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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
InvInc gameplay is based on constant count down, it's 6 missions campaign, there's no combats, it's flat levels, more. There's very few relationship with PD.
I understand why it is evoked and I wouldn't be surprised PD get some vague influence from it, but it's no way the same gameplay, from very far.
InvInc has definitely a quite more tuned gameplay, alas it lacks of ambition with 6 missions campaigns. Moreover there's no combats, and it's a too small game that hadn't enough ambition to be able compare in any way with a game as PD.
No workshop to fix all the same XCOM bugs and more? That's bad.
Don't hope much from a game that didn't plan anything from start of project.
If they do something descent It will be one more of those games selling too few, and later mods support changes nothing and get only very few mods, and hardly anything of a pro quality.
I liked what they did with Invisible Inc and I find no issue with someone comparing the games. My kids love Invisible Inc.
They are both stealth mission oriented, both turn based with fun equipment options, isolmetric and movement. Both are defined by stealth not combat.
PD has a much richer interface and base than Invisible Inc and more realistic, but I can see the comparisons.
I would not doubt that the designers of PD, took some things that Invisible Inc did right and built on that.
What I will say is PD is more fragmented that Invisible Inc. Which to me was cleaner, simplistic and complimented its storyline. Love to see them do a new Invisible Inc. 2, That game has a nice upward track on adding a lot more content, abilities, story, and animation. That ending left a nice apocalyptic feel to it without spoiling it.
Both games have a nice base template from their launches to have great games. To me PD needs work and I disagree that it is a X-com clone. Isometric and certain mechanics yes, but either than that, not much the same, but the modding may close the game.
When you start adding voice packs, guns customization, and other X-com presented perks, then you may just see a Spy X-com A punisher Agent for example.
Sure both have a turn based game play oriented to stealth and this is very rare. I remind at least one other case, probably from 90'", perhaps console release, that some players quoted to argue that InvInc had rip off some gameplay aspects. But I don't remind much other quotes.
There's more turn based combats games having the stealth rather developed, but it doesn't give them a stealth gameplay, it's only combats with stealth.
So I can't disagree the comparison makes sense in some way.
Now some points:
Ok you disagree on that perspective. For me it's quite like indie games I can't put them at same level than AAA games, nor than indie games trying compete with AAA games.
For the XCOM clone, alas I agree, I love play my combats oriented campaign, but the game doesn't have the engine, rules, AI, mechanisms that could sustain a campaign combats oriented.
But again, if PD need evolve, it's to force exploit much more combats along a campaign. Is it possible without huge changes and additions, I have doubts.
It's fair to consider PD needs more work, but I think (could be wrong) that it's unrealistic to believe it can be significantly changed.
- The game has many very developed aspects, a lot of contents, and high level care on details on many aspects of the game. This doesn't hint a rushed game.
- The combats are quite more developed and the game ended allow mostly a full stealth campaign, and even push to it. It smells more an attempts to design a game mixing really both, but failed find how. It's the only way to make the game more coherent globally with its currents contents. But how do it, without to setup a full new budget, it's not clear.
- Almost every aspect of the game are open on ways to manage it. It opens plenty OP tools in every aspect of the gameplay. It offers freedom, but now change it and really start a tuning fro stricct control of difficulty, it's a huge work, not even with any elements added to justify curiosity back to the game.
- Common just see how much the AI has been changed from the los management changes. It's not even yet fully fixed. It clues the complexity of the whole, and hope big changes in gameplay is unrealistic.
Perhaps but I don't remind any game past the 90's having a really extended modding that wasn't planed it from game original design. It was possible because games wasn't enough complex on many aspects. Past a point just hacking couldn't add deep modding to a game. And it's a very complicate topic, add it on a development already done, can only reach a limiting modding ability, or a ton of bugs and problems, never solved.
@dorok-Have three kids who play, the youngest likes Invisible Inc, because of the cartoony storyline and cartoon figures. Not as real, Where PD to me is for mature and adult players because of the graphic content. Both are stealth spy games and from a Parental Guidance standpoint I don't advice PD for younger audiences. That is a parent’s choice.
