I agree that the strategic layer is the principle issue…
Tactics can always be tweaked…
I agree that the strategic layer is the principle issue…
Tactics can always be tweaked…
Sorry… use to a different dialogue protocol… keep for getting to hit the reply button… see below, or above… or however this site works…
I find story rather good and deep and above my expectations, speaking of included in game, not the “teaser stories”. Tactics and mechanics is subject to constant improvement, somewhat "fighting in between modern players (easier), realistic player (expecting more realism, where some of your expectations fit) and old Xcom players asking for some more tactical aspects of old.
We will see the end result, but I find progress “so far, so good”. In my opinon DLC layers should be slowed and even dropped in new releases until main game is more balanced, but studio decides, since DLCs are only fresh blood input of money needed.
Sure, the more alien the theme, the harder it will be for players to automatically connect with the game. Civ and Paradox games are full of abstract mechanics, but because they are tied to something instantly familiar it is easy to connect to them.
Still, I think PP point is hurt more by mechanical inconsistency more, then by any issues the fiction might have. Gameplay has some oddities and inconsistencies and the “theme” only adds to the friction, instead of smoothing it out.
Genuine question: what’s the difference? Both are gameplay systems wrapped in a theme. Both can be tweaked and overhauled.
The strategic layer is where players interface with the world… if it is logical, and believable, tactical issues are far more forgivable…
If the tactical side works, and the strategic layer fails, you get a game like PP (with the exception, as I infer from the post that the tactical side is still in need of much help). Where solutions are patched on after the fact, rather than yielding themselves as a natural consequence of their environment.
More over, the world itself is not fun… give players a world they care about and they will work around tactical issues until fixes can be found… but construct a world that is not believable, and the tactical side becomes an exercise in tedium…
The games that I personally return to involve worlds that I have grown to care about… For me, and this is why I stopped playing, PP was a sterile world filled with random events, and tedious combat, that had little if anything to do with a core structure. I could have forgiven the tactical difficulties… but I still need a reason to care…
I think I forgot to hit the reply button again… you will find my posted response somewhere below yours…
I post several times a day to a financial website, and I am so use to the structure there that I have developed some bad habits that make this site a frustration… apologies ahead of the fact…
Well, I find that PP “sucks you to the story” quite well - it just might need a bit more content and structure here. You are saving world from a virus, at a cost, and not best win scenario, but you are “at any cost, by any means necessary”
As stated, tactical layer needs more love and work. And by that I mean both trade managment, base options and actual combat. Exploring the map, several types of missions, small rewards from sites - that is Civ kind of style, and I find it familiar and pleasing. Especially giving certain level of freedom and difference on each gameplay, thank you for that. That aspect is far better then most of Xcom like games where story is far more linear.
For me it’s a mix of both opinions. It was PP’s story “books” that hooked me into the game even before it was released. It’s a great and well-built world, outside the game.
Inside the game though, your PP faction has no real identity - no personalities, no tech tree, etc. And it doesn’t even make sense, that the world expects so much of PP when it’s just a handful of guys. Also, factions don’t have that much personality either. The most iconic character is Tobias West, like him or hate him, and that’s a shame.
I have an old canny post about this, although it’ll never be worked on:
https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/lorestory-characters
I say that it’ll never be worked on because this lack of world building is by design, I think. It’s a byproduct of the “sandbox” nature that Snapshot applied to PP.
I guess this is more personal. I like linear stories better, as they can be better fleshed-out.
Never say never, just voted for it!
True, but in my long gaming experience, since ZX Spectrum “open world” games are those one returns most to, and that really became legends / define the genre. More freedom to the players!
Surely, they are harder and rarer gems (Civ-Alpha Centaury, Elite, Pirates …)
I’m a pre-Spectrum user, ZX-81. Thanks for the look back at the past glories!
I’m an Apple II user! I’m cheating though, I got it as a hands down from my uncle when it was already a bit old. I did play in school with a 286 though around the same time in the 80’s. My first vg was an Atari 2600, but I also got a pong machine from another uncle. Then I finally got my first PC much later, in the 486 era.
Thanks!
Sure, I agree they’re the ones we return most to. It’s just that at least I return to them for the gameplay, not really the “world”. I remember playing the original x-com while listening to other music in my portable cd-player… So, from a story/lore/ambience perspective, they’re not the best IMHO.
, this describes very closely my personal opinion.
I like the story but it is bad connected to the game or the game is bad connected to the story.
You’re main goal is to save humanity against an alien threat. So far so good, but then it goes very weird. Right from the start in the first missions you get involved to murder humans to help a faction, except Anu, where you have to fight the aliens, but they are somewhat closest to be the ones that are maybe going to align to the alien, their god. Very confusing in my fist campaign.
