Thoughts & Lessons from X-COM: Enemy Unknown (by Firaxis)

[Tacobandit]

1. you cant be serious about the HP part, any game you play having more health is always better than having less health, just like more armor is better than less armor.To say thats not true cant even be taken seriously.

2. in old game if you really want that terror missions after having the decoder simply DON't shoot down the ship that shows as terrror and let it land...problem solved.Remind me again what the similiar option is on the new one after you have all satellites up? oh yeah..there is none. Once again.... +1 for the older x-com 0 for the newer version.

btw.. 4 times impossible mode? wow man! i thought i was patient, even i was falling asleep near the end of my first impossible mode.I honestly took a 2 week break from the game since it got so boring, thinking i could do that purple ship and continue the rest of the story only to find out i delayed 2 weeks just for a game ending battle(which btw was dissapointingly weak- even stormed both the giant robot things with 1 psy storm.) .With only a few maps that simply get rotated on position, i dont know how many but i swear it felt like it was only 5 different maps I lost interest pretty fast.

Uh no. You see, the biggest difference between the OG and EU is that you don't have Superior numbers. 14 rookies with heavy plasmas who can shoot up to 9 times each, with each shot potentially being an insta-kill, is much deadlier than 6 sniper colonels with like 25 HP and (Let's give them double tap) 2 shots each. Sure, your soldiers have more HP. But there are a crapload more aliens who can easily whittle that down to 0. Let's face it, 6 super soldiers vs 23 aliens is going to be a much harder game than 14 soldiers vs 13-15 aliens on a terror mission. Once you get the Avenger, it's laughable.

Inversely, you almost always outnumber the aliens in every engagement in the OG. The only benefit that the aliens have is being on the defensive and superior weapons. You can take away their weapon advantage within the first month. Once you have personal armor and a heavy plasma for each soldier, congratulations! Your soldiers are now superior to almost every humanoid alien in the game! Here's what I'm going to tell you. 14 soldiers with the deadliest, 2nd most accurate, sprayable weapon in the game are VASTLY superior to 6 soldiers with weapons that can only shoot once (maybe twice). If we were to pit the two games' soldiers against each other, the OG ones would win through sheer firepower. End of story. Oh and I forgot blaster launchers. Once you get those, you don't even need to go more than 4 steps outside the skyranger to win. Did I mention that rookies can handle blaster launchers and heavy plasmas at the same time?

TL;DR Numbers > HP

But psionics you say? Moot. Once you get the psi-labs, it's only a matter of time before you can MC all the aliens outside and win the mission that way.

2.) You do realize that you can do the same thing in EU right?

3.) Yeah the maps get recycled after a while. But the OG had much less. Sure they were "randomly generated". By random being the barnhouse was on the left corner instead of the right, and maybe your skyranger landed inside a pyramid, trapping your soldiers.

[HWP]

You're right. You didn't run around with 250 hit points. You ran around with 60 max. With armor, you could survive anything from 129-169 damage. Any more (which was highly likely) and your guy was dead. What's your point? Are you trying to say that more HP makes the game easier? Hint: it doesn't.

...That's a new one.

Uh no. You see, the biggest difference between the OG and EU is that you don't have Superior numbers.

Incorrect.

You do have superior numbers in EU.

You may have to fight through 18 aliens in total - but, due to the spawns system, it's not 18 enemies, it's 6 encounters with 3 enemies each.

6 against 3 is very much superior numbers.

Even if you slip and double-activate, it's 6 on 6.

Yeah maybe on SW it may be possible, but I/I w/o SW is totally possible on every game. SW is stuff that the devs thought were way too cruel to put in impossible.

I've played 4 Impossible games and beat them all. Not on ironman, but technically if I were able to beat it at all, then there IS a way, and it's not impossible to win.

"Not on ironman" doesn't count. It's like beating Roulette with save/loads. Hell, I could beat Casino War if I had S/L.

Without SW, it has been reported with the vanilla game: you take every mission, win every mission, but a stroke of bad luck in the abduction country selections still makes a loss. It just takes for two of the same countries to appear on two subsequent abductions to lose one.

