V19 Experimental Build 3 available!

[Mytheos]

You are honestly drunk off your own bias. If they made XCOM:EU more true to its roots it wouldn't have been nearly as popular and would be much more forgotten than it is now. No offense to Xenonauts taking that route, it's a fun route that plays right into what many of us enjoy... but it isn't the glorious route to stardom. Xenonauts won't be forgotten, because for most of the industry it will never even be known to forget. I mean that in the nicest way possible as someone who loves this game, but that is the truth this is the kind of game close to the original xcom that is a labor of love, not a labor of riches and making history.

Xcom: Eu is and will be remembered by the industry. The reason being is that it proved that you can still do AAA Turn-Based Tactics in a way that will appeal to a larger audience and have commercial success. XCOM: EU is still hovering around the top 50 sellers on steam at 40 dollars 10 months after release in a world where games are forgotten a month after release and the only games that stay there are those massively on sale or the cream of the crop in terms of popularity, this as a turn-based tactics game is nearly unheard of. This when most of the industry had forsaken and given up on TBT's being successful on that level. There will inevitably be more turn-based games trying to replicate that formula. So in that regard its impact will be felt for sometime.

If you didn't enjoy it and thought it blew, that is fine and understandable if you wanted something true to the original. But if you think they were unsuccessful and would have been more successful if they tried to replicate the original, then you are delusional and extremely out of touch with todays gamers.

REPOSTED from another thread

________________________

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do. And I DO feel the same.

But you have to understand it IS the consumer that decides these things ultimately...we're old and we've long since been passed by a newer generation of ADHD gamers that just want shiny graphics and a quick, easy to pick up title.

Making games with expected play times to finish of 5-10 hours is blasphemy from "when" I come from, I dont give a crap about achievements, yeah thanks for giving me a gold star because I drank a potion or killed 100 skeletons, or clubbed a bear to death while naked singing the start spangled banner.

If you do give a crap about this, I feel sorry you never experienced the times when BEATING a game wasnt a given and the reward found was an experience that MADE you find out how good you really were, one that challenged you to go beyond your own limits.

I enjoyed being awesome because I WAS awesome, not because the game was designed around making me awesome because I had an IQ over 80 and had not lost any limbs in an industrial accident.

But I assure you a few dusty old souls will not change an industry driven by kids that just want their games to give them a quick buzz and be forgotten a few days later.

But at least we have "Remember that one game 15 years ago, man that was such a good time" they will have robbed themselves of this and no amount of convincing from us will change their minds....as in the time it takes to explain it to them...well they would have long since tuned us out and started texting their friends and posting duckfaced self-shots of themselves on facebook and twittered that they were getting ready to go eat lunch, and what they were having.

[Mytheos]

@Tryphikik

I understand it better than you think.

But step back and realize you are on a forum that is doing ANOTHER game based on a game made in 1994. Its like what? The 5-6th one now?

So yeah if you do make a game right, IE XCOM 1994 it can become an successful franchise and in the long term make you more money.

You missed my point about making more money OVER TIME vs less money right now.

Who cares about 10 months later?

Try 15 years later...in which time people wont remember it.

Hell I spent 150+ hours player XCOM2012 and it took me 5 mins to remember the Air Combat...why?

Because it was FORGETTABLE.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Mytheos

[Mytheos]

If the original XCOM was like the new XCOM...we wouldnt be having this conversation, because this forum wouldnt exsist.

(Please dont respond with if that game was released in 94 it would be the most remembered and ahead of its time game ever created!)

You know what I am saying.

[Tryphikik]

But step back and realize you are on a forum that is doing ANOTHER game based on a game made in 1994. Its like what? The 5-6th one now?

So yeah if you do make a game right, IE XCOM 1994 it can become an successful franchise and in the long term make you more money.

You missed my point about making more money OVER TIME vs less money right now.

How is this game or any of the other remakes making the original xcom creators more money? Maybe I'm misinformed but as far as I know the xenonauts guys aren't paying any rights to the original creators? Xcom has a ton of "Spiritual successors" you know what spiritual successor means... we're taking your idea and you're getting nothing for it, thanks!

