According to me, FiraXCOM did the “2 action” system for the following reason.
A TU system allows players to move in line of sight of enemies, shoot and then go back out of line of sight therefore avoiding enemy fire.
Would the player like it if the aliens did the same, how frustrating would it be ?
Also must be more complicated to program the AI to use this.
Going for two moves forces the player (and aliens) to be targetable.
Now what I don’t like in FiraXCOM is that shooting or reloading ends your turn and you need perks to be able to do it without this huge cost (that not all classes can have).
So while I really like the freedom of PP, I can’t help thinking that it can be abused by making a bunker with you assaults shotgunning what dares enter or get too close and the rest shooting at range and breaking line of sight.
That was easily solved both in JA2 and Xenonauts by adding interrupts. Open X-Com has the same features. Moreover in JA2 1.13 you still can do that and AI can do that, but it doesn’t matter as it’s not as exaggerate as it was in X-Com. I mean, this was a well know exploit, of course people thought on how to fix it and did fix it. It’s hard to imagine how someone would go for a complete redesign of the whole system just because one specific exploit exist.
I was, as a PC gamer, looking at that prototype and thinking, damn, I would have loved to have got my hands on that. It certainly didn’t look overly complex when compared to other PC games of the genre, on first impression I’d say it was around the mark of Silent Storm, and there’s games in other genres that take that complexity and square it; Panza General, Temple of Elemental Evil, Football Manager. I don’t think that the guys playing those games would have been looking at that early Xcom prototype and thinking that it was too complex.
I think the pertinent question is at what stage of development did they have a target audience of console gamers? Just the fact that a game is going to be played on a controller vs mouse and keyboard means that it’s going to be dumbed down to accommodate, but the whole concept of what is ‘fun’ in a game also changes when you move platform.
I think we’ve had this to an extent with PP TBH, the game feels like it is in a lot of ways being developed with consoles in mind. The movement system, the aiming system (pretty much built for a controller), the reduced number of solider stats, and the addition of perks instead, even the UI.
And that’s not taking into account how rife video game piracy was back then.
UFO was one of the biggest and most successful games of its time. New gamers might not have been so aware of it, but anyone who was gaming back in the day, it was almost certain one of the titles that you were aware of, whether it was your cup or tea or not.
If I had to choose, I would say “generally dumbed down”, though I would personally don’t like “dumb down” term.
If those numbers are accurate, then I do see your point. Did you get number of sales for FiraXCOM from any particular source? Between PC and console sales this number sounds suspiciously low.
Both games are still from nineties, and I don’t see how Fallout has anything to do with XCOM. The point I was trying to make is, how many turnbased tactical games in XXI c. did we get before FiraXCOM showed up? Maybe we are still waiting for the great turn-based tactical game to come out, but at least they are being made. Hey, Empire of Sin is in production, an XCOM-like-mafia game is something I have been wanting since mid 2000s.
It seems that you feel about FiraXCOM similar way I feel about Dragon Age: Origins - not being willing to acknowledge the good it has done, due to personal disappointment with the game.
No, as I said both simulationist and “gamey” approach have their advantages and disadvantages. I am happy to play both simulationist and board gamey XCOM-like games. I think Firaxis can improve on their design a lot, and my disappointment with XCOM2 was that they left certain design aspects which revealed themselves to be broken in XCOM1. I do hope that they will address those issues in XCOM3, or I will be waiting for sale.
Listen man, the whole original post was a response to a silly claim that consoles “dumbed down” XCOM. I am not defending all their decisions. I think there is advantage to the approach Solomon took, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near flawless. I can see why their made certain decisions, some of them I strait up don’t understand (why all shots act as single bullets and we get one roll for a machine gun?) and some, like two point movement and pods, created new problems, which they are yet to properly address.
Focus on spectacle over substence does irritate me. You have no idea how annoyed I was when on stream about WotC Jake said something like: “well, we thought the strategy layer was pretty barren [me: yayyyy!], so we added chosen so they talk to you constantly [me: noooo!]”
But that is the game they were going to make. They wouldn’t make XCOM you want, because it is not in their style. So yes, I do believe that many choices they made were better for THEIR XCOM.
I didn’t like Xenonauts 1 too much - with release of OpenXcom I found Xen to become obsolete, because UI enhancments Xen offered appeared in OpenXcom, so what got is less compelling knockoff.
I can’t say anything about Xen2. Tried the kickstarter demo and haven’t paid attention to the game ever since.
UFO: Enemy Unknown still exists, it is available to buy and run on modern systems. I would rather take a drastic reimagining of the game (like Firaxis XCOM) then weaker reskin of the original.
I suppose, that unlike you I don’t care about the IP. Unlike story driven games, which can make irreversable damage to characters, story and worlds, purely gameplay oriented games can change and evolve.
And so did I. I remember seeing it for the first time, and being surprised they didn’t go with it. Cones of sight, adjustable aim, AP units those were all things I missed in FiraXCOM.
But he gave the reason for change, and I do buy it, as it is in line with overall design and Firaxis legacy: clear trade-offs.
Let’s not pretend that UFO’s design is some holy grail of perfection - AP system was less about smart tactical play, and more about counting and micromanaging of AP.