To your points
@dorok-Point 1. No one suggested it was rushed. The issue is that the ideas are nice but not necessary to the gameplay. All the Agents are drones and have no color, life, and can be pretty much built a few ways, but you can send 5 of the same type. A lot of the abilities and perks are not necessary in a turn. I don’t think I have used focus once, or heartbeat and many others. Mostly takedowns, headshots or a combo exchange, Why? Because every move they hit, or you hit them system, any other moves in between are wasteful. The game has small common-sense details that are kind of useless. If Language was introduced as a new mechanic, and down the line still may. Why have it. Your Disguise perk, another I rarely use. It is not vital and most don’t use it. It is unnecessary to separate it as some new idea. The glass issues, wall issues, chemical sequencing that can make sending out agents practically unstoppable in the right combination. Small icons in the map that they never considered the eye impaired or color impaired. I happen to think fragmented ideas tend to falter in the concept design phase. PD has a lot of fragmented ideas, but not well placed. Each of the sections in your base are more for cosmetic appeal than a true espionage. Budget, I agree could have played a factor, and as a developer you can only do what your capable of doing.
Point 2 Combat is too redundant and one chess piece dimensional. It is not designed to be a combat game. It’s a stealth game. I agree on a lot of what you say here. There are three ways you can go. 1. Give the Agents more diversity, make each unique. I do think a wide variety of job skills, players doing their own bios were key words like the analytics can set of a chain of events or unlock unique perks and abilities to that specific agent. They could add 20 job titles of all sorts of agent types to allow the player to grow that agent in that specific field with not just 1 or two abilities but many. I happen to think less is not more in turn based combat, more is better, I am not talking over powering agents with abilities that make them unbeatable, but giving you more choices within that turn that may not cost AP, but more of unlock combinations to that job title and specific agents. For example the agencies may all have the same methods, but not the same skills follow. An MI6 agents may do something that a KGB or JDF does not. Having them different from one another and unqiue enhances gameplay. Another thing you can do is faction warfare even in the cold war. The many agencies involved could make for an interesting faction game. There were many spy factions during the cold war. From Japan, to Cuba, from France to Arba nations. It would make for a great multi player faction game with each faction having unique traits, job titles and skills and choices that would really play out well in this setting., but again budgets, what is realistic, and what they can do and cannot. Eventually your still being forced forward to the story where what you've built may not be necessary.
Point three I agree
Last point, I am concerned that their base design may have too many conflicting coding that may create even more unforeseen bugs and issues if they don’t go back and really check every aspect of what they created. Its not even fully fixed 100 % correct, and as I said they need to stay within what they CAN do, not what they overreach or cannot.
Be interesting to see where the game is in a year. I am sure they will add more content, rethink things from what did work, what is not appealing and adjust.
One more thing. Invisible Inc is not the same scope or size as PD, but it was executed better because it really has a more simplistic tasks to do. Your not stacking agents. There is a lot more redundant and useless micro managing in PD, but that must be fun, not a distraction. I remember my first run thru on EASY, just to build up and really see all the nuances in the game and I felt I wasted a lot of time. 60 Agents all the same doing the same crap, the workshop asking me to build stuff I could care less about, same analytics over and over, unlocking chemical combinations that just my agents Supermen, and a forge that I never used to make items because I had most from missions. My point is PD is not designed to build, but to get the tasks done. Its not for the grand strategist, or builder, but like X-com, forces you to get the missions done. As you said not sure what they can do about that, but it is what it is. I love X-com Longwar, that is squad micro managing based, this is not.
Both games do what they set out to do. Both clear in how to get there, and both fun games for different reasons, Developers should be praised for the great effort in both games. Good points Dor and talk...
And it's a combat game, because a lot of work went into giving the player a lot of equipment and abilities related strictly to combat. Even the combat system itself is a slightly changed version of that from Hard West, which is combat-only game.
Lol, the example is a bit extreme. Can't handle isn't the point, if you can't handle pressure, you can't do most job, and many real life duties will be troubles.
The second point is you put all pressure types in a same bag but in my opinion it's pretty wrong. Timers is about time pressure which is a special pressure type.
In my opinion, it's games, not real life, and in that context it's more about having fun from time pressure or not. It's different for people, but also the age can change the balance.
I noticed the evolution myself, at some point there's a fed up to be constantly time pressured to bring constantly more money, there's never any limit but fail it and rush too much a task. Particularly at work, constant hurry becomes such a boredom after decades to manage it constantly. And then free time and leisure time open deluxe period of life where you can suddenly ignore time pressure, a luxe rarer and rarer with society evolution.