What does this indicate? This indicate poor difficulty implementation. Not that the game is too difficult, but that difficulty comes from wrong sources.

For a good example, take computer Backgammon games.

Some have highly developed AI that can compete with human players. The difficulty setting then makes the AI make mistakes or think fewer turns ahead at low difficulty settings.

Others don't. So they have a very basic AI or just move at random and manage difficulty by generating better dice rolls for the computer and worse rolls for the player.

Guess what? There won't be any terror missions or any completed alien missions at all once you have global Hyper Wave Decoder coverage up in the OG. They should call that Hyper Wave Decoder Tycoon.

Way to have the point fly over your head.

Radars and hyperwave decoders in UD do exactly what you would expect them to do: detect enemies.

In EU12, satellites determine your funding. This is what makes the game feel like one about managing a satellite company. It doesn't matter for your funding how well you did on the tactical layer, all that matters is how many satellites do you have.

Oh wait, what's that? You have to kill lots of aliens and progress into the game before you can do that? You mean like how you have to kill lots of aliens and progress into the game before you can have complete satellite coverage? It's almost like they're the same thing.

Actually you don't have to kill any aliens at all. If you're playing without SW, satellites only cost $100 a pop. That is $1,500 for global coverage. Just pick South Africa, "classic" or lower difficulty, place satellites in order of decreased funding, and voila. Ignore every mission and still get global coverage in the very first months.

Oh, well, there's that first mission. Yeah, you have to kill those. The rest, Peace Brothers!

[nokim]

Taco you cant really compare side by side the squad size and numbers from old to new because the settings are completely different.

maps in new one are all smaller, old version had very large maps, even IF you use a blaster launcher in the dark with a guess on alien locations the old one there is abig chance that you may only kill 1-2 aliens with the enormous blast due to the maps size, if you had such a weapon in new one as you choose to compare that would cover 2/3rd of a map and probably half the aliens.

last i remember even if you get heavy plasma fast on old game, you still only had like about 25% hits rate on snap shot mode, maybe 50-60% if your lucky on aimed shot. took many missions to get a soldier to get that improved to 80% on aimed. New version by 2nd month you can have 80% hit on non snipers with scope + light plasma. so each one is more or less correct for their environment, but i would still prefer soldiers that continue to grow after 4 game months. Old version yeah i could eventually get a sniper to reach 80%+acc on aimed shot but that would take TONS of battles and many many game months to achieve(assuming it survives that long).

so yes if you pit old vs new old would win on fire power, however that would be silly because they come from diff battle ground setting. super large epic feeling maps vs 6 man tiny maps. I dont know about urs but my soldiers on new version where crazy powerful on aim pretty damn fast, 3 light plasmas = 2 assaults and 1 support at 90% aim ability with scope, and 3 snipers at 105+ability and that wasnt hard to achieve and didnt take long either.

The old version due to larger maps forced you to explore the map so your 14 men would be quite spread out. New version maps are so small i dont really have to move much to find all the aliens, which is why snipers are so over powered on new version, potential of killing 3-6 aliens per turn. considering each wave is only 3 aliens or 6 if you get 2 waves, thats game over pretty fast.

honestly the problem with this recent "x-com" was the name, it should never have taken the "x-com" name because it causes any player to compare the two side by side and they just are not on the same level of gameplay or mechanics. This "x-com eu" should have been named alien defense or i dont know...something else. Then all players would treat it as what it really is...a game on its own based on the ideas of another. But they claimed to be a successor and took the name, that is what has caused all the arguments among fans of the original X-com.

btw i have heard of a rumor that to get the blaster launcher on the new version of x-com, the key is attacking a battleship early on, so im going to try impossible mode without ironman again later for the sole purpose of getting it and seeing just how powerful it is on the new version.