Could the system be modernised and made easier to interact with by modern UI? Yes, I believe it could be. But that’s more of a Paradox thing, not Firaxis. Firaxis were always to make a Firaxis game, and they changed design so it suits their sensibilities.
I am just quite tired of people blaming every change they don’t like on “dirty consolers”.
I didn’t realize that SteamSpy still works, they have different estimate: https://steamspy.com/app/200510
and add sales from console, so it’s not 1 mil but probably 4 or maybe higher
don’t know how accurate it is, these are the number for XCom2 https://steamspy.com/app/268500
and 2 mil for sequel looks a bit too low
I know about many attempts at remakes of JA, well technically they still trying
War themed there was Fallout Tactics, Silent Storm, Valkyria Chronicles, Shadowrun(?) A bunch of various Warhammer themed games. There where some others of smaller scale, meaning more niche games that mostly sold from other shops like half of Combat Mission came out at that time. The UFO series, granted one of them was realtime. It’s not like others just didn’t exist or something.
You have games like Battle Brothers which have no connection to XCom but it’s one of the more popular TB tactics. Meaning people do play those, regardless of existence of XCom.
I can’t say that XCom is somehow “resurrected” TB tactical games, because in essence it’s not one of them like X-Com or Jagged Alliance was. Like Invisible Corps for example, you can call it a TB tactical game but would you recommend it to a fan of classical XCom?
It just annoys me in some of the gamedesign choices that where made. And I’m not taking about being too different to X-Com. I mean things like how classes and character focus drive you into a spiral of fails. Or how so many things in the game are meta abilities and arbitrary rules, the concept of pods. I can’t even play it anymore without mods.
Dragon Age: Origins - I actually really like it, unlike what came after it. I remember it as really fun fantasy RPG where playing as a good guy had more negative consequences compared to being selfish
Fair enough.
I just associate IP with the core game design. So if next Crusader Kings becomes a card game I would probably be pissed as that would be a bit too much of evolution. Imho some games are better to be left alone. Like not every book or a movie needs a sequel.
I also had the same thoughts when i saw that video way back then, i thought it was way more interesting that the stiff two point system, however after playing “old” AP system games i understood why they did it. there was also a part in the video were they said using the AP to increase the aim of the soilder, this would be a nice a add-on too.
P.P is is updating the “old” AP system without going the firaxis route, but the AP system in P.P can be further improved, i came to the forum to talk about what was bothering of such system, even though small, it is still something that is present, the visual representation of unspent points in the game.
But it was a “dumbed down” RPG, instead of spiritual successor of Baldur’s Gate i have been waiting for. Though an NPC trying to sell me DLC in my camp was what really left a bitter taste.
Luckily Obsidian with Pillars of Eternity has nicely scratched that itch nicely.
Was it trying to be a spiritual successor to Baldur’s Gate? If so I’m stunned, I played through, and also liked, both games but I would have never made that connection. If anything I thought that Dragon Age played like Summoner.
I’m a console gamer myself, I just think that it suits a different style of game to the PC. I’ll use the console for FPS, Driving, platform games, and Twin Stick shooters. But anything with deep layers of strategy in it, I’ll use a PC.
Silly why? It wouldn’t be the first time that a game had this treatment in order to accommodate the console market.
I’ll never forget trying to play Populus on the Playstation 1, I was so made up that such a great old PC title was being converted over to my console, and my god it sucked when I got my hands on it. I don’t think I’ve ever once come across a serious strategy title that’s been remade well for consoles. The difference that came later, is that devs learnt that it was smarter to develop the game for all markets at the same time, you don’t get a remake of the game anymore, you get a port and a simultaneous release, and in order to do that for strategy titles you have to dumb down/streamline the gameplay to accommodate that console market.
Or do you think that console gamers would have lapped up an old style Xcom game in the way that they did the Firaxis version? (PC gamers would have, they’d been longing for it.)
There was quite a bit of marketing around it, yes. Bioware going back to it’s roots etc. Whenever it was devs intention - I don’t know. Not that I expected isometric D&D - I just found it dull after first couple hours (up to the end of battle of Ostagar). I also thought, that Bioware didn’t pull the morally ambiguous writing well - it had all the traps but none of the appeal of their traditional black&white approach. And it was the first game of theirs I notice the overindulgent exposition of boring and unremarkable lore (we look and sound like every other dwarf you have ever seen in the videogame, so let us tell you our indepth history, which will in no way enrich or expand us).
It’s a brigade level tactics game covering WW2 and more modern military conflicts. One of the cool features is simulation of communication chain, meaning that you have to maintain a radio or visual/audial contact between your platoons to be able to give them commands. There is a large degree of micro control available, like you can take a single squad from your platoon, split it into fireteams, tell them to get a bazooka and go and try to deal with a tank blocking your approach. It’s more like a training sim than a game. They have a simple but effective solution to commanding many units in real time. In turn based mode, each turn takes about 30 seconds. So you give out commands, end turn, game simulates next 30 seconds and you can watch results, with ability to scroll playtime and move camera around. The other option is to play game in real-time with pause, but it make it a bit more reactive and you might miss important events if you are not looking at right direction.
Though an NPC trying to sell me DLC in my camp was what really left a bitter taste.