Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Comrade

Why was the Foxtrot removed?

Recommended Posts

Title, why was it removed? I thought it was a very good interceptor as well as showing what humanity was capable of without using any alien tech. It also showed off some Soviet stuff which never makes a SINGLE appearance anywhere else. I mean, what even is the point of the Cold War if we don't show some Soviet equipment too at least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the fact that they’re apparently more and more of the Soviet side getting removed annoys me as well. It just makes the game look generic compared to most current turn based XCOM-like games with no flavor of its own and a NATO centric aesthetic that plagued the genre as of late. 

Most of my recent play throughs of the first Xenonauts I just use the Dragunov and the rpg-7 instead of their NATO counterparts as not only they look cool, but they also play different from a more accurate rifle and explosive rifle (with the dragunov taking most of your APs to shoot a really powerful and accurate shot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Foxtrot was removed because we've set up interceptors to have multiple different configurations; the idea is starting interceptor can now fulfil both the Falcon and the Foxtrot niche from X1 depending on what you equip it with. Why have we done this? Because it sucks to have to build an entirely new interceptor when you need to use a particular type of weapon, and this way the role of a particular interceptor can be changed as it becomes increasingly obselete.

Also, I've never quite understood why people fixate so much on there being no Soviet stuff in the game. Sure, in one sense you're correct; there's currently nothing explicitly Soviet in the game. But there's only one plane, one helicopter and six (?) guns in the game from NATO nations; the vast majority of the game content is entirely fictional. Most people also seem to assume all the characters are American, even though they deliberately don't have names or nationalities and could just as easily be Russian.

So, yeah, while we probably do need to add some stuff into the game that is explicitly Soviet at some point, I think you guys are overestimating how much NATO content is actually in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chris said:

Why have we done this? Because it sucks to have to build an entirely new interceptor when you need to use a particular type of weapon, and this way the role of a particular interceptor can be changed as it becomes increasingly obselete.

That’s understandable but I still think this can be improved just like decision to change the way we can equip our soldiers compare to the early beta being clunky and annoying. Maybe we could have the modular upgrade in the first two planes with them only needed to be bought from the host country (F-16 for the US and MiG-31 for the USSR) with slight armor and fuel upgrades replacing the foxtrot research with the foxhound being available for purchase from the get go. Hell we can even forego new planes completely and make huge upgrades to the starting aircrafts like shield generators, antigravity thrusters, antimatter/plasma generator replacing the engine, stealth cloaking fields,... making them in the mid-game looking nothing like when you first bought them. And whenever you decide to scrap the aircraft frame for a newly researched one with more weapon/engine slots you could transfer all upgrades to the new one with ease. Kinda like the upgrade system for the Techpriests in Mechanicus.techpriest.jpg

And this has already been implemented really well with X-division and the plenty awesome suggestions by others in the air combat thread where you guys announced the return of X-1 air combat.

12 hours ago, Chris said:

Also, I've never quite understood why people fixate so much on there being no Soviet stuff in the game.

I think most of it comes from just the immersion factor which is also why simple cosmetic mods that include more cities names on the geoscape, jungle tile sets, and more soldier nationalities got so popular even most of their changes are just cosmetic only. Like mentioned by @indaris on the ufo design thread (which I kinda admit was a bit too heated in his preference), the immersion is really important and in some cases of game design constitutes a whole genre on its own if the immersive sim is anything to go by.

Also it’s just the cool factor, which as much as the NATO weapons try can never be as cool as the classic AK, dragunov and rpg-7. Also with the amount of already sci-fi looking weapons the Soviets pumped out through out the Cold War like laser tanks, ekranoplans and whatever Object 490 was:rolleyes: you can see why some are pretty fascinated with it.

I might try doing a cosmetic heavy mod to add some Soviet flair to the later weapons and armor when the game is release. That could be cool.

6 hours ago, stewpidbear said:

but make it a SAAB!  Non aligned so everyone can complain!:D

It was kind based on NATO designs tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Xeroxth said:

That’s understandable but I still think this can be improved just like decision to change the way we can equip our soldiers compare to the early beta being clunky and annoying. Maybe we could have the modular upgrade in the first two planes with them only needed to be bought from the host country (F-16 for the US and MiG-31 for the USSR) with slight armor and fuel upgrades replacing the foxtrot research with the foxhound being available for purchase from the get go. Hell we can even forego new planes completely and make huge upgrades to the starting aircrafts like shield generators, antigravity thrusters, antimatter/plasma generator replacing the engine, stealth cloaking fields,... making them in the mid-game looking nothing like when you first bought them. And whenever you decide to scrap the aircraft frame for a newly researched one with more weapon/engine slots you could transfer all upgrades to the new one with ease. Kinda like the upgrade system for the Techpriests in Mechanicus.techpriest.jpg

And this has already been implemented really well with X-division and the plenty awesome suggestions by others in the air combat thread where you guys announced the return of X-1 air combat.