Not to mention, the intellectual property rights for Xcom were sold in 1998, they've been sold multiple times over. So even if people were doing it in a way that they had to pay for property rights the money STILL wouldn't be going to the original creators, it would be going to take-two the same people who own 2k who owns firaxis who owns Xcom2012. That's why 10 months matters more than 15 years in the gaming industry in terms of money making at least.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Tryphikik

[Dranak]

If you have destructible interceptors and one costs the same as most of the armour and weapons of your main combat team, you're in SERIOUS trouble if you lose one - and the air combat isn't meant to be a more important part of the game than the ground combat. But if you don't have interceptors cost that much, that causes a whole other set of issues which are equally problematic.

What problems are those? I'm genuinely curious.

[Mytheos]

How is this game or any of the other remakes making the original xcom creators more money? Maybe I'm misinformed but as far as I know the xenonauts guys aren't paying any rights to the original creators? Xcom has a ton of "Spiritual successors" you know what spiritual successor means... we're taking your idea and you're getting nothing for it, thanks!

Not to mention, the intellectual property rights for Xcom were sold in 1998, they've been sold multiple times over. So even if people were doing it in a way that they had to pay for property rights the money STILL wouldn't be going to the original creators, it would be going to take-two the same people who own 2k who owns firaxis who owns Xcom2012. That's why 10 months matters more than 15 years in terms of money making at least.

XCOM sold its rights. So yes the original creators and companies dont see money from XCOM2012 or Xenonauts.

But imagine what would happen if the company didnt sell its rights, and continued to make good games...(Or just loaned the rights instead of outright sell them)

I mean if you didnt do that you end up something like...Oh I dont know...Bethesda?

I mean thats a poor example tho, the 5 Elder Scrolls games...and the Fallout games...because they started out strong and then completely sold out right?

No they didnt. And they are responsible for some of the greatest games ever created - See Legendary comment from previous posts.

They did tho find a way to cater to a larger audience without watering down and dumbing down their franchise which, see previous posts, is rare and hard to do.

But again instead of looking at Bethesda and seeing their long term success, most companies choose to water down and ruin their games.

Even long term franchises are not immune...see Final Fantasy and Diablo. (Yes still massive cash cows, but imagine how much more cash they'd make if their current games didnt suck so bad)

Pretend you had a friend, he told you to play this awesome new game, you asked "Who made it?"

#1 Blizzard

#2 Bethesda

#3 Electronic Arts

#4 Atlus

#5 SquareEnix

See how different companies have different reputations? Some you might buy because of the company, some you might avoid.

(Maybe not you but I bet my life on the fact that who made the game has a lot to do with how many people check it out or avoid it like the plague)

[Tryphikik]

XCOM sold its rights. So yes the original creators and companies dont see money from XCOM2012 or Xenonauts.

But imagine what would happen if the company didnt sell its rights, and continued to make good games...(Or just loaned the rights instead of outright sell them)

I mean if you didnt do that you end up something like...Oh I dont know...Bethesda?

I mean thats a poor example tho, the 5 Elder Scrolls games...and the Fallout games...because they started out strong and then completely sold out right?

No they didnt. And they are responsible for some of the greatest games ever created - See Legendary comment from previous posts.

Fallout wasn't started by Bethesda by the way, it has been passed around quite a bit as well, another classic where the original creaters couldn't sustain and had to let someone else reap the rewards of their intellectual property. Infact... Fallout 3 so far is the only Bethesda Fallout, they loaned the rights for Fallout NV to Obsidian.

So in that regard, they have Elder Scrolls, obviously extremely successful and i'm sure they are glad they clung to those rights and kept working on it. But for every success story like Bethesda there are multiple times more companies who clung to their rights tried to continue growing but ended up only reinvesting their money to see it disappear into bankruptcy and being sold off to someone else. Countless companies have clung to and run their series into the ground, not always because they sold out or whatever. Some just couldn't stay in touch and find what would continue to appeal as the years passed. The creators just as easily could have lost all their money by investing in and trying to keep the classic going if they made just a few bad choices.

[Solarius Scorch]

How is this game or any of the other remakes making the original xcom creators more money? Maybe I'm misinformed but as far as I know the xenonauts guys aren't paying any rights to the original creators?

I was under impression that it's not making money on the game itself, but on the franchise and general reputation of the company. Microprose, which released the original X-Com games, is still remembered by me as the best, nicest and awesomest gaming company ever, because it gave us these games as well as several other all-time favourites, like Master of Magic for example. Nowadays Blizzard enjoys similarly good reputation, because their products (games, support, customer relations) are always of the highest quality, regardless if you like such games or not.

