Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
But if I want that i play Jagged Alliance 2 v1.13 with Aimnas. which has even more micromanagement.
It isn´t that I don´t understand why they did it. infact I applaud them for doing it.
Cause they brought back TBS from the brink of death.
When publishers and others didn´t want TBS games anymore. cause way too difficult to understand. people new to the gernre got information overload.
And way too long waiting for AI to do his thing. (especially in this age of childeren lacking patience)
So Xcom EU/EW and Xcom 2 does something it still showcase the tactical fun of TBS games with multiple soldier control. while limiting the information overload on people.
And presenting challenges in a different way, while maintaining that soldier simulator.
(soldier simulator is what in the end you play XCOM for once you finish it one time)
I would maybe go as far as saying they're almost different genres.
I honestly prefer Xenonauts and the original concept of the game but Firaxis also bring an interesting way to play, if both were too similar it would get old but instead you can play both game and enjoy them.
I guess that Firaxis aim for a more "simple" gameplay to gather to more people while the original bring more micro-managing but also offer more strategy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU
Anyway for the third XCOM I think they can change concept a bit and at least make ships relevant (all the juice that could be done from a "Earth-only" game" is already extracted) and also try to put bigger squads as the fight gets bigger. Warhammer 40k Epic is a good basis to expand upon.
There was a lot of mentioning of gameplay fun vs depth in those Jake Solomon interviews, and I guess it's stunning to see when it is actually happening.
Maybe it's nostalgia, as sometimes I pick up those older games and can't play them for long. Too much information and micromanagement, plus nothing really new to see or do.
I actually got to call this the 'SWAT moments' (tight teamwork, good planning and no bravado!) - and I had more of them in vanilla XCom: EU (the remake). The earlier in the game the better, because you had only like 3 simple tools of the trade and consequently if was more about the special tactics part. You bought a bullet when clearly you made a mistake or weren't disciplined enough.
Agreed that it didn't hurt that the controls were simplified. I really think they managed to somehow distil the right ingredients. I need to try it with a controller someday.
Then these moments got already more scarce in XCom:EW, particularly later on, when half of my team was invisible and the other half mechanised an exempt from cover. No longer do you die when your tactical plan is bad, but you gradually wear each other down with the enemy.
I think XCom2 continues this trend. Now I feel that 'SWAT' completely doesn't apply as a comparison any more. Instead you command a team of wizards who are casting spells. The more spells they learn, the more powerful they become and the higher the chances of victory.
Now, I know this is a simplification - I know the first game had deus ex machina moments too. But I'm just trying to describe the core idea (the feeling) that I think would be worth somehow distilling and emphasising again rather than drowning in feature creep.
EDIT: Also note how the spells are derived from certain 'elemental' categories - pistol spells, sword spells, psionic, etc. They don't seem to have all happened as a result of the Avenger scientists reacting to what we might actually need in the field - e.g.:
- would like to see someone make a freaking disruptor for Codexes cloning because that's what I could use, I can't counter this with AOE or some psionic bullet
- Mindshield, Hazmat vest are examples of a reactive item (something your troops might actually ask for) which you are however discouraged from using! (compete for space with grenades).
- Xenonaut's shield, on the other hand, is an example of a working solution to an actual field problem
- Mindjack is an awkward product of some deranged scientist who was never in the field, because the last thing a soldier wants is to go uppercut someone in a firefight
- timed mission are a tactical problem for which it could actually make sense to research a solution - because it would make a hell of a lot more difference to be undiscovered - such as with silencer attachments or subsonic ammo (can make it psionic if you wish!) - than to destroy MECs a tiny bit quicker with anti-mec rather than standard ammo
All these make it a nice fantasy, but no soldier simulation.
It doesn't have the charm of the original X-Com which I still love and still play, and it doesn't have the slickness of the new XCOM games.
It's something that was a high focus on games of the 90's and it's linked to the learning curve which is superficially evoked in this video.
Another example is depth is evoked as pure emergent gameplay when it can becomes quickly pure complexity because of the difficulty. It's rather common in mobile games, a common arguing is quick to learn and difficult to master, they are deep games based on few rules easy to learn, but they are definitely complex. So that's another point not directly evoked in the video, emergent gameplay. And it's linked in my opinion.
Fascinating...