I think most of it comes from just the immersion factor which is also why simple cosmetic mods that include more cities names on the geoscape, jungle tile sets, and more soldier nationalities got so popular even most of their changes are just cosmetic only. Like mentioned by @indaris on the ufo design thread (which I kinda admit was a bit too heated in his preference), the immersion is really important and in some cases of game design constitutes a whole genre on its own if the immersive sim is anything to go by.

Also it’s just the cool factor, which as much as the NATO weapons try can never be as cool as the classic AK, dragunov and rpg-7. Also with the amount of already sci-fi looking weapons the Soviets pumped out through out the Cold War like laser tanks, ekranoplans and whatever Object 490 was:rolleyes: you can see why some are pretty fascinated with it.

I might try doing a cosmetic heavy mod to add some Soviet flair to the later weapons and armor when the game is release. That could be cool.

It was kind based on NATO designs tho.

Ok, SHADO Interceptors and Skydivers!

F9342268-C538-4145-874C-413D16B3362F.jpeg

Edited by stewpidbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Xeroxth said:

That’s understandable but I still think this can be improved just like decision to change the way we can equip our soldiers compare to the early beta being clunky and annoying. Maybe we could have the modular upgrade in the first two planes with them only needed to be bought from the host country (F-16 for the US and MiG-31 for the USSR) with slight armor and fuel upgrades replacing the foxtrot research with the foxhound being available for purchase from the get go. Hell we can even forego new planes completely and make huge upgrades to the starting aircrafts like shield generators, antigravity thrusters, antimatter/plasma generator replacing the engine, stealth cloaking fields,... making them in the mid-game looking nothing like when you first bought them. And whenever you decide to scrap the aircraft frame for a newly researched one with more weapon/engine slots you could transfer all upgrades to the new one with ease. Kinda like the upgrade system for the Techpriests in Mechanicus.techpriest.jpg

 

01010000 01110010 01100001 01101001 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001111 01101101 01101110 01101001 01110011 01110011 01100001 01101000 00100001 00001010 01000111 01101100 01101111 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01000111 01101111 01100100 00100001 00001010

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 5:13 AM, Xeroxth said:

That’s understandable but I still think this can be improved just like decision to change the way we can equip our soldiers compare to the early beta being clunky and annoying. Maybe we could have the modular upgrade in the first two planes with them only needed to be bought from the host country (F-16 for the US and MiG-31 for the USSR) with slight armor and fuel upgrades replacing the foxtrot research with the foxhound being available for purchase from the get go. Hell we can even forego new planes completely and make huge upgrades to the starting aircrafts like shield generators, antigravity thrusters, antimatter/plasma generator replacing the engine, stealth cloaking fields,... making them in the mid-game looking nothing like when you first bought them. And whenever you decide to scrap the aircraft frame for a newly researched one with more weapon/engine slots you could transfer all upgrades to the new one with ease. Kinda like the upgrade system for the Techpriests in Mechanicus.techpriest.jpg

And this has already been implemented really well with X-division and the plenty awesome suggestions by others in the air combat thread where you guys announced the return of X-1 air combat.

I think most of it comes from just the immersion factor which is also why simple cosmetic mods that include more cities names on the geoscape, jungle tile sets, and more soldier nationalities got so popular even most of their changes are just cosmetic only. Like mentioned by @indaris on the ufo design thread (which I kinda admit was a bit too heated in his preference), the immersion is really important and in some cases of game design constitutes a whole genre on its own if the immersive sim is anything to go by.

Also it’s just the cool factor, which as much as the NATO weapons try can never be as cool as the classic AK, dragunov and rpg-7. Also with the amount of already sci-fi looking weapons the Soviets pumped out through out the Cold War like laser tanks, ekranoplans and whatever Object 490 was:rolleyes: you can see why some are pretty fascinated with it.

I might try doing a cosmetic heavy mod to add some Soviet flair to the later weapons and armor when the game is release. That could be cool.

