Alright, let's just be frank for a moment.

[MegaMan]

Look, I get it, a lot of us complainers seem outlandish and unreasonable.
The game is released in a time where the niche is gone and people just want simple fun facebook games to pass the time.

But let us just be honest with our selves shall we?

The number 1 reason this game is trash, is because it took a time unit turn based with individual units, on a map, and turned it into a game of checkers, with little spots that have nice little symbols for everything, so you know when you are in cover. because you were incapable of realizing that before.

These "improvements" are trash, man. They just are.
When you go from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dupngnAS6yk




To THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0KNOGNxDVY


W-T-F is an intelligent, retrograde gamer going to think?
What DID you except fan boys? What- I mean, just WHAT do you expect?
Are we supposed be to, shocked, and awed, by the shiny new graphics? The sound effects?


There are TWO different kinds of people on this forum,

People who think THIS is a fun game:

www.bay12games.com/dwarves/



And people who think THIS is a fun game:


http://store.steampowered.com/app/200370


And thats all it comes down to, which is a sad state of affairs for gamers, humanity, the future, and just... ugh, speaks volumes as to why they even bothered MAKING Black Ops 2.


But you know, I guess it makes some sense in a twistedly depressing way, it's always been like this.There have been those who want the options, the complication, see the choices. Still feel trapped, want even more freedom.

And there are those who saw those initial choices as "too much" to begin with. Too much freedom, such a headache it was.


How can more choice = A headache.

how about, more choice = A learning experience.

[Poor Dick]

In general, I hate vehicle (and air) combat mixed with infrantry. In the end, one venue ends up being superior and the rest feels tacked on or pointless.

Example: while people ♥♥♥♥♥ about not being able to pick up a med-pack, why the hell wouldn't they just nuke (or want to nuke) every alien abduction site with nukes, napalm, or smart-bombs/missiles? (I mean, they are way cheaper than the people you're throwing at the aliens.)

[Red Phantom]

I think the field you're looking for is military intelligence!

So true. I still don't know exactly what the guys in the S2 shop do, other than google the weather forecast.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Poor ♥♥♥♥:

In general, I hate vehicle (and air) combat mixed with infrantry. In the end, one venue ends up being superior and the rest feels tacked on or pointless.

Example: while people ♥♥♥♥♥ about not being able to pick up a med-pack, why the hell wouldn't they just nuke (or want to nuke) every alien abduction site with nukes, napalm, or smart-bombs/missiles? (I mean, they are way cheaper than the people you're throwing at the aliens.)

That's a point that I think way too many people miss when it comes to super serious exchanges over the merits of a game. I don't want to hear anyone talk about how realistic something is, or should be, ever. Because it just isn't. It's a video game - it can't possibly approach realism and still be playable. That goes for ANY game; Battlefield 3 and Arma II may be more realistic than Black Ops II, but they still won't approximate the experience of combat for their players, and no game ever will prepare or 'train' you for actual combat either. Frankly if they were true to life they just wouldn't be fun, and the entire point of playing games is to have fun.

Then, when you want to talk about a game where you control a secretive international paramilitary organization from an underground bunker and send individual squad or platoon sized elements at a time to combat a worldwide incursion of little green men, any talk of realism goes straight into the territory of ridiculous.

When they made the original X-COM, they weren't thinking, "How can we make the most realistic alien invasion simulator possible?"

They were thinking about making a game that they would want to play, and how to approach the ruleset according to the creative ideas they had about the fictional setting. At no point did they stop and question just how realistic it was that you fought with 20 soldiers to a UFO, people could develop psychic powers and fly around the battle field with jet packs. At some level every game design decision is arbitrary and artificial by necessity.

If you want to complain about it being unrealistic that you can't pick up a dead soldier's equipment off the ground, you might want to address the fact that in both games you are sending small groups of super-soldiers with psychic abilities and power armor to fight a global invasion of little green men and gorrilas in space suits first.

If you have a gripe about why it doesn't work from the perspective of gameplay and balance, that is one thing. Just don't make the whole discussion any more ridiculous than it already is by appealing to realism or the logic of the situation.

[Poor Dick]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PrometheanFrankenstein:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Poor ♥♥♥♥:

In general, I hate vehicle (and air) combat mixed with infrantry. In the end, one venue ends up being superior and the rest feels tacked on or pointless.