[Tacobandit]

Taco you cant really compare side by side the squad size and numbers from old to new because the settings are completely different.

maps in new one are all smaller, old version had very large maps, even IF you use a blaster launcher in the dark with a guess on alien locations the old one there is abig chance that you may only kill 1-2 aliens with the enormous blast due to the maps size, if you had such a weapon in new one as you choose to compare that would cover 2/3rd of a map and probably half the aliens.

last i remember even if you get heavy plasma fast on old game, you still only had like about 25% hits rate on snap shot mode, maybe 50-60% if your lucky on aimed shot. took many missions to get a soldier to get that improved to 80% on aimed. New version by 2nd month you can have 80% hit on non snipers with scope + light plasma. so each one is more or less correct for their environment, but i would still prefer soldiers that continue to grow after 4 game months. Old version yeah i could eventually get a sniper to reach 80%+acc on aimed shot but that would take TONS of battles and many many game months to achieve(assuming it survives that long).

so yes if you pit old vs new old would win on fire power, however that would be silly because they come from diff battle ground setting. super large epic feeling maps vs 6 man tiny maps. I dont know about urs but my soldiers on new version where crazy powerful on aim pretty damn fast, 3 light plasmas = 2 assaults and 1 support at 90% aim ability with scope, and 3 snipers at 105+ability and that wasnt hard to achieve and didnt take long either.

The old version due to larger maps forced you to explore the map so your 14 men would be quite spread out. New version maps are so small i dont really have to move much to find all the aliens, which is why snipers are so over powered on new version, potential of killing 3-6 aliens per turn. considering each wave is only 3 aliens or 6 if you get 2 waves, thats game over pretty fast.

honestly the problem with this recent "x-com" was the name, it should never have taken the "x-com" name because it causes any player to compare the two side by side and they just are not on the same level of gameplay or mechanics. This "x-com eu" should have been named alien defense or i dont know...something else. Then all players would treat it as what it really is...a game on its own based on the ideas of another. But they claimed to be a successor and took the name, that is what has caused all the arguments among fans of the original X-com.

btw i have heard of a rumor that to get the blaster launcher on the new version of x-com, the key is attacking a battleship early on, so im going to try impossible mode without ironman again later for the sole purpose of getting it and seeing just how powerful it is on the new version.

@HWP

Wait, you mean like how you only fought like 1 or 2 aliens at once in the OG? I mean, I don't ever recall fighting 18 aliens as soon as I stepped out of the skyranger either. Then again, the alien AI was stupider. But whatever.

I'll just let you keep on hating the game.

@nokim

You could fire the Blaster launcher 14 times a mission (assuming you have a heavy plasma in one hand and a blaster launcher in the other, and that your kit is for each soldier: 1 HP loaded, 1 Medikit, 1 BL loaded, and maybe 10 stun rods). Usually I just fired them like disposable nuke launchers; fire n drop. 14 Blaster launcher shots can level an entire map. You don't even need experienced soldiers for that. Once you get the avenger, double that. The aliens will never stand a chance.

The funny thing about the Heavy Plasma. It's extremely accurate. Aiming let's you use 110% of your aiming stat, and I believe that Autoshot used 50% of your aiming stat. I think rookie aiming stats varied from 40 to 70, so basically you're going to have good shots regardless of your aiming stat. I think the plasma rifle had slightly better aimed accuracy, but that's about it. This weapon alone is the most OP weapon in the game. It's an LMG/Sniper Rifle all packed into a lightweight rifle package that ANY of your soldiers can use effectively. It would be the equivalent of giving the sniper in EU the heavy plasma, and letting him shoot it 9 times a turn. Please don't say snipers are OP in EU. Every unit you had in the OG could be considered a sniper since they could shoot anywhere regardless of LOS with the highest damage projectile weapon in the game. And aim is a very subjective topic between the two games. Whereas a 34% chance to hit in EU is actually a 34% chance to hit, in the OG, distance was basically the big factor. Imagine that there was a firing cone in front of your soldier, and the lower the chance to hit, the bigger the cone was, with 0% chance being a whole semicircle in front of your soldier, to 100% being a tiny wedge a few degrees wide. If you ran up to an alien with a 0% chance to hit, you could still hit him. Likewise, running up to an alien and shooting him 6 times with a laser pistol that had an 11% chance to hit would most likely hit all 6 times.

I guess we have different playstyles. I didn't focus on leveling up my soldiers until I had power suits. I just bought rookies and if the rookies ranked up, I replaced them with more rookies. I didn't sack soldiers.