It was kind based on NATO designs tho.

Perhaps I was too heated, but you're right. This style of game appeals heavily to the aesthetics, otherwise, why would I play this instead of XCOM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, indaris said:

This style of game appeals heavily to the aesthetics, otherwise, why would I play this instead of XCOM? 

I play every single game in the genre and couldn't care less about aesthetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bobit said:

I play every single game in the genre and couldn't care less about aesthetics.

Why? The mechanics are fundamentally the same, the only real difference is in aesthetics. If you don't care about how it looks or the visual style of the game, then why play anything other than one of them? In fact, why play the games at all? Just build your perfect XCOM in Excel and play it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because... the mechanics are completely different... XCOM2 is the polar opposite of the original X-COM. Enemies never attack without warning first, whereas in X-COM a huge part is preparing for enemies who could attack at any moment.

"Just build your perfect XCOM in Excel and play it that way. " I actually do try to make my own games, but many people have done a much much better job than me. It takes a lot of work to be creative.

Really, if you only care about aesthetics, I don't know why you wouldn't watch a movie instead. Games ARE the gameplay. The theme is just a sideshow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bobit said:

Because... the mechanics are completely different... XCOM2 is the polar opposite of the original X-COM. Enemies never attack without warning first, whereas in X-COM a huge part is preparing for enemies who could attack at any moment.

"Just build your perfect XCOM in Excel and play it that way. " I actually do try to make my own games, but many people have done a much much better job than me. It takes a lot of work to be creative.

Really, if you only care about aesthetics, I don't know why you wouldn't watch a movie instead. Games ARE the gameplay. The theme is just a sideshow.

But you don't care about creativity. You want an XCOM-clone without aesthetics.

That's why I still play Xenonauts 1 instead of XCOM, because it looks better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You really think mechanics can't be creative? You think Football/Soccer is the same as Basketball but with different aesthetics? Why are video games any different? What does "aesthetics" mean to you?

Xenonauts 1 imo has the worst style of any in the genre. Everything is dull. Still have 300+ hours in it, because it's classic X-COM with fixed cover, skill, and air mechanics.

Well okay, I'll exclude Apocalypse (the running is horrible, the suits every player unit wears is horrible) and the minor 2000s knockoffs like Aftermath.

Edited by Bobit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bobit said:

You really think mechanics can't be creative? You think Football/Soccer is the same as Basketball but with different aesthetics? Why are video games any different? What does "aesthetics" mean to you?

Xenonauts 1 imo has the worst style of any in the genre. Everything is dull. Still have 300+ hours in it, because it's classic X-COM with fixed cover, skill, and air mechanics.

Well okay, I'll exclude Apocalypse (the running is horrible, the suits every player unit wears is horrible) and the minor 2000s knockoffs like Aftermath.

We're not talking about Football and Basketball. We're talking about XCOM which is what Xenonauts is. It's the same game, with a different look and some details changed, just like all the other XCOM-likes. This isn't a strange concept in video games, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

It actually has the best aesthetics and style of any XCOM game because they came at it from an approach of how to make it interesting, realistic/believable, and still fit the mechanics. Original XCOM was guys with mushroom hair and spandex fighting weird Doom monster knockoffs. The gameplay was fun, but god it was ugly and had no idea what it was doing stylistically. XCOM (2012) re-envisioned this, but it's still sort of a silly superhero spandex adventure against comic book aliens.

Xenonauts changed all that and actually made it a bit more gritty, interesting and appealing without sacrificing the actual gameplay at all. It's fine that you don't see that. There are plenty of people out there devoid of taste like you or appreciation for art and you still manage to live full and productive lives. Cold War XCOM was a great idea and they nailed the art, lore and feeling of it. They turned what was basically a comic book into something actually pretty cool that felt like it could be taken seriously as a franchise. With Xenonauts 2 they wanted to do 2020 realistic XCOM, which, now that I've been playing the current version, I am very happy with with the sole exception of the Tetris UFOs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well I'm glad you think I can still contribute to society despite disagreeing with your video game opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a friendly reminder folks. You attack the argument, not the person. Or I lock this thread. Tara for now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah, this got heated fast. I think you guys are on two very extremes of which the best way is just finding a good middle ground. A lot of people loved the mechanics of the first game being very alike the first XCOM with much less “dumbing down” than the reboot. But a lot also love the art style too, of which at first can be a little dull but improved tremendously through some simple modding like Lore+ as it already have the ground works to be great and unique for what it is. I think with the sequel the gameplay must still be the priority which admittedly I kinda doubted when the devs decided to drop the old base building and implemented the beta “air combat”. Now that both have returned I think it wouldn’t be that harmful to polish the artsy side a bit with a Cold War atmosphere too.