Example: while people ♥♥♥♥♥ about not being able to pick up a med-pack, why the hell wouldn't they just nuke (or want to nuke) every alien abduction site with nukes, napalm, or smart-bombs/missiles? (I mean, they are way cheaper than the people you're throwing at the aliens.)

That's a point that I think way too many people miss when it comes to super serious exchanges over the merits of a game. I don't want to hear anyone talk about how realistic something is, or should be, ever. Because it just isn't. It's a video game - it can't possibly approach realism and still be playable. That goes for ANY game; Battlefield 3 and Arma II may be more realistic than Black Ops II, but they still won't approximate the experience of combat for their players, and no game ever will prepare or 'train' you for actual combat either. Frankly if they were true to life they just wouldn't be fun, and the entire point of playing games is to have fun.

Then, when you want to talk about a game where you control a secretive international paramilitary organization from an underground bunker and send individual squad or platoon sized elements at a time to combat a worldwide incursion of little green men, any talk of realism goes straight into the territory of ridiculous.

When they made the original X-COM, they weren't thinking, "How can we make the most realistic alien invasion simulator possible?"

They were thinking about making a game that they would want to play, and how to approach the ruleset according to the creative ideas they had about the fictional setting. At no point did they stop and question just how realistic it was that you fought with 20 soldiers to a UFO, people could develop psychic powers and fly around the battle field with jet packs. At some level every game design decision is arbitrary and artificial by necessity.

If you want to complain about it being unrealistic that you can't pick up a dead soldier's equipment off the ground, you might want to address the fact that in both games you are sending small groups of super-soldiers with psychic abilities and power armor to fight a global invasion of little green men and gorrilas in space suits first.

If you have a gripe about why it doesn't work from the perspective of gameplay and balance, that is one thing. Just don't make the whole discussion any more ridiculous than it already is by appealing to realism or the logic of the situation.

Nicely said.

[Hans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PrometheanFrankenstein:

So true. I still don't know exactly what the guys in the S2 shop do, other than google the weather forecast.

That's probably pretty accurate, but the 5% of the time they're doing the real work with big boy pants on is when ♥♥♥♥ hits the fan if it's not done right. I heard a quote once that military service is "Extremely long periods of boredom with short bursts of stark and agonizing terror", can't remember who said it without a google search, but that feels pretty damn accurate.

I also agree with the rest of what you said and am guilty myself of perhaps nitpicking a few details, but I'm capable of accepting the 'realism' of whatever video game I'm in. I don't question fireballs or dragons when I'm playing Skyrim just like I don't question little green men that can mind control my soldiers to kill each other or that I can develop a weapon that will enable them unconscious enough for me to safely transport them back to a lab for CIA style interrogation.

Within the boundaries set by the game there are plenty of tactical and strategic choices they could have built in that would have completely filled out the experience, but didn't for whatever reason. Obviously they could build on the first game with an expansion, I'd personally like to see a mod/scenario where the world devolves into complete chaos with the sudden influx of technology and psi abilities. Perhaps the Overseers were only saving us from ourselves?

A "realistic" alien invasion scenario would maybe be one of two things:

1. Bio-engineered retro/nano virus that wipes out the entire human in a matter of weeks, without a single shot having to be fired.

2. Weapons of mass destruction.

Pretty boring, unless maybe you built a game around the aftermath with alien overlords, like Fallout except instead of China it was mutons!

Now that'd be a game I'd love to play. Like Battlefield Earth, except it doesn't suck or have John Travolta.

[Red Phantom]

Exactly.

I like the game but I feel much the same way about it. As the playthrough goes on it just doesn't continue to add enough variety or challenge and it really suffers as a result. I don't have any problem with the core mechanics, in fact I think they are brilliant. But they needed a couple more 'side-grades' as far as weapons and equipment go to spice things up a bit, as well as a bit more variety in mission types and scenarios.

I think the Fallout with aliens idea is pretty rad, too.

[Poor Dick]

@Allajh:

Part of the situation is that you are still looking for a simulation - just tweeked so its more interesting.

Barring the strangest turn of events, no set of reality will play out like chess. Chess has, really, no 'reality' - or at least no meaningful, non-absurd 'reality'; but its still an amazingly fun game.

