Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 119

Thread: Quartertothree Discussion on Xenonauts

  1. #1

    Quartertothree Discussion on Xenonauts

    Generally favorable comments, though a few people are grippling.
    http://www.quartertothree.com/game-t...=58869&page=14

    I've tried to explain (as i understand) the confusion over stretch goals and how/why it works. I hope i didnt make it worse. FYI I'm davidf there

    I do think that this project has some extra challanges that most others dont, in that some people think this is simpply a reskinned X-Com and dont understand its a completely seperate game! I think in this way Xenonauts has been a victim of its own success. To some (and even me) it feels so much like the original, its hard to aknowledge that their is actually a delta.

  2. #2
    Moderator Gauddlike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    5,593
    Sounds like a lot of moaning and no one willing to do any of their own research.
    10 minutes with google or these forums search function and they would have had all the answers they need.
    Devil's Advocate and forum moderator

  3. #3
    Commander Jean-Luc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,548
    A lot of that money is meant for getting an office and gathering up all the permanent-ish devs so that they could work more efficiently and so Goldhawk could have a semblance of a dev studio. There's also the KS, Amazon and reward fees/expenses.

    Oh and let's not forget profit. I know this is hard for people to accept since everyone's so self-entitled but there's profit too, you know, something for the people working on the game to live off of.

    I only skimmed through the posts (not in the mood to read through more whining) so I don't know what's been mentioned or not but the above is the gist of it.


    Also,

    X-nauts vs. X-Com differences are also easy to point out (when it comes do re-skin arguments):

    -tactical air combat
    -more weapon types (shotgun, sniper, flamethrower, machine gun, "swat shield")
    -directional cover system
    -better UI overall
    -friendly npc forces
    -suppression
    -more mission types (those indoor missions are sure to make it in I think)

    Maybe I've missed something, I don't know.
    Last edited by Jean-Luc; 05-16-2012 at 00:51.
    "This is a primitive culture. I am here to facilitate its incorporation"

  4. #4
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    Hmm. Well I do agree with those people that the stretch goals are uninspiring. However, I know perfectly well why those X-Com features aren't already in Xenonauts.

    The biggest problem for Xenonauts is likely the 2D engine. I noticed a few of the folks on that forum seem to think that a 2D game should automatically be cheap to produce. If Goldhawk had chosen to make do with less weapons and armors, jerky animations and re-using armor sprites as X-Com did then yes, art assets would have been inexpensive.

    Getting the smooth animations and visual styling of Xenonauts using sprites undoubtedly took a huge chunk of dev time. If the game had been made in 3D most of those stretch goals would have probably made it in the game without Kickstarter.

    But that's the sort of mistake that happens when new developers start brand new new companies and create their first product. Despite the crippling engine, Xenonauts seems to be coming along much better than nearly any other indie game I've been watching. I expect that Goldhawk's second game will benefit a lot from the experience gained making this one.

    As a side note, Wasteland 2 looks like it will be done with the Unity engine. Some people were clamoring for a 2D engine but the more knowledgeable folks are pointing out that 3D isometric is cheaper than 2D and can give the same effect.

  5. #5
    Coffin Stuffer
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    301
    Jean I don't know that we can say better UI because the PC specific UI has not yet been revealed and they have been very clear on that. I do like Xenonauts smaller interface but I can't say objectively which is "better" at this point in time. I don't see that as a good argument tbh.

    Also both games have suppression. Well Firaxis has announced suppression whereas here it is something being looked into being done but I haven't seen a definitive "Yes we will add this and it will work this way" post yet. So really that's a point Firaxis not Xenonauts. Both games also have directional cover. We don't know all the missions types Firaxis has planned yet either btw so that's a wash.

    So really better air combat I can agree with 100% and (based on what we know at THIS point) Xenonauts may have more weapons. Again for me both games are awesome and people should IMO talk really good things about both games. They will both be super fun to play and I'm sure it will be for different reasons. I know I'm looking forward to both games

  6. #6
    Commander Jean-Luc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,548
    I meant compared to the original X-Com (referring to the statements that Xenonauts is just a reskin/clone of it). The new one is called XCOM without the "-".

    If Chris' words are anything to go by then suppression is surely in, we just don't know for sure in what way yet.

    From KS update 4 (100% funding reached):

    Next, let’s talk about what you guys have already achieved! As a result of hitting our 100% funding goal on Kickstarter, we’ll definitely be implementing the following features:

    The new UI design will be rolled out across the whole game (ideally with the background art updating as you research new technology)
    Soldier combat medal system
    Battlefield suppression mechanics
    Animated tiles
    DRM free release of the game
    Last edited by Jean-Luc; 05-16-2012 at 05:45.
    "This is a primitive culture. I am here to facilitate its incorporation"

  7. #7
    Oh and let's not forget profit. I know this is hard for people to accept since everyone's so self-entitled but there's profit too, you know, something for the people working on the game to live off of.
    I read their thread and reacted to that, too.

    Seriously, just about every other industry in the world is allowed to, and expected to, make money. That's kinda the whole idea of working in the first place. Why it's all of a sudden a de-facto crime for game developers and other artists to make a profit is simply beyond my comprehension.

  8. #8
    WishfullThinker Gorlom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
    I read their thread and reacted to that, too.

    Seriously, just about every other industry in the world is allowed to, and expected to, make money. That's kinda the whole idea of working in the first place. Why it's all of a sudden a de-facto crime for game developers and other artists to make a profit is simply beyond my comprehension.
    I think many people think of big evil companies that cuts down rainforrests to make malls when they hear the word profit. And they don't want to see gamedevelopers as the big evil corporation.

  9. #9
    Coffin Stuffer
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    301
    Ahh I missed that Jean-Luc thanks

  10. #10
    Seriously, just about every other industry in the world is allowed to, and expected to, make money. That's kinda the whole idea of working in the first place. Why it's all of a sudden a de-facto crime for game developers and other artists to make a profit is simply beyond my comprehension.
    I think many people think of big evil companies that cuts down rainforrests to make malls when they hear the word profit. And they don't want to see gamedevelopers as the big evil corporation.
    That is not at all the point of the objections in that thread, and it is frankly a little bizarre that is what you interpreted the thread's posters to be saying. Your psychoanalysis at the end is also very strange.

    The objection is that the kickstarter began promising a faithful X-Com re-make that could use an additional $50k to get finished faster.

    All that changed once they hit $50k. The team now seems to be intentionally holding out features that are either not that hard to implement, or that really should be in the game to begin with --- and that (this is the important part) fans who put down their original pledges and pre-orders rightfully could have expected would be in the game. This seems like a bait-and-switch. Fans who pledged before the game got to $50,000 (like me) did so with the understanding that the folks at Goldhawk had a good handle on what needed to be in the game, what would be nice, and would use their money wisely to that end. Frankly, it seems the team did not know what to do once it hit its funding goal, and instead is now dangling basic game features above its users' heads for 2-3x the ENTIRE COST of the original $50,000 asking price.

    A secondary observation: This is not an encouraging sign for this game's development. The team --- LONG AGO --- should have had a good idea of essential and non-essential features, the money required to achieve them, and begun programming the engine to account for those features. They should have set the kickstarter goal at whatever was necessary to achieve what they thought was necessary to produce a great game.

    Say what you will about Firaxis, but they aren't demanding $50,000 to implement a frickin' soldier memorial screen --- AFTER they've gotten your $50 for a 'faithful X-COM remake.' What an insult to the fans, and a disappointment. Perhaps that is why pledges are flatlining now.
    Last edited by wiglafman1225; 05-16-2012 at 15:57.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •