I'm hoping for Dlc too. Wtf is that about? You HAVE to have the one-last-chance one-time-only mission to outer space. That is crucial!
Seems like a no brainer for Dlc now that I think about it.
Printable View
I'm hoping for Dlc too. Wtf is that about? You HAVE to have the one-last-chance one-time-only mission to outer space. That is crucial!
Seems like a no brainer for Dlc now that I think about it.
I haven't beat the game yet. But it seems perfectly suited for DLC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
And we know the X-Com series is no stranger to the DLC concept. Terror from the Deep is basically a reskinned, harder version of the original.
Here's a question for you commanders out there: should I go for Titan armor, or tech straight to Ghost?
There are Steam achievements in place that cannot be obtained so DLC is a certainty.
As it turns out, my biggest problem with XCOM is the lack of a procedural map generator. I didn't like the idea of pre-baked maps going in and it turned out to be worse in practice than I expected.
First off, there really aren't that many maps. I still haven't played through an entire campaign (although I've restarted twice) and I'm already seeing dupes. Prior to release, Firaxis talked about how starting points and enemy spawns are randomized so it will still feel very different. What they didn't mention is how the game's focus changed from a creepy, wide-open bug hunt in the first game to a more linear war zone in XCOM. The levels are still big and varied enough to account for multiple combat approaches but there's no longer any question about where exactly the aliens are hiding. Many of the levels are even on bridges or some other directed pathway. In practice, this means that there are only two potential start locations for the Skyranger and enemies are roughly in the same areas each time (although the species will change.)
The lack of proper level generation also affects the game your first time through:
There simply isn't enough map variety to account for the different variables that made the original game so rad. The alien ship's condition on the ground would change based on the weapons used to shoot it down and whether or not the aliens had time to attempt repairs. You could also try waiting for the aliens to land first so that the ship components would be in better shape (downside: more aliens on-board). Then there was the way the map would change based on geographical location. Not to mention the ridiculously important day and night cycle. Absoluely none of this is present in XCOM and I really miss it.
Procedual map generation is a big deal in a replayable strategy game, especially one that is so focused on the unknown, and I can't understand why it wasn't a top priority. They had four years to get it right! I can only think of two plausible reasons: Procedual map generation may be difficult or impossible in Unreal Engine 3 or they REALLY wanted to sell some DLC.
Really? There's a lot more randomness in XCOM than I expected there to be, honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
It loses a lot of the complexity and randomness of the original. But I don't belong to the camp that thinks they should have made an exact replica of X-Com.
The original game still exists, and is fully playable on Steam. No need to regurgitate the entire thing.
Neither do I. I actually love the game! The new combat style is excellent, both the switch away from TUs and the more focused map flow. I like the new character classes, the way individual nations provide you with unique bonuses and a whole lot of other stuff. But I don't think you can make a case that the limited maps are a good thing for the longetivity of XCOM. Procedural map generation would absolutely work with the current XCOM design and it would only enhance the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Yeah it's a solid game but the meta-base management is just nowhere near as much fun. All that good night day stuff and incremental passage of time and juggling interceptors and weapons or stalking a UFO and waiting for it to land, all of that is gone and it is for the worse really.
I've played the same terror map three times in my first run through. I'm disappointed by that as well. The maps they include are fun and have replay value but it's just not going to hook you like randomly generated ones would.
Where the FUCK is the c4? What good are my jet packs if I can't blow holes in the roofs of ufo's with timed c4 and pour in through the roof?
I have a laundry list of complaints honestly, but in reality you just can't compare the two games. They both shine in different ways, and kudos to them for making a new game.
I really don't like the stupid defense bonus muton elites get from cover. You can be standing right in front of one with a very low to hit.
Yes, clearly all those things are missing from XCOM. I disagree that the game is the worse for it, though.
It's an issue of sacrificing some depth and complexity in certain areas in exchange for adding complexity in others. The individual maps are a lot more well-designed and tense. Fundamentally, the essence of the game is the same. It's a strategy game based on scarce resource management, choice, and short-versus-long-term investment.
I agree that the game would be better with more randomized maps, and more UFO encounters. I have interceptors with plasma cannons on 4 out of 5 continents and I got nothing to shoot!
I haven't seen endgame weapons yet but I'm pretty sure you can't destroy floor/ceiling tiles. I am still a little depressed about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowutopia
OK, now that is kinda depressing. Really makes archangel armor and explosives even less useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
I heard that the focus of this game is actually in multiplayer and the campaign is really a 30 hour tutorial.
That would make a lot of sense. It's not what I want but it makes a lot of sense.