Why There's No Multiple Bases in XCOM - Firaxis Q&A
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Good to know the story is getting in the way of the gampeplay.
Why, to manage another base, does the player need to physically BE there? Why couldn't it just be assumed you were managing the base remotely from HQ?
We all know the real reason there aren't multiple bases; it's so those stupid goddamn "pick one of three" missions show up and you automatically gain a bad reputation with two of the three for it. Can we AT LEAST get more than one Sky Ranger? Why is there only one? Oh right, it's for those "pick one of three" missions. Great.
The more and more I played the game the more and more glaring the issues became and I just stopped eventually. More to the point, the story was TERRIBLE in almost every way. I can't believe they're having trouble justifying alien invasions in the narrative like it even matters.
Why, to manage another base, does the player need to physically BE there? Why couldn't it just be assumed you were managing the base remotely from HQ?
We all know the real reason there aren't multiple bases; it's so those stupid goddamn "pick one of three" missions show up and you automatically gain a bad reputation with two of the three for it. Can we AT LEAST get more than one Sky Ranger? Why is there only one? Oh right, it's for those "pick one of three" missions. Great.
The more and more I played the game the more and more glaring the issues became and I just stopped eventually. More to the point, the story was TERRIBLE in almost every way. I can't believe they're having trouble justifying alien invasions in the narrative like it even matters.
Yeah that seems to boil down to a "Just because, ok?" answer. I had plenty of fun with EU and am hoping this brings more fun sure, but it didn't feel like the restriction to one base/Skyranger made anything better in any way; in fact it just raised questions. Questions that are now being answered with 'Just Cause'.
your a team defending the earth from aliens; what more narrative context do you need? if more then one base make the gameplay more interesting then they should allow more then one base.
Nailed it. Everything about that remake seems like the original wasn't quite understood. Major point in the original - picking and choosing missions. However in the original it was an emergent, fluid thing. Maybe your team was all in sickbay from a nasty terror mission or you'd just managed to shoot down 7 UFOs. Either way, there was no chance of you doing some missions and you had to let them go. In the remake this becomes a very, very forced "Pick one of three".Weaver said:
More examples include the whole 2 stage moving. I've lost count of the number of times I ran forward to what looked like a good cover position only to reveal more aliens and get flanked. Now I'm stuck. If I move again I can't shoot. If I shoot I stay flanked. In the original that could be solved by moving a couple squares to better cover and shooting. Hell, the way aliens revealed and the flanking mechanics ran counter to each other. I SHOULD flank aliens for maximum damage, but if I do I risk getting swarmed by all the spawns I activate.
Oh, and I don't know if anyone else can confirm this, but I swear in hard mode my actual hit rate is 1/2 the reported chance to hit. Like, if my sniper takes 4 shots of 50% to hit, only 1 will hit.
I didn't play the OG XCOM, however Intercepting is a very fun part of the current XCOM (I usually try and build out my interceptor fleet first).
I'm okay with there not being multiple accessible bases. Interesting to note that there actually are other bases represented on the Holo-Globe in all continents, that's where your interceptors are, a player just can't access them unless it's their HQ.
In terms of dreamy design BS, Outposts would be awesome.
I'm okay with there not being multiple accessible bases. Interesting to note that there actually are other bases represented on the Holo-Globe in all continents, that's where your interceptors are, a player just can't access them unless it's their HQ.
In terms of dreamy design BS, Outposts would be awesome.
It doesn't seem like it would be that game breaking to implement additional sky rangers, normally you can barely keep a single squad outfitted, having to manage a second would naturally draw resources from others areas making the game harder BUT would also allow you to respond to more threats. See Firaxis give and take, risk and reward, CHOICESWeaver said:
That more or less sums it up. The original X-COM was a simulation; any 'narrative' the game had existed entirely in the mind of the player, but for some backstory discovered via research.fwiffo said:
And so for the new game to have a narrative, the simulation aspects had to be pared down. Otherwise, as mentioned above, you might have situations where an 'A or B' choice comes up and the player might be able to do both or neither depending on the situation. In a strategy game, that simply means that they are on top of things or in deep trouble. In a narrative-based game, it means the story branches have to get branchier in order to cover all the possibilities.