So what should they have called it? It's their IP. Why wouldn't they call it X-COM when 75% of the things in it are from X-COM?

And the Blaster Launcher is basically a rocket launcher with more damage. Don't try to shoot down a battleship with an interceptor. You will fail.

[HWP]

Wait, you mean like how you only fought like 1 or 2 aliens at once in the OG? I mean, I don't ever recall fighting 18 aliens as soon as I stepped out of the skyranger either. Then again, the alien AI was stupider. But whatever.

At least there was an alien AI in UD, and there actually were those 10+ aliens on the map, acting on their own.

There is no AI in the new game. Aliens randomly perform one of the preset actions. They can move from a preset spawn point to another preset "alien move to" points on the map. They can shoot, obviously. Mutons will always toss a grenade if there are multiple soldiers in blast radius and never otherwise. Enemies will use their special ability if a random number from 0 to N is below another preset natural number.

That is all. There is nothing else. AI - "Artificial Intelligence" - implies intelligence.

Relevant definitions of intelligence include:

1. "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations";

2. "the skilled use of reason";

3. "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment".

Only a handful of computer games meet the definition 1. Classic X-Com games do occasionally meet definitions 2 and 3. The latest EU game doesn't do any of that. The enemy doesn't use reason, it uses a random number to select one of its predefined actions.

I'll just let you keep on hating the game.

There are degrees of wrong. Misunderstanding, misconception, mistake, error, being wrong, incompetence, gross incompetence.

You just added another one to the list - but I'm not sure if there's a name for it yet.

I've played the game. I've completed it with options that make it as hard as it can be made. I've disassembled parts of the game's bytecode. I've made and released mods for it. I'm working with other modders on further ones.

None of this will ever change the fact that EU12 is but a bleak shadow of the original. It is to X-Com:UD what a plastic pedal car is to Lotus Seven.

So what should they have called it?

Satellite Tycoon, like said above.

[DaCruise]

I have completed the new EU on impossible ironman after ~400 tries with a few of the options in SW enabled such as random funding and soldier stats. For me it was a terrible grind without some randomness involved and I am not sure I would have kept on trying to beat the game without it.

I must say I dont really understand the purpose of all your arguments. Why is it always OG vs NG?

For me its entirely possible to enjoy both games though they are very different and obviously not flawless. Here is the thing: Complicated TBS games will NEVER be flawless.

You have air battles, ground battles, rpg elements, item generation/balancing, simcity basemanagement and whatnot to worry about when you create a TBS like XCOM. Its basically many different game modes tied into a single game experience and thats also one of the reasons the NG is so different from the OG.

Xenonauts will also be very different in its own way and guess what: It will also have flaws but it may still turnout as a great game.

[nokim]

Xenonauts will also be very different in its own way and guess what: It will also have flaws but it may still turnout as a great game.

and there is nothing wrong with xenonauts being different from x-com, because its clearly not trying to be "x-com" but a similar game based on it, where as the NG was labeled and advertized as the OG reborn, this is what caused the troubles and the comparisons and extremely high expectations.You tell me tomorrow a new supra is coming out(supra was discontinued in the 90s) id have the exact same feeling, and if it came out with a 4 cylinder engine i would be equally happy yet dissapointed.

Also part of the problem is that the original x-com was so complex and advanced for "its" time, that it had a very very high replay value with an enjoyment from it to match.I can only assume its the same for others, but i can tell you for myself i keep hoping a game will come that will match it and be equally advanced for "this" time, but i keep getting dissapointed by all the hopefuls.

And to be honest, i dont care if that game that finally achieves the magic has nothing to do with aliens, or x-com or the name, i just want that game that i will enjoy playing for a few years.I got my first x-com in like 96 or 97 for my ps1 (mouse included) and in 2013 i will still play it now and then and enjoy it, i want another game like that.

theres are:

crap games

good games

great games

epic games..... to me x-com was epic, god of war(all series) was a great game, new x-com falls between good and great.

I just want another epic game.

[Tacobandit]

I have completed the new EU on impossible ironman after ~400 tries with a few of the options in SW enabled such as random funding and soldier stats. For me it was a terrible grind without some randomness involved and I am not sure I would have kept on trying to beat the game without it.