The gameplay that everyone loves is still there but now more appealing and unique (since with every turn based tactics game now all have to same reboot x-com look to them of competing for graphical fidelity). What makes games ageless is a good art direction and anyone can see like Heroes 3, Dawn of War and Jagged Alliance or in some cases the first Xenonauts. While trying to make your game more detailed not only drains unnecessary game development time and computing power to run good, but like any 3D game with no art direction will look crap in just a few years. The same problems can be seen in animated films in just this decade!:)

I know most of my worries can be rebuke by just saying that mods will fix it. But with Unity being the fickle beast that it is, it would be better if Goldhawk just polish the aesthetics from the start. I would be happy with just a deeper geoscape (maybe having too sides is still a good sacrifice to this) and better alien base assault but the original artist returning would be even greater.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gameplay in Xenonauts is very different from the gameplay in the original XCOM. It's way more cover and breach-based, and enemies can smell you before you can react. Which is great. Xenonauts doesn't really have a unique art style for its aliens though, it's just bland/"realistic", compared to freaky UFO Defense, comicbook Enemy Unknown, neon XCOM 2. Some of the armors are cool. I'm one  of the guys who doesn't like the blue jumpsuit, but I see the counterargument that it's UN colors, and I don't like the UFO defense spandex jumpsuit or the plastic power armor of XCOM2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plastic armor of the reboot is what put me off from the reboot once I actually finished playing it. Most of the suits just feel too random and weird to be from an actual military organization.

The only late tier armor I liked from the first game was the Buzzard and Sentinel. The rest could really use more details to make them more distinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2020 at 7:58 AM, Bobit said:

 Xenonauts doesn't really have a unique art style for its aliens though, it's just bland/"realistic", compared to freaky UFO Defense, comicbook Enemy Unknown, neon XCOM 2. Some of the armors are cool. I'm one  of the guys who doesn't like the blue jumpsuit, but I see the counterargument that it's UN colors, and I don't like the UFO defense spandex jumpsuit or the plastic power armor of XCOM2.

Despite your assertion that there is no unique art style, you just described it. "Realistic" (Bland is really unfair if you're going to criticize the rest as being comicbook, plastic and neon, don't you think?) I've said this before and perhaps I'm the only one to think this, but the Xenonauts alien style is great. I'd compare it favorably with Halo. Halo designs are generally really good, they feel realistic and not cartoonish or gamey, they tell you what you're looking at in a glance. (What type of enemy am I facing? What does this weapon/ship/vehicle do?) and they're memorable enough that they stick with you. I personally think the Androns were a great addition. Alien terminators? What's not to like! XCOM aliens were... lets face it. Blobs and weird Doom demon nonsense. They were monsters made for a video game without any thought as to why these creatures would actually exist. Xenonauts tried really hard to explain WHY the aliens were what they were and the UFOs were what they were and why they didn't just wipe out the planet from the start. It was refreshing and actually pretty neat to see done in a sort of retro cold war style. In fact, the idea of the Cold War ending early because they need to deal with the UFO threat is a great concept. (Moving things to modern day is fine too, don't get me wrong.) That was a really cool idea though.

I am a little sad to see Cesareans going back to Sectoid designs. Little grey men are a hilarious idea, but it makes no sense biologically speaking. The taller skinny greys that X1 had were a good idea and frankly I think the X2 team really listened to the XCOM fanatics too much in terms of designs and mechanics. (Sacrificing art and level design for the ability to blow up any square of a UFO is a losing proposition any way you slice it.) If they want to play XCOM, those games are there. Xenonauts was trying a more realistic take on that concept and a better one in my opinion. I recently was told that that air combat and base building has been changed back to X1 which I am very happy to hear about and I appreciate the team taking in feedback as I think those are superior approaches to both mechanics.

