Bindal said:Just one question: How did we LOSE the war in the first game when we basically wiped out the entire leadership and main-base of operation and the only mayor outpost the aliens had? I suspect there is another, unseen conflict in that 20-year-gap we didn't see (after all, the Ethereal did hint at 'another group' when you finished the game - so I currently suspect those are the guys we lost to in those 20 years)
I'm willing to take that streamlining if it means I don't have to manually stock up every single soldier with ammo clips or that I never have to see one of my jets can't take off to kill a UFO because I missed one while I was manually refilling each ones fuel tankonard said:But back in my day playing X-com...
-You could deploy 12 soldiers at game start instead of 6 tops end-game.
-You could move after shooting.
-Heck, you could move-shoot-move!
-Anyone could equip any weapon and you had more weapon and item variety.
-You could have multiple bases and multiple transports.
-You could actually fly instead of glorified jumps.
-Etc, Etc. And we liked it!
Alas this new generation wants everything easy peasy and streamlined, so I can't blame the producers for simplifying stuff.
HEY, they attacked first, I think we were well within rights to fuck them up in retaliation.MCerberus said:We beat the Ethereals, not what the Ethereals were running from.Paragon Fury said:Wait, so we lost EU/EW?
I'm pretty sure we steamrolled their asses. Unless they came back...
edit- to clarify, the invasion was seeking to weaponize humanity to win the war the Ethereals were losing. We... may have goofed by not being a bit more diplomatic at the end.
They're not using the same game engine. New engine means new requirements. The consoles are struggling to do 1080 @60/fps, in some cases, struggling to do 720 @30/fps. They just don't have the power for modern gaming.elvor0 said:EW was hardly pushing the boundries of hardware, it needed 2ghz dual core, 2GB ram and a Nvidia 8800. I hardly see XCOM 2 being a massive step up. Don't be daft, XCOM 2 isn't going to be too much for the consoles to handle. I'm guessing it just didn't sell too well on the consoles rather than it being a hardware issue.
EternallyBored said:It's not so much handwaving as it is finding out what you did just wasn't good enough, if they go the route of following the temple ship destruction, there's nothing in the original game to indicate that the aliens losing the temple ship would totally defeat them. Depends on where they go with it I guess.
.
yeah I assumed that given the vauge allusions to "something coming" in fact I expected a sequelBroderick said:As far as I know, it can still be in the canon of the game that we won the battle.
the expansion actually gave us entirely different languages which was niceSquilookle said:Just give us some variety in the nationality's accents, and I'm sold.
Apocalypse was set up so it was actually rather difficult to completely avoid alien infiltration (there were tactics which made it easier, but even so on higher difficulties people would get brainsucked ludicrously fast). Often by the end large sections of the human society would be under alien control and you would be a rag tag group of cool misfits fighting against them. As you went through the game, an increasing proportion of your money would often come from raiding and artefact recovery rather than your government funding, which would dry out as infiltrated organizations pulled out. So yeah, while X-Com has never started a game as a resistance group, it was sometimes very easy to become one.Vault101 said:I might have jumped the gun a bit there...but depending on the set up and who the enemies are (human or otherwise) I just find it incredibly lame if they were to "rebrand" XCOM as some rag tag group of cool misfits fighting against "THE GUV-MINT" rather than...y'know a secret hi tech defense project, in games it just comes across as a lame way to garner sympathy from the player
the problem I seemed to have was, there would always be that ONE fucker who flanked fucking hard, and it seemed like he/she was ALWAYS the one that was nigh invincible that turn, regardless of how many times I save scummed and had different people move to different spots and take different shots, and due to this, the next turn he'd just go to fucking town on someone and there would go fuck all strategy for that part of the mission.Zhukov said:Cool.
I just hope they find a way to even out the influence of dice rolls. Got really tired of having games go pear-shaped because I arbitrarily miss four 80% shots in a row.
VGChartz is very unrealiable when it comes to PC data due to it only accounting for physical retailers and PC is mostly (some sources claim even as much as 93%) digital. So PC sales is heavily underrated on that website. For example there are AAA games that have more people online at once on steam than total sales according to that site.Grouchy Imp said:According to VGChartz, units sold to date by platform were 640k on PC, 600k on 360 and 510k on PS3, so console sales aren't too far off double that of PC sales. Disappointing - I was really looking forward to an XCOM sequel.
To be fair, in this particular case, the game is unlikely to be very demanding considering the specs.008Zulu said:The PS4 and Xbone are already showing their age. It is unlikely that they would be able to run the games, not without a massive hit in graphics and/or reduced gameplay.