I must say I dont really understand the purpose of all your arguments. Why is it always OG vs NG?

For me its entirely possible to enjoy both games though they are very different and obviously not flawless. Here is the thing: Complicated TBS games will NEVER be flawless.

You have air battles, ground battles, rpg elements, item generation/balancing, simcity basemanagement and whatnot to worry about when you create a TBS like XCOM. Its basically many different game modes tied into a single game experience and thats also one of the reasons the NG is so different from the OG.

Xenonauts will also be very different in its own way and guess what: It will also have flaws but it may still turnout as a great game.

I like both. I don't mind people who hate either. I mind it when people try to use opinion as fact. Take HWPs last post. He mentions 3 things that are "supposedly" in the OG, but aren't. The aliens don't know what cover is. When they see that they've walked out into the open and there are 10 xcom soldiers aiming at it, they don't retreat. The aliens don't know how to follow things or cues. Most of the time they just wander and if you happen to walk into their LOS they'll shoot you.

And then he starts making up stuff about Mutons. "Mutons will always toss a grenade if there are multiple soldiers in blast radius and never otherwise.". The first half is true, the other is false. If a muton has a shitty chance to hit (say you're hunkered down inside a smoke grenade in full cover) and you're behind destructible cover, he'll usually nade you and leave you exposed to his other Muton buddies. Sometimes they'll work with floaters, surpressing your men while the floaters get into flanking positions.

And then he says that the AI uses a random number to determine its action. Well no shit. If you didn't know, the player does too.

Ex. Your sniper has a 35% chance to hit. Assuming you had squadsight, you'd shoot anyways because you are in no danger. Let's say you're in firing distance though and you have a 65% chance to hit. This is probably a bad shot, so you hunker down.

The AI is controlling 3 mutons who have taken cover behind an SUV. They see that they have poor shots on your troops during the turn. Knowing that, they retreat and setup an overwatch ambush.

Take the exact same situation and let's say that they all have good shots. They decide to shoot your men.

The whole point of the game revolves around the RNG, because your actions have a bigger impact. The RNG in the OG was totally different; it determined firing angle, not whether or not it would hit.

But oh well. He hath been blinded by nostalgia. It's too late to save him.

[HWP]

Take HWPs last post.

So... For 96% of your post, you're replying to me, but trying to make it look like you are not. Have your guardians ever instructed you not to talk to a person while looking at another one?

The aliens don't know what cover is. When they see that they've walked out into the open and there are 10 xcom soldiers aiming at it, they don't retreat. The aliens don't know how to follow things or cues. Most of the time they just wander and if you happen to walk into their LOS they'll shoot you.

This is not true. This, in fact, could be considered evidence that you haven't really played the original game as much as you seem to imply.

Here is how UD AI works: http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Tactical_AI

When the alien turn is in progress the game's AI assigns to each alien one mode that will determine its actions during the turn. The four modes are:

Patrol - the alien will travel between the battlefield using the links between nodes to locate human units.

Sniper - the alien will not move and will make a 360º turn to look for possible hostiles.

In both modes, if the alien detects an enemy unit (X-COM or civilian) the AI will assess the situation, based on the alien's aggressiveness stat and will trigger its intelligence stat (it will remember the position of the unit for X turns, X being its intelligence value). The AI will then switch the alien's mode to one of the following.

Combat - the alien will attack the human unit and/or try to find cover.

Escape - the alien will flee the human unit, usually when it is unarmed or it is a higher rank (Leader, Commander, etc.) alien.

The AI will then order each unit to perform actions:

Evaluating Mode

GoUfo

Guard

Finding Route

Moving

Firing

Attack Attempt

Select Target

Find Cover

Partial Cover

Final Facing

Set Patrol Point

Find Fire Point

If a muton has a shitty chance to hit (say you're hunkered down inside a smoke grenade in full cover) and you're behind destructible cover, he'll usually nade you and leave you exposed to his other Muton buddies.

Actually they'll toss a grenade if a random number tells them to use grenade now.

