UFO: Enemy Unknown, remake by Firaxis

[Rub'Rum]

Yeah I think you guys missed Apocalypse which did the squaddie thing in pause-able real time.

Didn't miss it. Played it. Didn't like it. Stopped. Real-time.

EDIT: Although the real time mode was only part of why that game sucked. I played it turn-based if I recall correctly?

 

[MoonFlare]

First screens and more info This and the interview are making me feel more positive about the game which I am relieved to heat.

I am especially glad to hear this:
"Soldiers still die permanently, fog of war and line of sight are hugely important in combat, and you absolutely can lose the game if you screw up too badly."

"Firaxis is undeniably streamlining aspects of the game and removing no small amount of micromanagement, but from what I've seen I wouldn't call it "dumbing down" the game so much as getting rid of tedium and uninteresting mechanics." - that is too scary. Now we know that it will be a dumbed down mess for console simpletons. Just remove everything and make the player bang rocks together. That is simple enough for the current generation of gamers

 

[Rub'Rum]

Now we know that it will be a dumbed down mess for console simpletons.

Now we know. Thanks. I won't bother playing and when I save 40$ I'll remember "Don't forget to tell MoonFlare, the guy who knew".

Damn this generation of plebians and low-intelligence people.

 

[Disgustipated]

"Firaxis is undeniably streamlining aspects of the game and removing no small amount of micromanagement, but from what I've seen I wouldn't call it "dumbing down" the game so much as getting rid of tedium and uninteresting mechanics." - that is too scary. Now we know that it will be a dumbed down mess for console simpletons. Just remove everything and make the player bang rocks together. That is simple enough for the current generation of gamers

That is scary because the original had no micromanagement. It wasn't like Civ games where you had to worry about beaker overflow, make sure your citizens didn't go into revolt (depending on which civ you were playing), make sure citizens were working the most optimum squares, etc.

I can't think of a single instance of micromanagement in the original X-com other than combat. And most people consider combat fun. But I do admit there are too many missions, and they do take a long time because you do have to micromanage because of how dangerous they were. Otherwise your entire squad gets wiped out. I never finished my game of x-com I started last year. I bought it on Steam real cheap, and I had fun for a while. But after a while I just want to finish researching the mars project or whatever it's called and send my team for Mars or bust. I get tired of doing all the small missions, although I have to to keep the revenue coming in. But I still don't think it's micromanagement, just the game being too long. Or maybe modern games have lowered my attention span.

 

[GoodGame]

I don't know what you're talking about disgustipated. There was tons of micro-management with inventories, base builds. I also considered the combat to have too much micro-management---but I can see some peeps like the tactical details. I think my gripe with the micro in combat is more with how inefficient it is to use the GUI to advance 12 soldiers doing stuff. That's why I wouldn't mind a squad control, SOPs etc... so you just tell a few soldiers what to do, and the rest follow. I think it shows that the combat isn't infinitely fun since the repetitive missions get boring and you wish the game reached an end.

I was thinking a console version would be stripped to just a few personalized character anyways. Maybe even be RPGish with character-based quests.

 

[cephalo]

You know what would be an AWSOME feature? To be able to watch re-plays of the tactical battles in real time. Pewpewpew!

EDIT: Also, one area of micromanagement that needs to go is equipping every soldier with electro-flares for every night battle, or forgetting to do so and then having to save-scum because of it. Pleeeeez let me build a standard loadout.

 

[aelf]

I don't know what you're talking about disgustipated. There was tons of micro-management with inventories, base builds. I also considered the combat to have too much micro-management---but I can see some peeps like the tactical details. I think my gripe with the micro in combat is more with how inefficient it is to use the GUI to advance 12 soldiers doing stuff. That's why I wouldn't mind a squad control, SOPs etc... so you just tell a few soldiers what to do, and the rest follow. I think it shows that the combat isn't infinitely fun since the repetitive missions get boring and you wish the game reached an end.

I was thinking a console version would be stripped to just a few personalized character anyways. Maybe even be RPGish with character-based quests.

Have you played JA2? If you consider that too much micromanagement, then obviously you have a very different idea of how much is too much from most people in this thread.

I can't imagine playing X-Com or JA2 by telling "a few soldiers what to do [while] the rest follow". That would be a good way to get your people killed very quickly.

