Leaderboard

I've made a UI mockup with UI elements that I'd like to see: Bigger Everything! Well, except the weapons. See major equipments of all soldiers. See heal-able HP and stun damage. TU, HP, and main weapon above everyone (friends, foes, and 3rd parties). Outline move area, move + shot area (before turning), and vision cone. When selecting move location, show line to all enemies, and who can be shot from that location (after turning), and whether each can see you (red eye icon in the mockup, above the left alien). Default to move + fire instead of ignore move and fire. When hovering over target, see accuracy of all modes. See hovered target's TU and HP but without numbers. Full UI mockup (understandably most clustered): Animated mockup (Not always playing correctly; did my best): X2.mp4 Fine touches: See all inventory on screen (slot based), Selecter soldier's skills, Silhouette for human and alien, Replace shot mode text with icons, Firing hint. TU has a blue overwatch marker to represent snap TU. Tried adding current firing mode marker, but a bit redundant with moving shot boundary and live TU prediction. Floating TU and HP is white to emphasis coloured status icons such as the red eye for sight. If a walk plan renders you unable to fire at a target after turning, it can be conveyed by "not-attackable line" to that target. I think we can also rotate vision cone with mouse move, and update TU prediction (and maybe cone colour) to indicate whether there is enough TU left for overwatch. In hindsight I could have made the alien indicator smaller and add their weapon icons below. And add reaction shot indicator next to sight indicator.

I've been been an advocate for a more realistic and grittier version of Xenonauts 2 than what some others on this forum believe to be optimal, and realizing this, i started to ask myself ... why exactly? Is more realistic and more gritty intrinsically better? No. More realistic generally is, as it helps with issues like relatability or immersion, but there are some great games out there that care little to not at all about being realistic - Tetris comes to mind as an obvious example. A game like Xenonauts 2 is not a reflex based game, like a twitch shooter or some console game waving around lightsabers at shiny bits. It is not a game of social organisation like a MOBA or getting a guild to work in a MMORPG. It can be a game about exploring a story and consequences of choices, like the classical Telltale games. It definitely is a game for people who like reading text and numbers and solving strategic/tactic puzzles. Ultimately, this is a game about a war. Xenonauts 1 was a war between two nation like societies, with taxes and armies and fairly clearly defined battlefields, and Xenonauts 2 is intended to more closely mimic the modern assymetric wars that are beginning to be the norm with a small group trying to do what they can while having to avoid open battle, utilizing abductions and assassinations and the like. So where can this game go? I basically see two options: either leaning towards a realistic, potentially harrowing, or instead towards a super-hero-esque power fantasy. People here know which direction i prefer, but don't get me wrong: i do not think that a power fantasy is bad at all. There are solid reasons why films like Rambo 2 are more popular amongst children coming from war zones than a film like the first John Rambo, which shows the protagonist disempowered, traumatized, and forced back into a warrior personality he had hoped to leave behind. Still, i asked myself: why would i prefer the more harrowing version? I think i can safely say i have more experience with horror and violence than the average of those who frequent this forum ... so why go back to that place after i finally left it behind? Analyzing that, i realized that a large reason for that is that a game pandering to power fantasies is so far removed from the reality i perceive that it feels bland, disconnected and unrelatable. The reality i know is not one where all soldiers in a company will survive, excluding the token black guy who will die as inspiration to the rest of the troops. It is not one where if you just try hard enough and believe in yourself enough you can overcome any odds. Instead, my reality is one where sometimes your best just isn't enough, and sometimes you have to make hard decisions and live for the rest of your life with the choices you made, and the consequences of your actions. I know some people think that we should rather tell stories that propagate these lies rather than face reality and be disheartened, but i do wonder if doing so does not actually cause way more harm than good. Because reality does catch up eventually, and it seems obvious that one of the evolutionary purposes of games includes preparing us for real challenges. Still, there are probably way more 11-14 year old kids out there that love power fantasies than there are people like me ... so why not rather have the game pander to the power fantasy? My answer would be that a game like that is already out there with Firaxis X-Com. When i played Firaxiscom i felt mostly bored, detatched from the conflict. Humans are the most amazing beings in the universe, easily capable of defeating psionic-wielding superminds, out-tech ancient races that had aeons to advance science to it's peak and stomp on warrior races genetically engineered for their purpose, and ultimately, OF COURSE the humans are the very key that the aliens have looked for so long. On the flip side, the intro screen from Xenonauts 1 immediately drew me in. A number of older military commanders look at you with facial expressions ranging from doubt to slight disdain, as if to tell you: "We've given you a lot of money and hardware, and a lot of good men. We all advised against it, but our governments ordered us to. Do not disappoint us!" And the game continues to tell us that we are nothing special at all, just another world to be conquered and added to a giant empire spanning multiple galaxies. If anything is to make us special, it is our choices and actions as a player that are to set us apart. The two moments that got the biggest emotional response out of me were quite minor sidenotes in the game. With stun guns and gas grenades i captured multiple Sebillians alive in an early mission to advance my research. The post mission run down made me pause for a short time. 1 Scout Data Core .................. Sent to research division 6 Alenium .............................. Sent to storage 12 Alien Alloys ........................ Sent to storage 4 Sebillian Corpses ................. Destroyed 1 Sebillian Non-Combatant ...... Sent to research division 3 Sebillian Non-Combatants ..... Executed I sat in silence after reading that last line. I understood why we did it, but we were murdering civilians. This gets even worse when you learn that these beings were actually forced into slavery and combat service, and we probably just wrecked our chances at a potential diplomatic solution. Are we really the good guys? The second happened when i looked at the research files, and found that the researches for the alien species are actually titled "vivisections". If i remember correctly it was the great author Isaac Asimov who wrote that science fiction is not about the technical advancements - the lightswords, lasercannons, jetpacks or teleporters - but what how we interact with the introduction of these new technologies reveals about us humans. While i do not think that it should be every game's purpose to do this, i do maintain that it is good to have games that give us pause, make us think, challenge our moral assumptions and our perception of the world. Reflex or coordination based games are unsuitable for this, games centered around social interaction would be an interesting option yet i've never seen it done in any, but games focused around story are definitely most suited for this. I personally maintain that a strategy game like Xenonauts might in many aspects be even better at this than pick your poison games like the Tell-Tale games or those from Quantic Dreams, because i believe that implications created through game mechanics resonate far stronger than these very obvious choices. A good example in my eyes would be to compare Prison Architect to the recent game Detroit. In Detroit you have the choice to either push some buttons to disobey your orders or not to, in Prison Architect due to the game mechanics you just end up making more money by constructing tight housing for prisoners than by focusing on optimizing their recidivism rate, mimicing a real life fact. Imagine that you had the option to work for criminal syndicates to up your budget in Xenonauts 2. Would you do it? How much would they need to offer? At what type of missions would you draw the line? How bad would the war against the aliens need to go for you to reconsider? If one of your agents was about to defect with information to the aliens because they are disgusted with your cooperation with organized crime, would you let the crime lords kidnap his family to stop him, or would you accept that some of your agents in the field will be killed because of the information this man will leak? The X-Com developed by Firaxis is a game from a huge company, developed on a hefty budget with shareholders expecting optimized returns, so naturally it will pander to the biggest crowd and try to go for as instant gratification as possible, no matter how shallow it may be. So why should Xenonauts or Xenonauts 2 be any different? Because it can. Creating a product for a more niche audience is a good business decision for a smaller competitor, and Goldhawk can afford to ask the questions that Firaxis wouldn't dare to touch. If Goldhawk won't create an adult, uncomfortable, complicated, ethically challenging and thought inspiring X-Com successor, then my question is: who will?

