Leaderboard

But deadly.

Perhaps I'm out of topic, but what I missed in Xenonauts-1 is that Xenopaedia wasn't dynamic. I mean that there was only one text per item. That doesn't help finding the Xenopaedia soùething more than a mere in-game game manual rather than an active part of the game. Granted, this effect was somewhat alleviated with the "item class" research and associated text (like Laser Weaponry). Other games introduce a pre-research text, and soon replaced or appended by a post-research text. This makes the Xenopaedia more lively and fitting close to the campaign advancement. However, it still feels like just "let's browse through that already written game manual". Could any topic (item or analysis-related) be linked to several text bits that would update the associated Xenopaedia page only if due discovery is made (either through encounter, research, etc.)? The more lively and dynamic it would feel like if those text were signed by different protagonists (head scientist, TACOPS, Survey, Chief Engineer, etc.). Each page would now appear like an appended discussion page, with complementing information, eventual argument and pun, and possibly even misdirection and changing of mind. For instance, when translating the Xenopaedia, it was obvious that many things were made implicit whereas the player could have witnessed (more so) the life of laboratories and workshops. Things could go as far as dynamically renaming a Xenopaedia entry (and item names): did we code-named this alien UFO/species a Fighter or a Little Grey at first? Now we choose to name it an Armed Scout or a Caesian rather, and we explain why this change of mind. Likewise, we won't encounter "Psions" anymore before we actually evidence psionic effects on the battlefield, and we research on the topic. Did we think that plasma weaponry was the nec plus ultra? Now we append or correct the Plasma Weaponry page as regards to our newest discoveries, at the same time as we start to investigate on a new technology. Now, we don't retrieve a "Leader" from the battlefield until we know it's not another "Officer". We would need alternate names (one or even two per item), that would be used based on this item knowledge status. Each Xenopaedia page would be made of text bits that would either complement each other (based on research paths), or replaced each other (based on upgraded knowledge). The head-scientist would only ramble on scientific matter (plus whatever he _thinks_ he's proficient in, of course), the head-engineer would add a technical remark, the TACOPS would advise on the first deployment, and then would provide several after-battle reports (when relevant, as when we first attacked reptilians with ballistic weapons), etc. Of course, this would overall require more writing work, but mainly a clever cut of existing writings (from a Xenonauts-1 point of view) and a reallocation of those now smaller text bits to the proper in-game emitter and trigger(s). We would need a better text editor module, as upgrading/inserting modes of a given Xenopaedia page would have to be diverse, like "append this bit" (= "insert" when this bit is not the last one), "replace this bit", "append current page" (at whichever state it is), "append page" (always at the page's end, like a foot note). This could result in ending two different campaigns with slightly different pages in formatting and content, reflecting the way you played each campaign. We would also need a way to notify the player about a critical/non critical change made in an already started page (In Xenonauts-1, the player was only notified for new pages, of course). A colour code could be useful and not too obtrusive here. There could be a game option when non critical changes are not notified. TL;dR Each Xenopaedia page could be dynamically formatted and upgraded based on encounters and battlefield findings, researches, and campaign evolution. The whole system should be transparent enough to any players who don't like getting lost in reading the Xenopaedia, though. For instance, a paragraph (bit) written to appear on the Fighter's page could be qualified as: name = fighter_bit3 emitter = headScientist requisites = encouter X, research Y, gameTick Z type = non critical mode = replace bit3 content = Contrary to what we first thought, based on early interception cases, this class of UFO has not really for vocation of bla-bla.. ... We however decided to keep with the "Fighter" code-name. As for most of the suggestions made in the forum, the above is less a demand for a full feature on delivery (else I quit) than a request for a scripting system that would in this case allow modders to augment the vanilla Xenopaedia with modular writings!

In file researches.xmll: 1. weapon.grenade.advancedmedipack 2. weapon.grenade.heavymedipack 3. weapon.grenade.extrememedipack

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?