 

[GoodGame]

That's how Arma runs. In real war, squad leaders don't issues exact positional commands movement by movement, scrolling through each soldier at a time. They signal a formation, or a drill, and move out.

 

[Maniacal]

ARMA is a military and combat simulation game (EDIT: And heavily relies upon player co-operation too), Jagged Alliance and X-COm are not. CoH doesn't come close to it either.

 

[aelf]

That's how Arma runs. In real war, squad leaders don't issues exact positional commands movement by movement, scrolling through each soldier at a time. They signal a formation, or a drill, and move out.

In real war, you don't give orders to AI-controlled units.

That is all.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Basically, the problem with the X-COM shooter is that it has NOTHING to do with X-COM. It is a case similar to the Final Fantasy movie that came out about a decade or so ago. Basically, that movie had nothing to do with any of the Final Fantasy games that came out (aside from a chocobo logo on the sweater of one of the characters). The movie itself was decent (not great, but not terrible), however, the Final Fantasy name was placed on the movie. To fans of the games, it was a great disappointment. The movie was a mainstream attempt with a hit brand placed on it in an attempt to appeal to the fans of the game.

The FF movie may not have anything directly to do with the games, but none of the games up to that point had nothing to do with with any of the other games. Many of the games had very different mechanics and had only stylistic similarities or standard RPG elements. Also, the name wasn't just placed on the movie, you make it sound like Square sold the name to someone else who put in on an existing movie and not that they made there own movie division (which ruined them financially) and produced it themselves. It was from the beginning a written as a FF movie, and in general visual style and more so the underlying story it was very much like FF7. It used the Life Stream concept from FF7 plus it used a 'meteor' but as a second Life Stream. It was basically as much of FF7 as they could use while sill having it be and original story.

Regarding the "original" format of a franchise vs. other formats, have you seen the Star Wars prequels? Have you played any Star Wars games? Most people think the new movies (which is it's original format) were not good, and a lot of people think games like Knights of the Old Republic are a much better use of the source material. These things are by the standard you are setting, not Star Wars, but although they deviate from the original they are often considered more Star Wars than Star Wars.

This is the same scenario! 2K Games (or Take-Two... or whatever they are called) took an FPS which may be fine on its own, but slapped a known brand with a following on it in hopes of garnering support and to try to prevent it from being lost in the sea. This is a pitiful tactic and rarely works. The only difference between this and the Final Fantasy movie is that the movie only required a few dollars to see (remember, it was about a decade ago), but the X-COM FPS will cost $50-$60. I am not willing to part with that much money for something that is a total scam of a game.

A Turn-based tactical strategy X-COM, that I am willing to get behind!

Again, they did not start with a game and then decide long after to put the x-com name on it. They had the rights to x-com, an alien invasion themed game, and they made an alien invasion themed shooter. One could argue that there were no true X-com games past the first (which is really UFO: Enemy Unknown). Terror from the Deep was essentially the same as UFO just set underwater, so while it was really the closest to the original, really it was too close. By today's standards it's more like a fan mod than a sequel. Apocalypse had new aliens and a real time option, and I don't need to tell you how much farther Interceptor and Enforcer get from UFO. The point is, it is not unprecedented to deviate from the original. If they don't then it might as well be Madden 20xx, the same basic game every year with incremental improvements. This version is probably more like X-Com than Enforcer was because you will have a squad to give orders to and the cover mechanics of FPSs have come a long way and FPSs are a lot more 'tactical' than they used to be. Tactical.

...But I don't even really disagree with you. The XCOM FPS is by any reasonable standard a spinoff. Like Mario Kart or Mario RPG. But the problem is that the previous series wasn't X-COM, X-COM 2, X-COM 3, X-COM 4, and X-COM 5. It was X-Com: Subtitle. So if they did the same format then it would be confusing so they have to go with just XCOM which makes it seem like it is the main series. All that is not really important. You said that you might have bought the game assuming you thought it might be good if it wasn't called XCOM, but won't because it's a "total scam of a game". How can it be a scam if no one has lied to you? You know it's not a tactical/strategy game and they never pretended it was, and if it is a good game then they are not selling you an inferior product. So what we're left with is a scenario where you know what kind of game it will be, and that it is of good quality, but you will not buy it for no other reason than it has (in your opinion) the wrong name. You said it your self, that it isn't about what the game is at all, only the name. That statement alone makes your argument about what your willing to spend on the game irrelevant. You're whole protest is based on the assumption that they think you will make a decision based on something trivial like the title the game is given, and ignore any and all other information about the game. Which is exactly what you are doing. It's an empty gesture to stand on a principal that is meaningless because of the superficial thing it is based on. Either way, they are not going to notice your $50 is missing.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

That is scary because the original had no micromanagement...