And regarding the air combat and indestructible fighters... I seriously feel that it'd be better to drop the element completely instead of forcing the indestructible fighters on us (despite the fact I like the minigame). Luckily, we'll be able to disable this.

[StellarRat]

I was under impression that it's not making money on the game itself, but on the franchise and general reputation of the company. Microprose, which released the original X-Com games, is still remembered by me as the best, nicest and awesomest gaming company ever, because it gave us these games as well as several other all-time favourites, like Master of Magic for example. Nowadays Blizzard enjoys similarly good reputation, because their products (games, support, customer relations) are always of the highest quality, regardless if you like such games or not.

Micropose produced some of the greatest games in history. Like XCom, Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, Pirates, Silent Service series, and many more... But eventually, Micropose got bought out by Hasbro which really had no idea about how to run a software company and managed to destroy it, Spectrum Holobyte, and just about anything else they touched in the software world. Hasbro was the forerunner of EA that has now claimed Maxis as another victim of corporate stupidity.

[Mytheos]

Fallout wasn't started by Bethesda by the way, it has been passed around quite a bit as well, another classic where the original creaters couldn't sustain and had to let someone else reap the rewards of their intellectual property. Infact... Fallout 3 so far is the only Bethesda Fallout, they loaned the rights for Fallout NV to Obsidian.

So in that regard, they have Elder Scrolls, obviously extremely successful and i'm sure they are glad they clung to those rights and kept working on it. But for every success story like Bethesda there are multiple times more companies who clung to their rights tried to continue growing but ended up only reinvesting their money to see it disappear into bankruptcy and being sold off to someone else. Countless companies have clung to and run their series into the ground, not always because they sold out or whatever. Some just couldn't stay in touch and find what would continue to appeal as the years passed. The creators just as easily could have lost all their money by investing in and trying to keep the classic going if they made just a few bad choices.

Yes but there is a difference between trying to evolve your game and do something new, not repeating the same game over and over...

And watering down your game and pandering to the masses.

Those are two different things.

Again its not easy to keep making good sequels, everyone knows that.

Point is, yes you have to make your game better and evolve your franchise, HOWEVER if your franchise is XCOM or Elder Scrolls you should know your roots and why you even exist.

And not try to win over people playing Farmville...it will only promise your eventual failure, unless again you are just that genius and can make a game loved and enjoyed by people that want to spend 10-30 hours per week on your game, and 2 hours broken up into 10 minute bites.

[Mytheos]

@Tryphikik

I mean it should be clearly obvious Farmville is made for the masses.

And when you make a Tactics and Strategy game, it should be equally clear you are making a game that requires a higher degree of thinking and planning.

When you try to make it for everyone you are making it quick to pick up and easy to figure out.

A Tactics game that is Easy doesnt really require tactics does it?

If every tactic from Leroy Jenkins to Rambo works then it doesnt require tactics it just requires you to simply do whatever makes you happy.

Tactics - An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

Rambo and Leroy Jenkins are by definition are not carefully planed and have no specific end....they are jump in guns blazing and wing it.

If you can just "wing it" or do whatever there are no tactics involved.

So you CAN NOT make a tactics game that caters to players that want to Leroy Jenkins and Rambo the game.

[Mytheos]

Mytheos - "So you CAN NOT make a tactics game that caters to players that want to Leroy Jenkins and Rambo the game."

Well you can, but that requires 5 different difficulty levels that are 5 different versions of the game that requires 5 levels of balance and...here is the big problem....

Takes 5 times as much development time. (Maybe not quite 5 times, but you get the point)

[lightgemini]

There will also (eventually, it's not in yet) be an option to turn destructibility back on, if people want to mod it back in and rebalance the game accordingly.

Im happy with the idea and I think is a good for the game in the long run.

Thank you for all your effort with so limited resources.

[ThunderGr]

Micropose produced some of the greatest games in history. Like XCom, Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, Pirates, Silent Service series, and many more... But eventually, Micropose got bought out by Hasbro which really had no idea about how to run a software company and managed to destroy it, Spectrum Holobyte, and just about anything else they touched in the software world. Hasbro was the forerunner of EA that has now claimed Maxis as another victim of corporate stupidity.

So, this is the reason why Microproce disappeared...And this is the reason EA sucks...Thanks for the info. Too bad for us, I guess.