Cover being destructible or not does not tie into the calculations. Enemies don't even know whether your units are in cover or not. They only know their chance to hit.

On Impossible their chance to hit is almost always high enough, but yeah, there is that trigger too.

There is no intentional flanking. Rather, positions on the maps are preset such that some of them can flank you.

And then he says that the AI uses a random number to determine its action. Well no shit. If you didn't know, the player does too.

Ex. Your sniper has a 35% chance to hit.

That is not the random number I'm talking about.

When it comes to an alien's turn, the game either takes a preset action if a non-random trigger (like 2 soldiers in radius) is met, or a random action otherwise. When they move, the new point is picked at random. Looking at the code or doing a little experimental save-scumming (across a turn's boundary to reset pre-rolled values!) will show it.

Edited February 10, 2013 by HWP
tag fix

[nokim]

I like both. I don't mind people who hate either. I mind it when people try to use opinion as fact. Take HWPs last post. He mentions 3 things that are "supposedly" in the OG, but aren't. The aliens don't know what cover is. When they see that they've walked out into the open and there are 10 xcom soldiers aiming at it, they don't retreat. The aliens don't know how to follow things or cues.

I have no idea how the mechanics really work, but the OGs AI is a lot more advanced than you give it credit for. The aliens in the OG DO KNOW how to cover, granted it seems they don't do it often but its there, how do i know?

there where times when i would do a mission full of rookies on a supply ship just to increase their reactions time, how do to this? i would place 1 hover tank at the far end with sigh of the door, and line up all my soldiers on the other far end slightly distanced from nearest door, this way they would have full sight of both doors and i would simply wait turn after turn, as aliens came out during their turn and hopefully enough fired(reacted) with good enough aim to kill them. Well i can tell you as a fact that IF the alien did not die, they would not just stay there, most of the time they would go back inside the space ship, sometimes right after they fired at my men or in some bad cases threw a granade. Why would they go back inside to hide if the AI was as bad as you claim? don't believe me? try it yourself.

Its true that for the most part they did not run to hide like in the NG, but apparently the coding to run and hide was there, so if you think about that, the OG was surprisingly advanced for its time. Even in open battles i would sometimes experience an alien that would shoot at me then run back behind a buildings wall(seems like greys did this the most).

[Tacobandit]

I have no idea how the mechanics really work, but the OGs AI is a lot more advanced than you give it credit for. The aliens in the OG DO KNOW how to cover, granted it seems they don't do it often but its there, how do i know?

there where times when i would do a mission full of rookies on a supply ship just to increase their reactions time, how do to this? i would place 1 hover tank at the far end with sigh of the door, and line up all my soldiers on the other far end slightly distanced from nearest door, this way they would have full sight of both doors and i would simply wait turn after turn, as aliens came out during their turn and hopefully enough fired(reacted) with good enough aim to kill them. Well i can tell you as a fact that IF the alien did not die, they would not just stay there, most of the time they would go back inside the space ship, sometimes right after they fired at my men or in some bad cases threw a granade. Why would they go back inside to hide if the AI was as bad as you claim? don't believe me? try it yourself.

Its true that for the most part they did not run to hide like in the NG, but apparently the coding to run and hide was there, so if you think about that, the OG was surprisingly advanced for its time. Even in open battles i would sometimes experience an alien that would shoot at me then run back behind a buildings wall(seems like greys did this the most).

I didn't say the AI was nonexistent. I said it wasn't good. After turn 20, the AI knows exactly where all of your soldiers are at, so that's one of the reasons that they pop out of the UFO, shoot at you, and then pop back in. I don't know the AI's code or what it's programmed to do, but from experience, it's not very smart. Or maybe the game is just severely imbalanced.

Basically it's me just being an idiot and breezing through missions on veteran. Scroll around to around 18 and there's this really hilly map. For some reason the sectoids don't want to shoot me. Whenever I spot a sectoid, I just shoot at it with every available man until it goes down. When the turn ends, his buddies don't even have the decency to fire back.