The hours I've spent counting grenades and ammo clips and medpacks and guns and shuffling them between five bases and then loading them on to vehicles and then equipping them to agents before each battle, and carefully choosing which slot to place them in, because pulling weapons off shoulders is faster than pulling from the belt, but putting the item down it's faster to go to the belt than shoulders, and having to arm grenades long before I use them because it takes time to do that and throw it and I want it to be ready when I need it, and manually changing ammo clips when I run out and ejecting all clips at the end of a battle because they count as empty in the weapon but full in your hands, say that there was micromanagement.

No micromanagement indeed.

 

[Disgustipated]

You don't need to actually do any of those things. Although I didn't know about the clip thing at the end of the battle. I'll have to keep that in mind for next time I play.

 

[Lillefix]

Although I didn't know about the clip thing at the end of the battle. I'll have to keep that in mind for next time I play.

I use a mod to prevent that. That was one of the things with the original game I found really annoying.

 

[SJSerio]

The FF movie may not have anything directly to do with the games, but none of the games up to that point had nothing to do with with any of the other games. Many of the games had very different mechanics and had only stylistic similarities or standard RPG elements. Also, the name wasn't just placed on the movie, you make it sound like Square sold the name to someone else who put in on an existing movie and not that they made there own movie division (which ruined them financially) and produced it themselves. It was from the beginning a written as a FF movie, and in general visual style and more so the underlying story it was very much like FF7. It used the Life Stream concept from FF7 plus it used a 'meteor' but as a second Life Stream. It was basically as much of FF7 as they could use while sill having it be and original story.

That is the standard answer about that movie by apologists, but the fact is that the games, while set in different worlds (and sometimes, different eras) all had numerous elements that carried over. Summons, Chocobos, Spells or powers, items, airships, and Cid to name a few. The only things that the movie had were a character named Cid (which, if I remember correctly, was spelled with an "S" in the movie) and a chocobo emblem on somebody's shirt (similar to the old crocodile shirts). It was set on Earth in the future making it pure sci-fi (no fantasy whatsoever) and I found nothing in common with even FF7!

Regarding the "original" format of a franchise vs. other formats, have you seen the Star Wars prequels? Have you played any Star Wars games? Most people think the new movies (which is it's original format) were not good, and a lot of people think games like Knights of the Old Republic are a much better use of the source material. These things are by the standard you are setting, not Star Wars, but although they deviate from the original they are often considered more Star Wars than Star Wars.

The Star Wars prequels, no matter how people feel about them, still maintained a healthy amount of elements (not to mention characters, locations, etc) that carried over from the original trilogy. KotOR was set in a completely different time period, far away from the timelines of the movie trilogies which allowed the developers the freedom to develop the stories while maintaining the key elements that make the Star Wars franchise.

Again, they did not start with a game and then decide long after to put the x-com name on it. They had the rights to x-com, an alien invasion themed game, and they made an alien invasion themed shooter. One could argue that there were no true X-com games past the first (which is really UFO: Enemy Unknown). Terror from the Deep was essentially the same as UFO just set underwater, so while it was really the closest to the original, really it was too close. By today's standards it's more like a fan mod than a sequel. Apocalypse had new aliens and a real time option, and I don't need to tell you how much farther Interceptor and Enforcer get from UFO. The point is, it is not unprecedented to deviate from the original. If they don't then it might as well be Madden 20xx, the same basic game every year with incremental improvements. This version is probably more like X-Com than Enforcer was because you will have a squad to give orders to and the cover mechanics of FPSs have come a long way and FPSs are a lot more 'tactical' than they used to be. Tactical.

