I guess Firaxis can please nobody.

Well, that's pretty much the case with any remake of an old beloved game:

• Too few changes, won't attract new customers.
• Too many changes, won't attract old customers.

It's a Catch 22 if I've ever seen one, and like you said; it's impossible to please everyone (especially on the Internet, where people will voice their complaints like there was no tomorrow).

I really hate that this type of stuff is starting to seep into the GB community. I don't care if you actually like the full game or not, but wait till you see what the final game has to offer for crap's sake.

@CrazyBagMan said:

I really hate that this type of stuff is starting to seep into the GB community. I don't care if you actually like the full game or not, but wait till you see what the final game has to offer for crap's sake.

I agree. This is the worst case of people overreacting to a demo I've seen in some time.

@gladspooky: @gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

@gladspooky said:

@Artemesia said:

To the OP, have you been paying attention to the OXM youtube videos? If not, you may want to check them out.A bit more representative of what the real game is like.

Wow, they even took everything out of the Interceptor parts. Now it's just some clunky, pseudo-vector bullshit where you don't do anything.

Are you talking about the lack of UFO DETECTED BLOW IT UP sections? Those are still in. If they weren't, why would there be UFO Crash Site missions?

...That's not what I wrote at all.

That's what I interpreted it as because it didn't really make any relevant sense at all. There isn't even any interceptor footage in the youtube videos.

Uh, yes there is. He shoots down a UFO before one of the missions. It's the mission with a crashed UFO. And it looks nothing like the screenshot you posted. There are no buttons to hit and his ship just attacks by itself. Though I suppose he could be playing an early build or something?

From the video, it looks like the same interface, just with some buttons missing. It's possible that more options there are unlocked later or through upgrades.

@Chaser324 said:

@CrazyBagMan said:

I really hate that this type of stuff is starting to seep into the GB community. I don't care if you actually like the full game or not, but wait till you see what the final game has to offer for crap's sake.

I agree. This is the worst case of people overreacting to a demo I've seen in some time.

Yeah, and the worst part is I really liked the Demo. It's just a taste of the things to come. Sure it's a small map, but even that tiny map allowed for some interesting tactical options.

There are way bigger maps where you can't see the edges of the map in one screen. like the one in this mission

Truth is, haters gonna hate, and people love controversy, that's why this thread has the most views, oh well. I'll still have a blast with the game.

@Dredlockz:

@gladspooky: See you think they are doing a bad job of modernizing XCOM but think Fallout 3 was done right. I am a huge Fallout 1/2 fan and really wanted nothing to do with Fallout 3. I actually beat the entire game, just so I could have a valid opinion about the overall game and I did not enjoy that experience at all. To me Fallout 3 is not representative of the Fallout 1/2 experience, mostly because I thought the writing was really bad.

Just saying we all have our opinions of how to properly modernize our favorite oldschool games.

@gladspooky said:

@haggis said:

I played the original a few weeks back. It sucked. Comparatively, of course, since at the time of release I loved it. I poured countless hours into it. Sorry, guys, but it's time to hang up the nostalgia and move on. Very few games hold up after two decades, and I wasn't surprised to see the original game suffered horribly from what were, at the time, standard design choices. We expect better. No one is going to buy a copy of the original game with updated graphics. You could sell it for $5 on Live, I suppose, but a full game? No way.

This is a constant argument, though. It happened with Fallout 3, and with every other modern interpretation of older games. People are free to judge games based on narrow, short demos. But it's difficult to take them very seriously. The original game is still out there if you want to play it. Refresh your memory, or, better yet, leave the memory alone and just enjoy the new game for what it is. I wish I'd never gone back and played the game again. It's virtually unplayable by modern standards.

What's wrong with modernizing something by streamlining the UI and controls, but keeping the complexity and the freedom? Fallout 3 did that. It showed that these things are not mutually exclusive. That's why it was so successful. Because they modernized a classic, and did it right. It just doesn't look like this remake is doing that (judging from the trailers, and the text previews, and the developer interviews, and the hands-on previews, and the screenshots, and the gameplay features, and the website blurbs, and the insight from people who have played it, and the unedited YouTube Let's Plays, and whatever else apparently isn't sufficient for judging a game before it's released).

Eh what?

Fallout 3 is a good example of modernising a classic now? It was successfull because it was Oblivion with guns, and Oblivion blew up as a one of a kind huge game experience at the time of a new console cycle. The number of fans of the originals Fallout 1,2 is insignificant compared to how many poeple bought Fallout 3. The majority of the sales were Bethesda open world lovers, not Fallout fans. This is pure math of copies sold of both the old and the new games, if every original Fallout fan out there bought Fallout 3 they would still be a tiny minority.

In fact the most of the old guard Fallout fans hated Fallout 3. Just like you are now hating on the new Xcom. (except Fallout reaction was much much more negative, more vocal, and more widespread)

And again to correct a completely wrong statement. Fallout 3 did loose a lot of the complexity of the originals. As well as quite a few other things that made the originals great, such as the deep dialogue, meaningfull intertwined choices and questlines, tone of narative and humor, consistency of the universe.