Don't forget coordinating interceptors from multiple bases in order to team up to take down a Battleship or Mothership and swapping them in and out depending on damage. Or even not intercepting and using the Skyranger to capture ships with all their goodies intact.dunam said:
Wait Intercepting was there only because of the original?
That explains why options were so... lacking
But aircraft intercepting makes sense, dammit.
Only thing is that they are using planes instead of drones
Drones would make more sense- there are limits what human body can survive
Drones on the other hand are more sturdy
Also sending only one aircraft against UFO makes little sense
It would be awesome if
Small Scout=2Raven(Avalanche)/Raven(Laser)
Large Scout=2Raven(Laser)/Raven(Plasma)
Supply ship=2Raven(Plasma)/Firestorm(Plasma)
Abductor=2Firestorm(Plasma)/Firestorm(Fusion Lance)
Battleship=2Firestorm(Fusion Lance)
That means, while it would be possible to intercept Battleship with only one Firestorm, Battleship would have high chance to take down one Firestorm as well
2 Heavily armed Firestorms could take down any UFO
They could at least give us ability to upgrade it to Avenger (thus allowing to respond to 2 attacks)
That explains why options were so... lacking
But aircraft intercepting makes sense, dammit.
Only thing is that they are using planes instead of drones
Drones would make more sense- there are limits what human body can survive
Drones on the other hand are more sturdy
Also sending only one aircraft against UFO makes little sense
It would be awesome if
Small Scout=2Raven(Avalanche)/Raven(Laser)
Large Scout=2Raven(Laser)/Raven(Plasma)
Supply ship=2Raven(Plasma)/Firestorm(Plasma)
Abductor=2Firestorm(Plasma)/Firestorm(Fusion Lance)
Battleship=2Firestorm(Fusion Lance)
That means, while it would be possible to intercept Battleship with only one Firestorm, Battleship would have high chance to take down one Firestorm as well
2 Heavily armed Firestorms could take down any UFO
Only one Skyranger is something that really bugged me tooWeaver said:
They could at least give us ability to upgrade it to Avenger (thus allowing to respond to 2 attacks)
Guys, try out Xenonauts. It not only keeps the good things of xcom, like multiple bases, managing equipment of soldiers (although less tedious than in the original) and stuff, but even improves things.
As i mentioned above overall things are less tedious and air battles are amazing. You now fight alien ships with squadrons of up to 3 ships and the fighting takes place in real time in a 2d plane, were you have to order your ships around smartly to flank the enemy and and attack them, while not being in range of their weapons.
As i mentioned above overall things are less tedious and air battles are amazing. You now fight alien ships with squadrons of up to 3 ships and the fighting takes place in real time in a 2d plane, were you have to order your ships around smartly to flank the enemy and and attack them, while not being in range of their weapons.
Really I think there just trying to hide the fact that they dislike having multiple bases or base attack in their game.
I hated the original x com its easily the worst game I ever played, but I really like the new version and love the changes it made, the one thing that I would like to see Is better intercepting, although it?s still better than the original.
I hated the original x com its easily the worst game I ever played, but I really like the new version and love the changes it made, the one thing that I would like to see Is better intercepting, although it?s still better than the original.
So it makes more sense on a narrative level that an organization defending the whole world does so from 1 singular base?
Why don't they replace satelites with outposts?
You can still have your scripted "narrative" no one cares about that way while opening up interesting gameplay elements like -oh I don't know- reacting to more than 1 mission, building up defenses and placing secondary production facilities.
Seriously, I don't think anyone gave a shit about the xcom story of all things.
That thing was flat as cardboard. It was all about the challenge, the gameplay.
I would be content if the next xcom had no story at all but deep gameplay on multiple levels.
They barely scratched the surface in enemy unknown in that regard.
Why don't they replace satelites with outposts?
You can still have your scripted "narrative" no one cares about that way while opening up interesting gameplay elements like -oh I don't know- reacting to more than 1 mission, building up defenses and placing secondary production facilities.
Seriously, I don't think anyone gave a shit about the xcom story of all things.
That thing was flat as cardboard. It was all about the challenge, the gameplay.
I would be content if the next xcom had no story at all but deep gameplay on multiple levels.
They barely scratched the surface in enemy unknown in that regard.