As far as the game is concerned and the news brought to us by the development team, I have to say that I am disappointed that you(the development team) do not want to have an air-combat at the same importance as the ground combat, since, in my opinion, it is very important if you consider that you have to fly everywhere, even for ground missions next to your base. I would rather have it that we could do ground missions even when we have been obliterated on air. Eventually, we could recover, despite the aircraft losses, and regain air-control. The only reason the loss of airplanes is so costly is because, if we cannot down UFOs, we will lose the game.

However, I must say I am glad you are planning to make air-combat more modable. . Thank you.

[Anon_Spartan]

Wait, does armor get destroyed if the poor shmuck wearing it died? I never really noticed playing the stable release, but I assumed this was a holdover from old com. It makes sense that if a rookie was torn apart by Chrysslids, there wouldn't be enough armor left on him to slap onto another rookie. One could argue that the armor could be repaired, but it certainly wouldn't be ready for the next mission that day.

And if Air Combat is going to be optional, is there any point to doing it? The only times I ever lost planes was usually due to blurry eyes at 4AM and not noticing missiles and things, so if I can get top notch results every time without risking messing up, why would I ever play the mini game?

[Anon_Spartan]

Oh, and if we're going to talk about gaming companies that lost the way, my money is on Bioware. I'd really like to read a comprehensive history of that developer to learn just where everything went wrong. Was it being bought out by EA, or was it losing a visionary developer?

[Duke]

oh. another good game will be casual becouse some people cant leran to play in tactiks game. please do insane realy harcore. all old fun s of that game want it

[Solarius Scorch]

I feel a lot was said already about how much most of us dislike the immortal fighters system, and those who don't simply aren't interested in the air combat aspect of the game (which indeed is stronger than usual, excluding UFO: Extraterrestrials and particularly the UNIMOD). But what about other changes, that hasn't gotten any attention yet? Are they good? Do they make any impact? I haven't played the experimental build v. 3 yet, because I like my current campaign in v. 2 too much, but I'm very interested nonetheless.

And yeah, Bioware had some messed up history, but is not uniformly evil like some companies. I still value them for titles like the first Mass Effect, although to be honest I've always disliked most of their games for various reasons.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Solarius Scorch

[Mytheos]

I haven't played the experimental build v. 3 yet, because I like my current campaign in v. 2 too much, but I've very interested nonetheless.

.

I believe the consensus is that 19-3 is unplayable...so...no one is playing it.

So if you want to keep playing, dont update.

[Mytheos]

oh. another good game will be casual becouse some people cant leran to play in tactiks game. please do insane realy harcore. all old fun s of that game want it

I think the devs should have to get a "Duke Seal of Approval" for final Insane Build difficulty balance and Feature set 8-)

[Xenomorph]

@Duke

If you want some really hard core super duper hard pull your hair off type of gameplay, go play Apocalypse in Supehuman, real-time ONLY, and force yourself on Iron Man mode.

You'll be crying like a baby when you lose all your squad 10 seconds into a mission.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Xenomorph

[Duke]

@Duke

If you want some really hard core super duper hard pull your hair off type of gameplay, go play Apocalypse in Supehuman, real-time ONLY, and force yourself on Iron Man mode.

You'll be crying like a baby when you lose all your squad 10 seconds into a mission.

oh. i buy early acces so i can post my opinion as any one who did it. and it constructive. you post random bullshit when i try to make this game better

and yes. my english sucks.

[StellarRat]

I believe the consensus is that 19-3 is unplayable...so...no one is playing it.

So if you want to keep playing, dont update.

I haven't been able to play it very far due to crashes, but I do like some of improvements I've seen in the UI and that the aliens actually garrison their ships now.

[Mytheos]

I haven't been able to play it very far due to crashes, but I do like some of improvements I've seen in the UI and that the aliens actually garrison their ships now.

Yeah same here.

I was just responding to Sol, I guess explaining the reason why there wasnt much info in this what is it now 15 page thread on how the build actually is...its mostly a flame war over Immortal interceptors, arguments over difficulty with a few scattered comments on grenade TUs.

Which lack of real info on the build in this thread is why I guessed he asked.

I am in no way saying it cant be played, nor should you. Just saying it like 19-1 didnt have much comment on how anything played, it was mostly people posting up file changes to try to help people getting crashes due to smoke and fix the medkit thing.

Which by the way was awesome, we have a great community here 8-)

[StellarRat]

Yeah, other than commenting on that immortal AC it's really hard to say much else. I haven't gotten a week into 19.3 without some type of crash (usually in ground combat), so it's really hard to make any intelligent comments on balance, etc...