Are you certain that they did not have a game in the works already that was seperate and later decide to throw the X-COM name on it? While we may not know the true answer, your suggestion of how they came about it is an even greater slap in the face as they have not shown any elements (outside of the Elerium) which even relate to the original game. As for the sequels, TftD was very similar with some minor changes (even the aliens were, for the most part, the same with different names) but it, as well as the sequels, continued the story of the original.

...But I don't even really disagree with you. The XCOM FPS is by any reasonable standard a spinoff. Like Mario Kart or Mario RPG. But the problem is that the previous series wasn't X-COM, X-COM 2, X-COM 3, X-COM 4, and X-COM 5. It was X-Com: Subtitle. So if they did the same format then it would be confusing so they have to go with just XCOM which makes it seem like it is the main series. All that is not really important. You said that you might have bought the game assuming you thought it might be good if it wasn't called XCOM, but won't because it's a "total scam of a game". How can it be a scam if no one has lied to you? You know it's not a tactical/strategy game and they never pretended it was, and if it is a good game then they are not selling you an inferior product. So what we're left with is a scenario where you know what kind of game it will be, and that it is of good quality, but you will not buy it for no other reason than it has (in your opinion) the wrong name. You said it your self, that it isn't about what the game is at all, only the name. That statement alone makes your argument about what your willing to spend on the game irrelevant. You're whole protest is based on the assumption that they think you will make a decision based on something trivial like the title the game is given, and ignore any and all other information about the game. Which is exactly what you are doing. It's an empty gesture to stand on a principal that is meaningless because of the superficial thing it is based on. Either way, they are not going to notice your $50 is missing.

Unless I see more (much more) in common with the original, I cannot even consider the FPS a spin-off! The one that never got released, that would have been a spin-off. This game has nothing in common with the original series as far as I am concerned... that is the scam!

You don't need to actually do any of those things. Although I didn't know about the clip thing at the end of the battle. I'll have to keep that in mind for next time I play.

No, you weren't required to move things around, but I found that I needed to as it always equiped my weakest soldiers with the Heavy and Auto Cannons. When they could only take one or two steps before running out of TUs, that would be a major problem. Especially if they were in the front of the SkyRanger when you entered the map, blocking your other troops from being able to get out. I always felt that if you could assign your soldiers certain "specialties" and they always equipped with the appropriate equipment, that would been a huge boost for going into missions.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yeah the interface wasn't the best, but for the time was pretty good. At least you could rename your guys. The game would be a nightmare if you couldn't do that. I'd usually just give them a short name and then FA71Br60 etc. And yes it'd always equip the heavy cannons or auto cannons on the first few guys in the lineup which almost never were the heavy strength guys. (I'd use St in their name to designate strength). I never messed around with grenades much, I didn't like the range on them. Getting close enough to use them wasn't easy. Rocket launchers on the other hand, I did use extensively.

This could easily be remedied in a new game by having guys have a permanent inventory (like an rpg), and the ship could also carry some backup stuff in case you wanted it.

 

[SJSerio]

Yes, renaming the soldiers was a key aspect for me which better remain in the new version. I always renamed my soldiers. Much like, before CIV V, I would rename my ships (which is to difficult to do in V). It made the game more personal and, at times, and heightened the tension during combat. My first group, I usually named after my friends. After founding additional bases, I would often use themes to name them. Anything from Star Trek or Star Wars characters or maybe other shows or series I was into or even another group of friends from another period in my life. Disturbingly, when I was in the Navy, I walked in on one friend playing the game and he had renamed his soldiers after STDs. My other friend and I could not look at the guy the same after that.

 

[kazapp]

I would prefer it if Firaxis worked on a substantial expansion to fix CiV.

I would prefer it if Firaxis buried Civ V as soon as possible.

Firaxis is definitely capable of producing masterful Civ games (as attested to by Civ IV BTS) but it will be much easier to repeat that feat by starting from scratch and do a Civ 6 a few years down the road, than to try to fix an inherently flawed product, in my opinion.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

That is scary because the original had no micromanagement.

On your planet, are there unicorns?

 

[Disgustipated]

your definition of micromanagement is different than mine. I might be coerced into calling it micromanagement, but it was fun micromanagement compared to most games. Yes inventory shuffling is tedious, but it's not like there is a RPG out there without tedious inventory management. Yes, I enjoyed micromanaging my time units.