And it goes further, best strategy to get new aircraft, research and resources is simply to steal them from humans. To get reputation the fastest way you can go is to sabotage other faction heavens. And in between you can maybe do some fights against the main threat, if you have time for this.
Yes, I am exaggerating a bit here, but the most effective way of playing could come very close to the one described above.
Save humanity by murdering many humans …
The only big I have real narrative problem is the tutorial. Who is PP? Are those soldiers random survivors who stumbled upon abandoned PP base? Who are we as the player? There doesn’t seem to be a “commander” in PP. Are we the AI controlling the facilities? This lack of context definitely hurt my experience with the game. I felt while nice, the cutscenes failed to properly set the scene.
I definitely don’t want linear story missions in my strategy games, and I greatly disliked how chatty XCOM2 got - mostly though because I didn’t find character nor writing any good - the idea itself isn’t bad. Just recently Hades manage to provide narrative and characters arcs to a non-story oriented genre. Not sure if that is something one could do, without really pivoting toward that design though.
Rather then adding static dialogue I would prefer to:
The mistery element would be good, if more would be revealed in game. But you basically learn almost ALL about fractions, and none about yourself
True, but less 9 basis dependent and even less Earth dependent. One map to explore, option to build bases where needed, but not that much. Enemy nests and bases revealed by attack and not by base proximity and scan - scans could be extended via radar upgrades and to reveal new map points.
Found a ticket, “too many bases”
https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/feedback-too-many-bases
I would love to see more alliance - ability to use their troops and give them command a bit when allied, or really attacking you when in war. I agree its quite passive now.
However, as you note “easier said then done” since it would be quite a great workaround of current state of affairs.
Yeah tutorial was really rushed in for release but at least I think they’ll overhaul it. I don’t know if it’ll get better in the sense we’re talking about (story-lore-wise) but at least it shall cover better the game’s mechanics.
You said it perfectly, the problem with XCOM2 was not with the idea in itself, it was in the implementation - bland, very archetypical characters and vibe, although bringing central back as a nerd-turned-badass AND playable was a hit. He’s cheesy and simplistic as hell, but he’s the best of the lot and I wish PP had someone like him - again, not the same implementation, but the same idea - a PP leader and your right arm.
About your points:
A good example is Diablo 1 and 2. These games have a very small story and leave a lot to our own imagination. However, they’ve great lore that you get glimpses both throughout the game as well as by side stories (game manual at the time). Most important of all, they nail ambience / mood and music / sound effects perfectly. These games are mostly random, a lot of events are also random (taken from a pool of events like PP exploration), and the story is short, but ah the presentation…
The only way that fighting between human factions makes sense, is if one or more of those factions were in league with the aliens… historically, this is so… think American Indians, who continued to fight among themselves while trading with the settlers wading ashore in hopes of gaining an advantage over their historical enemies.
This could actually be woven into quite an interesting plot… lots of material here…
Imagine further, if you did not know at the start of a new game which faction, factions were siding with the invaders, and you were forced, through diplomacy, faction raids, etc… to figure it out…
It might also be possible, through game play mechanics and in game play, to steer factions towards or away from the enemy…
The game, as it is structured, is counter intuitive…
Why? So according to you no strategy game makes sense? Why in total war factions fight between each other? Why in Civ you fight with each other?
Factions in PP might face a common enemy but it doesn’t make them allies. Currently world is dealing with worldwide pandemic and all individual parties care for is solidifying their own political control. Sure synedrion, Abu and jericho might face the danger of extinction, but they want to come out on top as well.
Don’t even know where to start with your post, other than to say you clearly did not understand mine… but at least you got a couple of upflags… so there is that…
Strange thing is that you are all trying to look at it from a historical viewpoint. History shows that logic has no space when humans are involved. I guess it’s just a matter of misunderstanding words.
In essence, even though it’s obvious that humans should come together against aliens, this tends to occur only in hollywood. PP’s factions want to win over the others just as much as they want to win over the aliens.
In my opinion the game should allow for an outcome (although very difficult) where PP manages to make everyone come together, with an overhauled diplomacy system where you can improve or worsen one faction’s opinions towards the other factions.
PP could still choose the path of a faction even if it meant taking over it. Let’s say PP could rule over all by force by taking over NJ from Tobias. Or they could have a way to sacrifice the Exalted to turn all the world population into mutated beings, with PP taking over her mantle… or helping SYN implement worldwide democracy (2 possibilities here, polyphonic and the other). But then I’m talking about cool endings