I guess I just feel like Xenonauts 1 was almost the perfect game it needed to be and in making a sequel instead of expanding that perfection into an even more nuanced and perfect game, they were goaded into making yet another XCOM game which has already been remade many times and doesn't need it. I won't mince words here. I would rather play Xenonauts 1 than any other XCOM or XCOM inspired game. I backed Project Phoenix and I don't care for it, frankly. I've got hundreds and hundreds of hours in the XCOM remakes and who knows how many thousands in the original XCOM. I prefer Xenonauts 1, mechanically, visually, aesthetically, from a lore perspective. It's just a better game all around.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I’m never a fan of Soviet weapons and I'm more interested into European stuffs, as i'm happy to play with G3s and L1A1s by mods in X1, and impressed by the introduction of ferrets in the original game, so i agree that adding some national variation into the earth-tech arsenal would be good, just let them share the upgrades but vary on stats (F-16 has faster speed, Mig29 carries more missiles, Mirage cheeper and Tornado stronger health.etc) and let players to decide their choice just like the weapon mods in X1. 

However, it feeks weird seeing such questions popping up in this thread especially when the main theme is "WHY NO MOTHER RUSSIA YOU WESTERN PIGS". While speaking of Soviet introduction in different games peoples seems always take these questions in a extreme political way instead of the game design approach, just like this occation, deleting Foxtrot is an approach on game design but people take it as some political bias for no reasons.

I'm gusessing introducing some more futuristic but real rifles such as HK G11 or Styer AUG (G11 was under development in 1979 and AUG had already taken into service in 1978) as standard weapons would be another way to elude such debate on wheter the games are US culture-obessed. AUGs and G11s are proven to be good rifles and Austria can be considered neutral during cold war. Putting such advanced weapons (at that era) can also raise a feeling that you've received the best weapons that earth can provide to help.

 

Edit: Corret me for above if i'm wrong, because I was sticked with my impression on X1 that the game set in Cold War 1979, but the latest beta seems to set the timeline into current date of 2020. Is this a final setting for X2, or just a temporary feature?

Edited by EurekaSeven
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2020 at 7:59 PM, EurekaSeven said:

so i agree that adding some national variation into the earth-tech arsenal would be good, just let them share the upgrades but vary on stats (F-16 has faster speed, Mig29 carries more missiles, Mirage cheeper and Tornado stronger health.etc) and let players to decide their choice just like the weapon mods in X1. 

Woah, X1 had weapon mods? I never knew that. :eek: But I agree, adding more earth tech at first for some extra flavoring should always be commended. Further than that, what I was proposing is to not make it completely separated from the later part of the game like in X1. Where at first you can have so both Soviet and NATO weapons but by mid-game everything is just a linear tech advancement. The variety of faction tech should be further incorporated into the research tree to increase both the asymmetrical weapon and replayability of the game. The ability to research certain upgrades should be based on your favor with certain benefactor, some being locked behind a threshold of friendly relations. You can make a balancing act of helping both to get the general weapons with nifty add-ons. Or  even better, go full factional to get the highest level tech of a single benefactor. For instance, if you help the NATO side, you can get an exclusive stealth nano-armor that can teleport to avoid enemies. On the other hand if you help the Warsaw Pact you can get a heavy dual weapon wielding heavy armor in the same mold as the cut Collosus armor of the first game, pretty much a walking mech. In a similar vein, the weapon progression could be modified to have different branches like a Soviet tesla arc/rad weapons, NATO EMP/Grey goo weapons, and neutral mag/singularity weapons. The same can be done for planes especially if each progressing planes from the MiG-29 and F-16 onward have different stats and configuration slots like FTL (the last tier being either based on the Soviet, NATO or neutral design).

On 4/18/2020 at 7:59 PM, EurekaSeven said:

While speaking of Soviet introduction in different games peoples seems always take these questions in a extreme political way instead of the game design approach, just like this occation, deleting Foxtrot is an approach on game design but people take it as some political bias for no reasons.

I don’t see it as politically driven at all. Sometimes it’s just the cool factor and gameplay choice really. Especially based on this thread I just see posters not really caring about politics but the Cold War aesthetics. Like you, I also have a fascination for weird looking but futuristic military gears but with a slight preference for stuff from the Soviet bloc. I mean who could deny the simple awesomeness of some of the prototypes like Object 279, MiG-105 or the 1K17 Szhatie (a freaking tank with freaking laser beams on its turret!!!:D)? But I agree, having just good looking weapons of neutral countries could be a good and easy way of solving this. Although my proposal could be really hard to implement seeing the virus situation in the UK now and it being a little too extensive for a small team like Goldhawk. I could help immensely with making the game not too repetitive in each playthrough  as your choice in allies can both change the story ending and gameplay. Not to mention creating a unique feature that further differentiate the game from the current line of UFO-like games with the same generic sci-fi look (Phoenix Point despite trying to play up the factions still failed at doing anything other than adding unnecessary resources and not fleshing out any of them).

