Sirinan

Hi Chris, any ETA on Desura? Oh, and Merry Christmas!

Irrelevant. You don't remove all other reasons for doing combat just because it's necessary in order to win. That's the perfect way to make combat an unenjoyable grind. That's the problem here. Apparently the devs have decided that the best way to make airstrikes more palatable is to make combat less palatable. As I said in my previous post, that's exactly the wrong way to approach the issue. As a developer, you should never nerf a central part of the game in order to make a peripheral part more useful. Balance issues for a peripheral feature should always be addressed through the peripheral feature itself.

Argh I hate it when people argue for realism when discussing an issue where such realism makes the game less fun. I'm sorry, but I don't give a damn about how realistic a game mechanism is if the end result of that realism reduces enjoyment. I play games *for fun*. Realism should not get in the way of that. Edit - to actually add something to this conversation: No score for ground missions is a nerf to make airstrikes more attractive, is that right? And airstrikes are there to reduce grind? Isn't the reduction in grind enough of an incentive to do those airstrikes? I don't see why there needs to be any change to ground combat scoring - if you don't want to grind, the option is there. Solution achieved. If anything else needs to be done, then it needs to be done to the airstrike mechanic, not the ground combat. Balance the game around those elements which are central to the game, namely the interceptions, missions, and ground combat. Then consider how best to balance any other elements of the game to the central element balance - don't mess with the central elements to try to balance fringe elements.

Console yourself that it's almost certainly worse on the Firaxis forums - I'll bet that anyone posting anything like a balanced view of the game would get flamed out of existence.

Having read all your other posts on this subject, I'll save myself time and angst by leaving well enough alone. You appear eager to bend over backwards in defense of the new game's flaws, and don't seem willing to accept that some design elements are steps backwards from the old game. Yes, I can tell you like the new game (and from so few clues, too! ) but you really don't have to defend it to the death. Even if you admit the flaws, it will still be a good game. (Yes! I actually think it's not bad - just that it's not as good as the original, but that is a very high bar to cross.) On my part, I'm perfectly happy to admit that the original wasn't perfect, and I like to think that my views are pretty balanced. Chris' thread on comparing the old and new is actually pretty good. I'd probably be a fraction more critical of some elements, but by and large he's identified the problems and where it doesn't improve on the original, while pointing out that it does have its strengths.

Immersion isn't specific to movies, and if you truly lack immersion when you play games, I suspect you're unusual. A snippet from your previous post - "Too many choices and you fall back on the familiar." - what's wrong with that? Even if you choose the familiar, at least you have that choice, and someone else may choose to play a different way. There is no negative about too many choices - there is no one forcing you to make use of them all. Whereas a game which forces you to play the way the game designer wants you to play...? And the rest of that quote -"Less choices force you to think harder to find a solution within your limitations." - it's all about balance. There have to be positives and negatives to every way of playing, and it's up to the devs to balance it all properly. But limiting choice, and railroading the player into doing it their way is lazy design.

Limitations are fine, as long as they have some basis in reality, otherwise it can destroy immersion. An example would be the 80 item limit on the Skyranger for the original game. There's no obvious reason why you can only take 80 items, particularly when a huge autocannon or a pistol ammo clip are considered equivalent as '1 item'. I think it would have been better to have the Skyranger have an overall cargo size that soldiers, HWPs and equipment all share space for. That opens up all kinds of tactical decisions and choices that need to be made, particularly if more powerful equipment tends to be bulkier. E.g. You could choose to have a larger squad, but the compromise is that they would have to have minimal/light equipment. Or, you could risk taking a very small squad, but the advantage is that they could be equipped for almost any eventuality. Getting the balance right would be key, but if the balance was right, I think this way of doing things would be awesome. The limit makes sense (the Skyranger doesn't have infinite cargo space) and the limit increases your choice of playstyle and adds immersion. Surely that's win/win.

Exactly my thoughts. I expect EU to be quickly forgotten, whereas I still enjoy firing up the oldies on Dosbox. It's almost always the same with current vs older games - they are concentrating far too much on the bling, and forgetting about the gameplay. Bugger the nice graphics, give me the gameplay anyday.