Moonshine Fox

Firaxis Games' XCOM: Enemy Unknown announced!

1,295 posts in this topic

Yeah one of the interviews mentioned a sniper ability that allows you to take a second shot if you kill an enemy with your first shot as a sniper. I don't know what it was called. However those ability trees seem to be set up with 2 abilities per level that are mutually exclusive. So if you pick one you lose out on the other. That should be interesting I think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah one of the interviews mentioned a sniper ability that allows you to take a second shot if you kill an enemy with your first shot as a sniper. I don't know what it was called.

I bet it was called...........second shot. Or maybe it's the sniping version of cleave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What possible basis in reality does getting an extra shot have to do with killing the first target??? If anything acquiring a second target would take MORE time than putting another round into the first target. This is just hokey perk better left to Skyrim or some other fantasy game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I can get behind what they're doing here. Increased accuracy through flanking should promote more tactical thinking. If you want more favourable shots you need to work on your positioning, setting up crossfires and such. Doesn't sound like a bad change.

As for the research and the way missions come up I have a feeling much of the campaign is going to feel very scripted but hopefully that won't be the case. It's like people today don't know what to do when left to their own devices and instead need to be fed these binary choices to provide an illusion of decision making. At least the Firaxis devs seem to think so but we'll see.

Increased accuracy through flanking?? Why? Flanking works because the enemy has to find cover from two directions of incoming fire and because it's difficult to concentrate firepower in two directions NOT because your soldiers suddenly start shooting better. OMG! Where are they getting these ideas!?!?! Edited by StellarRat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased accuracy through flanking?? Why? Flanking works because the enemy has to find cover from two directions of incoming fire and because it's difficult to concentrate firepower in two directions NOT because your soldiers suddenly start shooting better. OMG! Where are they getting these ideas!?!?!
I thought the increased accuracy through flanking was because the guy being flanked didn't have cover from the flanker? In the example Firaxis showed the flanker didn't get any bonus while being 90 degrees in a different direction then the other soldier (from the aliens point of view) she had to hop a gap so that there was no obstruction what so ever (in the 90 degree position there was like half a corner 2 degrees from going parallel with the soldiers line of sight.. in practice it didn't obstruct anything) between the alien and the second soldier.

The idea behind flanking is primarily to circumvent defensive fortifications/positions/formations is it not? Not to simply divide someones attention.

Edited by Gorlom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. The target is caught in a crossfire and has no adequate cover nor is it able to keep its attention on two assailants coming from different directions. Also, one shouldn't overanalyze it in terms of reality. It works well as a gameplay mechanic (rewards tactical positioning) and can also be rationalized quite easily.

A lot of games have flanking mechanics where the target becomes easier to hit.

Edited by Jean-Luc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ability Jean-Luc mentions is in one of the videos - you see it briefly in the tour of the anthill. It's called "double tap". There is a precondition for it, but I can't read what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. The target is caught in a crossfire and has no adequate cover nor is it able to keep its attention on two assailants coming from different directions. Also, one shouldn't overanalyze it in terms of reality. It works well as a gameplay mechanic (rewards tactical positioning) and can also be rationalized quite easily.

A lot of games have flanking mechanics where the target becomes easier to hit.

I agree that increased accuracy because your flanking the enemy makes sense in some games (specially if the game is larger scale), but not X-Com. The fact that X-Com has objects you can hide behind makes it possible that you can get a clear shot if you fire from a direction that voids the enemies cover and concealment. So, there is no need for a "bonus" to hit. The bonus is that you can hit in the first place without worrying about the enemy ducking behind their cover. I'm making the assumption that a fighter in this new X-Com does have a lower chance to be hit if they have cover from the direction the fire is coming from, if not, than giving a bonus for flanking may be the only way to address the concept. However, that is a cheesy workaround vs. just doing it right in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the increased accuracy through flanking was because the guy being flanked didn't have cover from the flanker? In the example Firaxis showed the flanker didn't get any bonus while being 90 degrees in a different direction then the other soldier (from the aliens point of view) she had to hop a gap so that there was no obstruction what so ever (in the 90 degree position there was like half a corner 2 degrees from going parallel with the soldiers line of sight.. in practice it didn't obstruct anything) between the alien and the second soldier.

The idea behind flanking is primarily to circumvent defensive fortifications/positions/formations is it not? Not to simply divide someones attention.

I think we said the same thing. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flanking also allows you to shoot at the target while he's facing away from you. This allows you to take the time to line up the shot more carefully than if you needed to watch out for him firing back at you. It also means he isn't going to be ducking or dodging your shot, because he doesn't know it's coming. This can easily justify the bonus to hit from flanking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question. What happens if XCOM:EU takes off like a rocket? It'll encourage 2K to put more resources into more XCOM turn-based games, sure. Heck, they may think "Well, why not remake TFTD, or Apocalypse!" but wouldn't EA and Activision both be like "I want some-a that action!", then apply their market-grade blandification techniques to a genre that has thankfully been mostly free up until now. Would success be a hidden bullet that later kills the genre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kills the genre"? That really doesn't make much sense at all. Replacing a lack of games with a multitude of bland ones does not kill anything. Nothing is lost, except maybe for a feeling of exclusivity in playing these games.