On 4/18/2020 at 7:59 PM, EurekaSeven said:

Corret me for above if i'm wrong, because I was sticked with my impression on X1 that the game set in Cold War 1979, but the latest beta seems to set the timeline into current date of 2020. Is this a final setting for X2, or just a temporary feature?

Yeah, the devs did announced that they’re currently scrapping the Cold War setting. But seeing how receptive they’re in the forums and the later updates like returning the old base and air combat, to even rehiring the first game’s artist back into the project, I think this is also subject to change in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2020 at 5:59 AM, EurekaSeven said:

I’m never a fan of Soviet weapons and I'm more interested into European stuffs, as i'm happy to play with G3s and L1A1s by mods in X1, and impressed by the introduction of ferrets in the original game, so i agree that adding some national variation into the earth-tech arsenal would be good, just let them share the upgrades but vary on stats (F-16 has faster speed, Mig29 carries more missiles, Mirage cheeper and Tornado stronger health.etc) and let players to decide their choice just like the weapon mods in X1.

 

Edit: Corret me for above if i'm wrong, because I was sticked with my impression on X1 that the game set in Cold War 1979, but the latest beta seems to set the timeline into current date of 2020. Is this a final setting for X2, or just a temporary feature?

You're correct. The Cold War element is gone from the game and now it takes place in modern times. This works fine for me personally and I don't think it hurts the game, although it was kind of interesting to see a alternate history game like this. I liked seeing the soviet stuff as it played well into the idea of both the 1st and 2nd Worlds having to put aside their differences and fight against the invaders. It doesn't hurt that the two biggest military powers in 1979 have all the cool stuff, so it's nice to see available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xeroxth said:

Yeah, the devs did announced that they’re currently scrapping the Cold War setting. But seeing how receptive they’re in the forums and the later updates like returning the old base and air combat, to even rehiring the first game’s artist back into the project, I think this is also subject to change in the future.

 

1 hour ago, indaris said:

You're correct. The Cold War element is gone from the game and now it takes place in modern times. This works fine for me personally and I don't think it hurts the game, although it was kind of interesting to see a alternate history game like this. I liked seeing the soviet stuff as it played well into the idea of both the 1st and 2nd Worlds having to put aside their differences and fight against the invaders. It doesn't hurt that the two biggest military powers in 1979 have all the cool stuff, so it's nice to see available.

Then it's my bad. I only checked the front website of X2 and it was still the older version description saying the game would " make better use of the Cold War / clandestine organisation setting" and sticked with the idea and did not check further.

Not that i'm hurt with the idea too and I'm totally happy with a mordern day setting and this is not complaining or asking the devs to put their attention on some non important resources, but yes, the repetitive elements of the first game is something that making me feels strange about a "current day" setting for now. Although in X1 they already told us that bulletproff vests or camos are useless against the aliens, it still feels out of place that a 2020-era elite clandestine force still playing with vanilla M16s and F-16s, with no plate carriers, no ACOGs/Red dots, UAVs, neither shiny NVGs as standard equipments or Gen 5 Fighter Jets, just like a real current day Tier 1 SOF or Air Force would have. I should mention again that I'm not compalining about this new approach or asking the devs to change it, just i'm having the feeling that the current build is still more of a Cold-War aesthetics rather than a current day one.

It is even more strange to me that while the earlier build introduce a new dropship that looks like a V-280 Valor (something that I really like), the latest beta video I checked seems to pull the Chinook back, I can't see the reason for this as the devs clearly having a complete model of the new dropship and have to do a new model in order to bring the Charlies back.

 

3 hours ago, Xeroxth said:

Woah, X1 had weapon mods? I never knew that. :eek: 

You can search them in workshops, there are Soviet weapons one and a German one which brings shiny new G3s and MP5s, sorry that it actually don't have a FAL mod that i've mention before, maybe i mixed the fact with my earlier imagnination of having a Commonwealth weapons mod :(

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2020 at 10:53 AM, indaris said:

I am a little sad to see Cesareans going back to Sectoid designs. Little grey men are a hilarious idea, but it makes no sense biologically speaking.
 

Why?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×