Now there are some things that I do know that the aliens like to do (move forward, fire, then back out of LOS/ the occasional poorly thrown grenade (rarely accurate)/camp UFO doorways/ Pop in Pop out of doors). But they don't ever work together. They're all alien versions of rambo. I've lost more missions due to blowing myself up with proximity mines and retarded rookies missing an HE throw by 7 tiles than to the aliens. I never think "should I take this shot?" or "what will the aliens do after I do this?" because the aliens are retarded. Except for chyrssalids. Those guys are cold tacticians. I remember I was in a terror ship, sweeping it after destroying all the snakemen. Turn 21; they burst from those top 2 Terror unit containers and zombify 6 men on the spot. Long story short, I am victorious with 1 commander and 2 rookies.

Everyone else though, I just shoot them with all my men, and hope the aliens aim at the rookies. The game doesn't really necessitate a lot of thought to your actions.

[nokim]

Iv had then pop out shoot and hide way before round 20. But you are right its not the smartest but you gotta admit impressive for its time. After all the entire game can probably fit inside an old floppy disk.

btw how did you manage to record the game? iv tried with fraps but it doesn't seem to work , im guessing something to do with the dos box mode.

[Tacobandit]

Iv had then pop out shoot and hide way before round 20. But you are right its not the smartest but you gotta admit impressive for its time. After all the entire game can probably fit inside an old floppy disk.

btw how did you manage to record the game? iv tried with fraps but it doesn't seem to work , im guessing something to do with the dos box mode.

I used the Dos Box recording software. Alt+f6 activate recording I believe.

Yeah the AI does the job. It's not the best. I still think EU's AI is better.

[the_spyder]

I really enjoyed your assessment. And I find myself agreeing on almost every point as well. The new Xcom is a really good game, but in my mind it falls short of being a great game primarily because of most of the points you mentioned.

what I also found fascinating was your assessment that Xenonauts will appeal to a narrower audience because of the more strategic nature of the game choices. In some ways that makes me feel a lot better about this game because it means (to me) that you aren't going to sell out simply to make more money. it also means that I can expect the strategic turn based combat from the classic Xcom that I grew to love.

Thanks very much for your thoughts on the new game. I am now really excited about Xenonauts.

[Betuor]

Did anyone hear about the theroy that the meterite in Russia was the start of the X-Com game?

[Gorlom]

I thought it was the meteorite foretold by the Mayan calender. (someone must have miscalculated a bit or the meteorite was late)

Oh woe the world is ending!

[AmunRaa]

i completely agree with your review of the game. Sad part it could have been sooo much more. Its the same thing that happened with the remake of Jagged alliance BIA it was good engine but it was missing soo much.

[Russonc]

But you are right its not the smartest but you gotta admit impressive for its time. After all the entire game can probably fit inside an old floppy disk.

It was on several 3.5" floppies but I imagine the entire game used less space than most "intro" screens of modern games.

I really do enjoy both new and old.... I played the old version when it first came out after playing the very poor demo version from some old magazine...I also played the new one the week it came out (I have a job and couldn't stay up for a mid-night play session). Are they the same game, no.....Did I enjoy them both, yes. Will I like Xenonauts as well as both/either....I already do! (ok, it's not a great game yet, but I still have gotten my money's worth - thanks Chris) - When the original came out, it was one of a few games that really gave you "bang for your buck". Most games were still very arcade-y at that point and gave you a few hours of short play times.... X-com gave you hours and hours for your money (Civ 1 was the one game that started that trend for me). When I figure out the $ per hour for the original, it is pennies. The new one is still dollars per hour for me, but I have gotten 40+ hours of fun out of it and that is cheaper than a movie.... Ok, sorry rambling now.... Have a good night!

[RavenX]

The aliens in the OG DO KNOW how to cover, granted it seems they don't do it often but its there

Indeed, quite right. This is even more apparent in TFTD. When surrounding the entrance to a UFO aliens will often pop out the door, take a shot or two, then go back inside knowing the door would close and the next turn you wouldn't have a clean LoS on them to take a shot. It really annoyed me how they vaunted the "cover system" in the NG to be new to X-Com when the OG did it as well.

The only difference was in the OG the devs had the common sense not to advertise that getting out of the way of incoming fire was a new and special game mechanic because in a logical combat situation it was just common sense. I can see it now...