Looking for resources to do a UI mockup and found these on ArtStation! (Edit: Click for sharp image. The forum thumbnails are not doing them justice!) https://www.artstation.com/artwork/gqZn8

Work in Progress. I'm shamelessly using my own inventory proposal (two weapons + gadget(s)) because the size fit quite well.

Raiding organisations and selling psyclone was a great fund-raising tool in X-COM Apocalypse. Even the Cult of Sirius raid loot would contain some, you didn't even have to target the crims directly.

The FPS drops I've not seen on similar hardware. Have you been able to tie it to specific cases? (Units walking, or shooting destructible terrain, etc) As for the performance: There are a tonne of optimizations we've simply disabled because they just consume development time while things are up in the air. There are "minor" ones such as logging and debug code that cause most of the "stutter" currently in game. There are "major" ones such as mesh merging, lightmapping (for those knowledgeable, a bit more problematic in our setup) and optimizations on the materials, or even rewriting shaders such that they're not just plug-and-play shaders. The mesh merging alone, although mostly benefiting lower-end hardware, bumped FPS about 3x-5x (from 60ish to 300ish). And then there are the cases where some code is still doing way more than it should be doing, because we're experimenting with certain mechanics. You can expect a lot of improvement in speed as we continue development the coming few months because a lot we haven't been able to do as we were still changing, well, almost everything. I'll bring up performance in the morning meeting tomorrow and see if we might be able to put out a comparison build now that the pressure of the Kickstarter is partially behind us.

Whilst I do broadly agree with the sentiments in your post, most of the stuff you've mentioned are just very small details that imply the world in which the game is set has some internal consistency, and where occasionally the world isn't perfect. This was implied in Xenonauts; indeed the reason why I wrote the Chief Scientist the way I did was because I didn't necessarily want another "invisible" PG13 character who is generically heroic and good-natured and competent like all the characters in XCOM are (although of course it's fine to write your characters that way if you want to emphasize other parts of the game instead). Reading your post, I actually think you have the motivations for the changes in X2 backwards. The setting of Xenonauts-2 is actually informed by the mechanics of Xenonauts 1 - why is there only one major organisation taking on the aliens and capable of saving the world? Why are they only putting 8-16 badly-armed soldiers on the ground, when most armies can field tens of thousands of troops with air support and artillery backup? Etc. The key thing is that we don't need to change up the game mechanics to fit the new setting of asymmetric warfare; we've changed the setting to fit the mechanics we already have - e.g. you'll have similar numbers of soldiers in X2 as you did in X1, we've just made an effort to explain why you have so few this time. Which is sort of what you're talking about, I think. Indeed, you're correct in much of what you say about realism in the game. We're not aiming to make a realistic game but we do try our best to make the game as logically consistent as we can within those bounds. There's also no chance we're going to be making a narratively branching game etc (although I don't think Drakon was suggesting that); ultimately this is a strategy game and if the setting is getting in the way of creating the X-Com game we want to make then the game mechanics will win out. You've misunderstood what the ground teams do and the problem they are intended to solve, though. It's nothing to do with dropship range at all - just means that the Field Agents have to physically move to their various missions on the Geoscape, rather than being placed in an abstracted "Agent Slot" for a region and not appearing on the map. If you're confused I suggest you read the post again; that part of the post was talking about why we might consider moving back to X1 style top-down bases.