Why There's No Multiple Bases in XCOM - Firaxis Q&A

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Why There's No Multiple Bases in XCOM - Firaxis Q&A

The reasons why Firaxis lead designer Ananda Gupta only had one base may surprise you.

Read Full Article
 

fwiffo

New member
Sep 12, 2011
113
0
0
I dunno. I got a bad feeling from the way Gupta kept mentioning the "narrative".

Ohh well, hope its good.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
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.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
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'.
 

Reincarnatedwolfgod

New member
Jan 17, 2011
1,002
0
0
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.
 

Bindal

New member
May 14, 2012
1,320
0
0
Reincarnatedwolfgod said:
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.
Somehow, I have the feeling it wouldn't. It didn't make the original any more interesting, either. Heck, I didn't ever bother calling them "Bases", but "Scanner/Laser Cannon Factory", because that's all they did.
 

Phishfood

New member
Jul 21, 2009
743
0
0
Weaver said:
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.
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".

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.
 

Berling's Beard

New member
Mar 2, 2010
25
0
0
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.
 

Orange12345

New member
Aug 11, 2011
458
0
0
Weaver said:
Good to know the story is getting in the way of the gampeplay.

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.
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, CHOICES
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
fwiffo said:
I dunno. I got a bad feeling from the way Gupta kept mentioning the "narrative".

Oh well, hope its good.
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.

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.

dunam said:
Yes, you have the instant abilities you can use now, but there was a subtler gameplay element in the original: You could choose to shoot down a ship above water or ground. Shooting it over water meant there was no ground mission to be done, which was good if you were out of skyrangers but bad if you had the choice of sending troops there. So sometimes you could wait and see if they'd fly over water or ground before starting the interception. Not to mention interceptions at multiple places at the same time.
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.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
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

Weaver said:
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.
Only one Skyranger is something that really bugged me too
They could at least give us ability to upgrade it to Avenger (thus allowing to respond to 2 attacks)
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
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.
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
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.
 

Kathinka

New member
Jan 17, 2010
1,141
0
0
my suspicion is more that it was "streamlined" for console hardware and audiences.

don't get me wrong, it's still a magnificent game. but to think that it could have been so much more..
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
I can live with one base, but couldn't we have multiple Skyrangers in the base?
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
Souplex said:
I can live with one base, but couldn't we have multiple Skyrangers in the base?
The way they chose to build the game, I think, theres just no reason to.
Air combat is such a nothing in the new xcom.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
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.
 

Bindal

New member
May 14, 2012
1,320
0
0
loa said:
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.
Still better than the story of the original, where the Aliens invaded because and the gameplay was most effective with "ROOKIE ZERKRUSH!"