Besides, that scenario seems highly unlikely to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they key word there was 'later' kills the genre.

I can actually see that happening if too many bad/bland games hit the market.

It is already an under loved genre so that could just make people think that it is the game type itself that is inherently poor because for ages there were no games at all and now there are loads of bad ones.

I do agree that it is unlikely though.

More likely if the new EU took off it would just spawn a related FPS, probably using the other xcom FPS as a basis.

Then when that failed they would think it was the x-com brand that was at fault rather than their own vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why 2K would give up or sell the X-Com license to EA but I suppose they could try making a similar game with their own IP though I seriously doubt they'd be willing to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jean-Luc, I don't mean 2K selling off the franchise (unless it does badly). What I mean is EA and Activison seeing an old genre be successfully revived, thinking to themselves that perhaps here's another cash cow to be milked until its udders bleed, and they start cranking out their own X-Com-a-likes, blandifiying them for the mass market with a skill and precision that risk-averse Hollywood could only wish they could do.

Demnevalli, like Gauddlike says, it's not that more X-Com-a-likes are bad, it's taking X-Com-a-likes, multiplying and blandifying them to the point where the ever fickle public move on to the Next Big Thing, then the publishers themselves declaring it's the games fault and start canning developers in retaliation. On September the 8th, 2010, the last Guitar Hero game for consoles was released. Rock Band 3 was the last Rock Band with instruments produced by Harmonix in October 2010. The genre had been hopelessly oversaturated (especially by Activision), and it will take years before the public is bored of its current fare and craves more Guitar Hero. It is my concern that the sweet smell of success may turn out me-too products that do the same to the X-Com genre. But if people don't see that, that's fine. After all, Activision have turned out a Modern Warfare (main or sub-genre) game every year since 2010 and that hasn't hurt the francise like it did Guitar Hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that an X-COM alike genre will ever be as oversaturated as Guitar Hero-types. Yes, success will likely create imitators, but that hasn't killed RTS games (see all the C&C-alikes that have been spawned over the years, and the fact new ones are still released regularly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at all the games who've tried to imitate the original X-COM. Nobody talks about 'em. That's because they're still playing X-COM.

If the game is good enough, and the game is a labor of love, it should shine through all the other copycats and be able to stand up on its own merit. Heck! Look at X-COM! How many people do you hear call its gameplay style that of the UFO series?

Plus, let's face it. If the developers made it right, the large difficulty levels of X-COM should scare off enough casual (read "immature") players to the point that EA and Activision don't see the profit in developing a copy-cat and stick to their usual overly saturated games (Still love me some Battlefield though...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would success be a hidden bullet that later kills the genre?

Kill what?

There is no genre of turn-based strategy games any more.

Or can you list 3 AAA titles of that genre in say, the last two years?

And I mean ones that weren't a botched mess like Elemental. =P

When you have no genre and no competition, the only way is up!

Nothing against Xenonauts but XCOMEU is a lot glitzier and mainstream. A lot more likely to get "modern" gamers to try something as outrageous as a turn-based game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flanking also allows you to shoot at the target while he's facing away from you. This allows you to take the time to line up the shot more carefully than if you needed to watch out for him firing back at you. It also means he isn't going to be ducking or dodging your shot, because he doesn't know it's coming. This can easily justify the bonus to hit from flanking.

Seems like a backwards way to do this. Why not apply a penalty to accuracy if the enemy has cover And take it away when they don't or they are surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

StellarRat, for game reasons I think Firaxis prefers giving people carrots to hitting them with sticks. Although I'm guessing "classic" difficulty will have all the sticks even the most hardcore can handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like a backwards way to do this. Why not apply a penalty to accuracy if the enemy has cover And take it away when they don't or they are surprised?

I believe that's exactly what happens, except there's a bonus to-hit when they are surprised rather than a penalty to-hit when not-surprised (because that's silly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except there's a bonus to-hit when they are surprised rather than a penalty to-hit when not-surprised (because that's silly).

What difference is there between those two systems when all you see is the chance to hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomenclature. Also, I think in StellarRat's system the penalty-to-hit-when-not-surprised was the same penalty as the penalty-to-hit-when-in-cover, so there'd be no bonus to surprising/flanking a target that isn't in cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What difference is there between those two systems when all you see is the chance to hit?

It has to do with the bonus to make them shit their pants from the surprise. :P

PS. wasn't Langy just being sarcastic in that quote?

Edited by Gorlom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has to do with the bonus to make them shit their pants from the surprise. :P

PS. wasn't Langly just being sarcastic in that quote?

That too, yes:p

(and it's Langy, one L; if it were Langley, like the CIA's headquarters, there'd be an E in there too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now