[Hans]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Poor ♥♥♥♥:

@Allajh:

Part of the situation is that you are still looking for a simulation - just tweeked so its more interesting.

Barring the strangest turn of events, no set of reality will play out like chess. Chess has, really, no 'reality' - or at least no meaningful, non-absurd 'reality'; but its still an amazingly fun game.

I'll probably be looking for a while, and that's ok, and I'll also probably boot XCOM back up to try and finish my impossible ironman (or get murdered trying) eventually, especially if they release another patch with fixes.

I'm just guilty of being a complete nerd over military strategy and would really like a game that tries to hit the hammer on that head. The Total War series has done a great job, relative to reality of course, in getting a strategy game to feel epic and real in Rome, Medieval Europe, or Feudal Japan (can't speak for Empire: Total War yet), so I guess maybe what I'd like is Advance Wars with updated graphics and not on a handheld system.

[FireStorm20]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Allajh:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PrometheanFrankenstein:

So true. I still don't know exactly what the guys in the S2 shop do, other than google the weather forecast.

That's probably pretty accurate, but the 5% of the time they're doing the real work with big boy pants on is when ♥♥♥♥ hits the fan if it's not done right. I heard a quote once that military service is "Extremely long periods of boredom with short bursts of stark and agonizing terror", can't remember who said it without a google search, but that feels pretty damn accurate.

I also agree with the rest of what you said and am guilty myself of perhaps nitpicking a few details, but I'm capable of accepting the 'realism' of whatever video game I'm in. I don't question fireballs or dragons when I'm playing Skyrim just like I don't question little green men that can mind control my soldiers to kill each other or that I can develop a weapon that will enable them unconscious enough for me to safely transport them back to a lab for CIA style interrogation.

Within the boundaries set by the game there are plenty of tactical and strategic choices they could have built in that would have completely filled out the experience, but didn't for whatever reason. Obviously they could build on the first game with an expansion, I'd personally like to see a mod/scenario where the world devolves into complete chaos with the sudden influx of technology and psi abilities. Perhaps the Overseers were only saving us from ourselves?

A "realistic" alien invasion scenario would maybe be one of two things:

1. Bio-engineered retro/nano virus that wipes out the entire human in a matter of weeks, without a single shot having to be fired.

2. Weapons of mass destruction.

Pretty boring, unless maybe you built a game around the aftermath with alien overlords, like Fallout except instead of China it was mutons!

Now that'd be a game I'd love to play. Like Battlefield Earth, except it doesn't suck or have John Travolta.

Actually point 1 engeenered virus story and fighting the aftermath was used in ufo aftermath
game, a pretty nice xcom themed game, tough its some years ago and graphics are pretty dated by now

[Manthraxx[DK]]

wow... MegaMan is just a whiny girl, isn't he? dry your eyes and have a twinkie, I say

[Treephalanges]

I take comfort in the knowledge that you are most definitely a corpulant, sexless, mouth-breathing, smegma-basted basement dweller. Gamers like you are impossible to please. Just kill yourself, or stick to old games. ♥♥♥♥♥.

[Proofster]

This game it's a remake , so , dear whiners : they revamped the graphics , the sounds and changed some things , not copy-and-paste the same game with a new graphics , and that's a bit better than simply do the copy , and no , i don' t care much the graphic ( it's an added valor to a game ) , i love the mechanics and , honestely , made me to explore the series .
My overral quotation is : the original is better basically for more advanced options ( full fire or one shot ? Try to mind control a reaper for tanking damage or a spitter ( now i can' t rember the name) for kill that pesky aliens in the building ? ) but lacked of clearity in Battlescape ( i'm in cover or no ? Is that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ alien visible or no ? ) , he remake eliminated the Time thing , it's pity , but is even a refresh of roaster of hating aliens ( in the original the Cryssalids are VERY powerful , now no , but the muton took their place ) but added finaly a clear explain how what will happen if i palce a base in Africa or in America ( yes , yes, now i can' t place freely , but just wait : a DCL eventually will take it back ) , the psionics soldiers aren' t now a invincible kill machine and , honestely , naming operations it's a good non-gameplay changing thing ; now i can' t wait an eventual editor of maps !
Ah , and a last thing : if you don' t like this game nad you suffer the "Golden Age Syndrome", there is the original on Steam at few bucks : take it

[Barawin]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Daxn:

Ah , and a last thing : if you don' t like this game nad you suffer the "Golden Age Syndrome", there is the original on Steam at few bucks : take it

Get UFO:extraterrestrial, instead. Exact same game, but the graphics are less outadated.

