Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I hope you can at least customize a PC character.
Nothing that came before or since manages to achieve those heights for me.
In truth, I'd say this game is closer to a combination of Midnight Suns and Freedom Force. Apart from the turn-based game play, the only other real similarities to X-Com are the dystopian, underdog "feel" of your team and the cut-scenes that move the background story along. There is no cover system; there's no customization of weaponry or armor; and you can't create your own "soldiers". The dialogue and character types are vastly different.
Instead, the game leans into pre-set characters and comic book themes, with XP and skill/power customization a la Freedom Force and turn-based game play (w/interactive environments and combos) a la Midnight Suns. You even have the "simulator disk" functionality of older Ultimate Alliance games, if you want to get really technical about it.
Most of the reviews that immediately reach for the X-Com comparison are not worth reading in my opinion, because they're written by people who clearly have no history with this type of game.
It's a shame that character creation functionality doesn't exist in Capes. But it's understandable. Balance is already a difficult thing to get right in games like these. With "super powers" that can dramatically change the course of a battle, it's easy to see why this was omitted. Just imagine the min/maxing and potential balance issues.
Also, when you have the specters of Marvel and DC hanging over your head with potential "cease and desist" injunctions (for being able to create characters from the Marvel/DC universes), you can see why this particular "can of worms" was avoided.
There's a reason City of Heroes, Freedom Force, etc. are older games that were never really reproduced until now; they each had their own dealings with Marvel's legal team. In fact, I'm surprised Spitfire uses the term "superpower" at all, which, last I checked, is a term that is jointly owned by Marvel/DC.
Too many "Life is Strange" / "Saints Row Reboot" vibes for this guy. We'll see.
Just like any review of CRPGs for the next decade will likely bring up comparisons to Baldur's Gate 3, just like any review of a first-person RPG will likely reference a Bethesda game, most reviews of grid-based strategy games will bring up XCOM 2 for comparisons.
I don't see how there's any lapse in logic here.
Sadly, I still wouldn't call it better than X-com but it was the most enjoyable experience I've had with a true X-com clone.
This however, is no clone. It seems to lack most of what makes X-com and ilk interesting.
You cannot. Devs have said this in the forums a bunch of times by now. It sucks.
I totally forgot that game existed, it was something that I was so hyped for- and unfortunately it seemed to release on to the scene like a wet-fart.
you haven't played many turned based games obviously. The xcom comparison comes from a lot of young kids just starting to get into games.