Are you serious with this? XCOM 2 is not going to have such a drastic graphics upgrade that it wouldn't be able to run on the PS4 and Xbox One, maybe enough of an upgrade that it wouldn't run on the 360 and PS3, but Firaxis just doesn't make super graphically intense games.008Zulu said:They're not using the same game engine. New engine means new requirements. The consoles are struggling to do 1080 @60/fps, in some cases, struggling to do 720 @30/fps. They just don't have the power for modern gaming.elvor0 said:EW was hardly pushing the boundries of hardware, it needed 2ghz dual core, 2GB ram and a Nvidia 8800. I hardly see XCOM 2 being a massive step up. Don't be daft, XCOM 2 isn't going to be too much for the consoles to handle. I'm guessing it just didn't sell too well on the consoles rather than it being a hardware issue.
Oh god, I hope so too. But I don't think that's it. I was thinking more in lines of features that were in the original X-Coms and got dropped for console-ease-of-use. Detailed inventory system, base placement, fire at positions, that type of deal.Grouchy Imp said:Please - twelve buttons and two thumbsticks, we aren't Neanderthals.Kathinka said:Perhaps (hopefully?) new mechanisms and gameplay complexity additions make it impossible to control with four buttons and a thumb stick.Grouchy Imp said:According to VGChartz, units sold to date by platform were 640k on PC, 600k on 360 and 510k on PS3, so console sales aren't too far off double that of PC sales. Disappointing - I was really looking forward to an XCOM sequel.elvor0 said:EW was hardly pushing the boundries of hardware, it needed 2ghz dual core, 2GB ram and a Nvidia 8800. I hardly see XCOM 2 being a massive step up. Don't be daft, XCOM 2 isn't going to be too much for the consoles to handle. I'm guessing it just didn't sell too well on the consoles rather than it being a hardware issue.008Zulu said:The PS4 and Xbone are already showing their age. It is unlikely that they would be able to run the games, not without a massive hit in graphics and/or reduced gameplay.Xsjadoblayde said:Hey, what's with shunning the console crowd from this game? I loved EU and EW. Don't make me come out of my filthy peasant hut to shout angrily at the pidgeons due to your betrayal.
The only 'advance' I can think of that would make relatively unwieldy controller issues a concern would be in real-time play, and I hope to hell Firaxis haven't gone down that route.
Hehe, the fun thing about X-Com was that it very effectively broke save scumming. The random numbers weren't generated the moment you took the shot. Instead, there was a bunch of rolls made when you started the battle, and the results were entered into a list. This list would then be used top to bottom for each random chance action. If you loaded a save game, the list (and what rolls were next) was reloaded as well. So no matter how often you reload a save to retry that 80% shot, it would re-use the same list entry next in line, and the result would always be the same.gmaverick019 said:the problem I seemed to have was, there would always be that ONE fucker who flanked fucking hard, and it seemed like he/she was ALWAYS the one that was nigh invincible that turn, regardless of how many times I save scummed and had different people move to different spots and take different shots, and due to this, the next turn he'd just go to fucking town on someone and there would go fuck all strategy for that part of the mission.Zhukov said:Cool.
I just hope they find a way to even out the influence of dice rolls. Got really tired of having games go pear-shaped because I arbitrarily miss four 80% shots in a row.
OT: surprisingly being a mod lover and all, I haven't tried long war yet, might just have to give that a go before this comes out..
will need to see some gameplay though before I get too hyped, as long as it's like the previous one (just more depth perhaps) then I will be looking at a first week purchase.
or better yet, just activate the second wave option that reroll the dices each time you load your game ?Fdzzaigl said:You can still "savescum" in XCOM, you simply have to take a different action to provoke a different result. It's an effective way of learning from your mistakes and seeing what works better.
So what if they're not using the same engine? It's still just XCOM 2, a turn based game. Even with upgraded graphics, processing power is minmal, the maps aren't that big and Firaxis have /never/ been one for graphical intensity, I don't know how weak you think the new consoles are, but they're certainly powerful enough to handle XCOM.008Zulu said:They're not using the same game engine. New engine means new requirements. The consoles are struggling to do 1080 @60/fps, in some cases, struggling to do 720 @30/fps. They just don't have the power for modern gaming.elvor0 said:EW was hardly pushing the boundries of hardware, it needed 2ghz dual core, 2GB ram and a Nvidia 8800. I hardly see XCOM 2 being a massive step up. Don't be daft, XCOM 2 isn't going to be too much for the consoles to handle. I'm guessing it just didn't sell too well on the consoles rather than it being a hardware issue.
I played and finished the original way back in the day, but prefer the remake. Among other things, not nearly as much wanting to murder my squaddies because NONE OF THEM CAN HIT THE BROAD SIDE OF A BARN, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I know the new one does this as well but it doesn't feel nearly as annoying.onard said:I really want to like the new X-coms because I just love turn-based strategy games.
But back in my day playing X-com...
-You could deploy 12 soldiers at game start instead of 6 tops end-game.
-You could move after shooting.
-Heck, you could move-shoot-move!
-Anyone could equip any weapon and you had more weapon and item variety.
-You could have multiple bases and multiple transports.
-You could actually fly instead of glorified jumps.
-Etc, Etc. And we liked it!
Alas this new generation wants everything easy peasy and streamlined, so I can't blame the producers for simplifying stuff.
.