"Someone's shooting at me, gee, I think I'll get behind this wall. Hey I have a brilliant idea, I'll call this Cover and say I was the first to invent the tactic!!! I'll go down in military history!!!!"

No stupid, it's called getting the hell out of the way. Self preservation. It's not a new mechanic you invented and can take credit for just because the person who did it years before you didn't think people were dumb enough to have to put a name on a common sense action...

[HWP]

It really annoyed me how they vaunted the "cover system" in the NG to be new to X-Com when the OG did it as well.

...

"Someone's shooting at me, gee, I think I'll get behind this wall. Hey I have a brilliant idea, I'll call this Cover and say I was the first to invent the tactic!!! I'll go down in military history!!!!"

It's not them, it's a game genre.

About the most popular game genre the last few years is called Cover Shooter. It's a relatively new genre, started with GoW. The gameplay of cover shooters is, unlike older ones where cover would be impromptu (like in X-Com example), based on preset cover points.

Cover in this genre tends to be unrealistically effective, even if it's just a rotting piece of plywood protecting you from tank cannon fire. It's always predefined, it always helps, you can always shoot from behind it, these are genre specific elements, not just common sense.

Cover Shooter in its pure form is a series of Shooting Range events on a stepped linear progression from one cover to the next.

Using this system is an explicit and exact statement, and it accurately describes what EU12 uses.

[GizmoGomez]

Yeah, isn't that the dumbest?

At least some games have (somewhat) realistic cover that's destroyable. Parts of Uncharted comes to mind.

Ah... Uncharted... Great games.

[thothkins]

When the original came out, it was one of a few games that really gave you "bang for your buck". Most games were still very arcade-y at that point and gave you a few hours of short play times.... X-com gave you hours and hours for your money (Civ 1 was the one game that started that trend for me). When I figure out the $ per hour for the original, it is pennies.

Games like X-Com really spoiled me. The very open approach has made me pretty critical of games that have a linear storyline and ten hours game time at best. While I'm sure I must have missed some cinematic masterpieces over the years, I'm sure I've saved myself form as many money wasting duds.

[crusherven]

Games like X-Com really spoiled me. The very open approach has made me pretty critical of games that have a linear storyline and ten hours game time at best. While I'm sure I must have missed some cinematic masterpieces over the years, I'm sure I've saved myself form as many money wasting duds.

Maybe you're not saying what I think you're saying, but I'd like to point out that linear storyline =/= 10 hours gameplay. Dragon Age, Half Life, Mass Effect, Warcraft III / Starcraft, Diablo, all had a linear story and could take 30+ hours on a single playthrough.

As a corollary, open approach does not mean hours and hours of playtime. The open-world Fallout games could all be finished very quickly if you focused on the central plot. A game of Civilization V can be finished in a single afternoon on a small map.

Edited March 10, 2013 by crusherven

[thothkins]

I am sort of saying what you're thinking (or at least what I think you're thinking of my thoughts ) By my inclusion of " must have missed some cinematic masterpieces" I was really saying that, of course, there would be exceptions. Not to mention a large helping of subjectivity as to what those exceptions are.

Some games offer plenty of alternative routes, others have smaller sidelines, that are still captivating. Others simply take a long time, and fall out of my comments really. But I remember reading reviews and a not unheard of complaint was that there could have been more content, not least to justify the prices.

[Tacobandit]

It's not them, it's a game genre.

About the most popular game genre the last few years is called Cover Shooter. It's a relatively new genre, started with GoW. The gameplay of cover shooters is, unlike older ones where cover would be impromptu (like in X-Com example), based on preset cover points.

Cover in this genre tends to be unrealistically effective, even if it's just a rotting piece of plywood protecting you from tank cannon fire. It's always predefined, it always helps, you can always shoot from behind it, these are genre specific elements, not just common sense.

Cover Shooter in its pure form is a series of Shooting Range events on a stepped linear progression from one cover to the next.

Using this system is an explicit and exact statement, and it accurately describes what EU12 uses.

I'm still not sure if this guy is a troll. I'm thinking he's toward the troll side.