[goishen]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von PrometheanFrankenstein:

That's a point that I think way too many people miss when it comes to super serious exchanges over the merits of a game. I don't want to hear anyone talk about how realistic something is, or should be, ever. Because it just isn't. It's a video game - it can't possibly approach realism and still be playable. That goes for ANY game; Battlefield 3 and Arma II may be more realistic than Black Ops II, but they still won't approximate the experience of combat for their players, and no game ever will prepare or 'train' you for actual combat either. Frankly if they were true to life they just wouldn't be fun, and the entire point of playing games is to have fun.

Then, when you want to talk about a game where you control a secretive international paramilitary organization from an underground bunker and send individual squad or platoon sized elements at a time to combat a worldwide incursion of little green men, any talk of realism goes straight into the territory of ridiculous.

When they made the original X-COM, they weren't thinking, "How can we make the most realistic alien invasion simulator possible?"

They were thinking about making a game that they would want to play, and how to approach the ruleset according to the creative ideas they had about the fictional setting. At no point did they stop and question just how realistic it was that you fought with 20 soldiers to a UFO, people could develop psychic powers and fly around the battle field with jet packs. At some level every game design decision is arbitrary and artificial by necessity.

If you want to complain about it being unrealistic that you can't pick up a dead soldier's equipment off the ground, you might want to address the fact that in both games you are sending small groups of super-soldiers with psychic abilities and power armor to fight a global invasion of little green men and gorrilas in space suits first.

If you have a gripe about why it doesn't work from the perspective of gameplay and balance, that is one thing. Just don't make the whole discussion any more ridiculous than it already is by appealing to realism or the logic of the situation.

Well, I differ. I think that people want realism, just not game breaking realism. With CoD, BO, hell why don't we just nuke them and get it over with? Game breaking realism is why. In this game, why don't we unleash the CDC or Area 51, or better yet both, on them? Game breaking realism.

I did address this in an earlier post, if someone wants to go back and read it. At the one point that TOG did have game breaking realism (the point at which we have super soldiers flying around with psionics and plasma weapons) this game does not offer game breaking realism. At least in reference to psionics. I had 1/9 soldiers come out of psi school with psi abilities. Compared with 30-40% in TOG.

Ya know, once you got to that point in TOG where you could have psionic abilities it was time for vengence. In this game, I just wanted it to be over.

[Poor Dick]

I don't want realism. The minute you step into anything turn based, realism is out the door; and, in for a penny, in for a pound.

And, honestly, I have about 0 interest in CoD, as a series, outside of, maybe, zombie mode (which is definately not worth the price I'd have to pay to get access to it). The again, about the only multiplayer FPS I play is TF2 - a game with 'magical' healing rays where you can kill people by pointing your fingers at them in the shape of a gun while saying 'Bang'.

[Red Phantom]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von goishen:

Well, I differ. I think that people want realism, just not game breaking realism. With CoD, BO, hell why don't we just nuke them and get it over with? Game breaking realism is why. In this game, why don't we unleash the CDC or Area 51, or better yet both, on them? Game breaking realism.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. The medium has inherent limitations as far as realism goes, not the least of which being that games obviously are mechanical in nature and have to follow a well defined set of behaviors and rules. Obviously if you were to be strictly realistic most game premises wouldn't even exist. Especially when it's a premise like this one.

I have to agree with Poor ♥♥♥♥ on this one. How much 'realism' one wants from a game is a matter of taste much like almost anything elsee we coud discuss. But what is ultimately important is not how well a game's mechanics apporximate realism. It is simply how well they work.

I am a huge advocate of XCOM:EU's basic set of mechanics because I feel like they are fluid, simple and effective. I keep going back to comparing it to chess.

Now, that's not to say that I'm not pretty disappointed with how that foundation was utilized (or under-utilized, in this case). They have, in my opinion, a rock solid foundation for a great game, but they didn't go far enough to build the variety and challenge on it that would have made this game excellent. To me the whole game plays like a blank slate, where if they would have crafted a few more tactical challenges and situations, as well as allowed for more choices in how to tackle them, it could have been very special.