Why ARE people so pissed about this?Silentpony said:Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.
Oh god this happened to me, I had one of my characters named after my GF, even made her look like her. Then the bad thing happened to her... She still doesn't let me forget it.MarsAtlas said:"These can be from your character pool when you start a game, so you can say 'I want my wife to be in the character pool"
No, no you really don't want that. Its awkward trying to explain to your significant other why their nickname in your game is "Bullet Sponge".
Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.Qizx said:SNIP
Okay, but we'll have more of XCOM, so that's good, right?Silentpony said:Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.
I had a nice cup of coffee once in Spain nearly ten years ago. Does that count?Imperioratorex Caprae said:SNIP
Its not impossible, but it may seem that way if all you look at is the negative parts. I mean for discussion value, if all you add is negative points and nothing constructive, which is immediately what my mind jumps to when seeing your nick/avatar, then what good is any of what you say to the discussion? I've got no problem with bringing up negative points as long as there's some discussion value beyond the negative. It is just hard for me to understand why one would bother posting if one has nothing to add to the discussion except the same negativity you've brought in the past.Silentpony said:I had a nice cup of coffee once in Spain nearly ten years ago. Does that count?Imperioratorex Caprae said:SNIP
All serious, I can be positive, its just that in today gaming climate that's virtually impossible. Like when Batman was first pulled from Steam on promise of fixing it and I said it'll still be completely broken when it relaunches. People said I was negative.
Or when I said TitanFall doesn't look like a game that'll last too longer after opening month.
Or that Sonic Boom looked iffy in gameplay trailers.
Or that Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system was kinda' broken because it required the player to die for shit to happen but the game was too easy.
Negative, negative, negative.
But I'd rather be negative and correct than constantly getting let down by AAA shittiness. Being positive doesn't make bad games better. Just means you have no pattern recognition.
But if it'll make you feel better, I'll say something nice about the first game I see on Steam's storefront:
Space - The Return Of The Pixxelfrazzer. Lets see...I'm sure Markiplier's video will be funny for the first 5mins.
There. That positive enough for you?!?
I've never understood why people are so upset over this decision, given how well it does fit the mythos of the series. The entire alien conspiracy movement does contain a section where aliens invade covertly that inpsires the (at least initial) waves of alien attackers. Then the game follows through with a more overt alien invasion as things heat up. It's a great series, but there's other bits of the mythos to explore that isn't always done.Silentpony said:Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.
Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"
The Nemesis system was interesting, yeah. What they should do is take the idea of it, put into a Assassin's Creed game, then set the whole thing in the 40k Universe.Imperioratorex Caprae said:SNIP
Qizx said:EDIT: How the hell do you put spoilers? I want to say how/why she died.
Gawd, how do you manage giving a link to the old version and not the new one, despite it being stickied? I've actually lost count on people doing this. T_TMarsAtlas said:This thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.198114-Escapist-User-Guide-to-Posting-Commands] will teach you that command and many more.
I'd be up for that. I'm not happy with the AAA games of late, though a few have been good recently. I feel that the failures of today can end up being the catalysts for success tomorrow, but as long as the fledgling devs of right now are learning the lessons the AAA devs are teaching, unknowingly.Silentpony said:The Nemesis system was interesting, yeah. What they should do is take the idea of it, put into a Assassin's Creed game, then set the whole thing in the 40k Universe.Imperioratorex Caprae said:SNIP
That's a game I would reserve negative comments on until after launch and recall.
The difference is Xcom has failure as very much an option, sure you CAN save scum, you can play on super easy, but that's not how you should! When Chris or or Leon die in RE you lose, GG load up a save (Usually the same screen).Silentpony said:Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.Qizx said:SNIP
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.
Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"
I'd say the prospect of failure in XCOM isn't what he was complaining about. In fact, I'd say failure (be it squad wipes, falling behind on research) is a core feature of the series. No matter what you do, you will fail at some point, and sometimes this leads to the "game over" scenario.Qizx said:The difference is Xcom has failure as very much an option, sure you CAN save scum, you can play on super easy, but that's not how you should! When Chris or or Leon die in RE you lose, GG load up a save (Usually the same screen).Silentpony said:Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.Qizx said:SNIP
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.
Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"
When your favorite sniper dies in Xcom? Tough titties.
Argentina just left taking their money? Fuck off commander.
Failure is ALWAYS an option in Xcom and when you lose it doesn't just say "reload." Sure you can but the point is you lost, you failed earth.