And then timers look like a nuisance in a leisure activity.
You seem have give a lot of importance to XCOM2 timers, but in fact you have margin to ignore many that are related to resource even if precious. This aspect is a bit artificial from a design perspective. Clearly XCOM2 designers failed counter overwatch pushing to static play, and excess of caution, and then overused a bit timers.
But other XCOM2 timers are major tools for a tuned design of various mission types. Thankfully XCOM2 has also a good amount of missions without timer, and many have in fact a higher pressure. In general for most missions types, if you don't struggle too much at the difficulty level you choose, XCOM2 timers are very well tuned to just setup a limit, but not really setup a time pressure. So yes most XCOM2 timers are not only good but also rather important.
But again, the comparison isn't pertinent with InvInc that can't have missions without timers, unlike XCOM2. it's more pertinent to argue/compare XCoM2 to PD combats. There are turn based games with combats not using timers but in few combats, and still very deep and with a difficulty tuning quite polished. I could quote for example FF7.
But turn based shooter face a design problem, overwatch pushing to static play and excess of caution. In my opinion neither XCOM1&2 nor Long War 2 setup a good balance. The balance
is mainly broken by risk level involved. Overall overwatch without time limit would open many occasions to lower a lot the risk. Eventually Long War 2 use some other tricks than clear timers to lower the feeling of amount of timers used. But hidden timers are still timers, and there's many timers anyway.
This is an interesting design topic in turn based shooter using overwatch, how counter overwatch static aspect, and how do it without some basic timers.
Now in my opinion adults should be able relativize to not consider cartoon less impact-full than graphics/animations still very far from reality but less far. If you can't relativize this, then you probably never read much. If pure text can be a lot more impact-full than a movie, there's no reason a movie using cartoon can't be as much impact-full for you.
Alas in video games, more cartoon graphics would allow huge cut in budget to spend it in gameplay/writing/having more contents, but for many players they fail be as impact full than graphics more realist and detailed.
I can say safely you let the game natural flow guide you and made a full stealth campaign, and probably used a lot disguise.
So what? Pure stealth campaign, yes the campaign doesn't work well, even less with abuse of disguise.
But you had hint to attempt get more fun, and a quite big hint when 2/3 of design is around combats.
I already answered it, I'll only repeat quickly, you can also ignore any skill, including takedown and head shot. Those are just the most obvious tools. And yes the design seems to be too open on letting player decide how he want play the game.
That's the problem, not that you never used this skill or that skill.
When 2/3 of design is around combats, admit this affirmation is a bit weird. As explained above, too much openness to players. And with its contents, a very doubtful design choice to not have fore combats in many more missions during a campaign.
I think you covered only one point, but in detail, more unique agents.
In roster games it's almost a weakness to allow too much attachment to soldiers. The roster design open a very powerful tool to manage difficulty, allows soldiers death. Build a too high attachement to each will just make most players not accept any death but for some insignificant rookie you didn't get attached to.
But the very unique approach of agents death of PD would suit very well a gameplay with attaching agents almost like a party RPG.
But in my opinion it's not the problem, and target that wouldn't change much. The real objective to improve the gameplay approach, really mix stealth and combats, push combats more in forward.
I hope be wrong, but I think this is dreamland. Firstly as you quoted, there's hints it's complex to make big changes. Secondly dev get bought, certainly to avoid a bankrupt, and certainly buyer did it a lot for PD asset. But at best it would be more for a PD2.
Obviously a lot of work in both, and for InvInc, I'm not saying it's a bad game, more that its an indie game I advise warmly even if I agree with players that complained about a too short campaign, and too short on many aspect even if quite developed and polished on many other aspects.
Now in my opinion adults should be able relativize to not consider cartoon less impact-full than graphics/animations still very far from reality but less far. If you can't relativize this, then you probably never read much. If pure text can be a lot more impact-full than a movie, there's no reason a movie using cartoon can't be as much impact-full for you.
Alas in video games, more cartoon graphics would allow huge cut in budget to spend it in gameplay/writing/having more contents, but for many players they fail be as impact full than graphics more realist and detailed.
@Dorok- “Relating the cartoon impact then you didn't read much.” I never said cartoons or cartoon game cannot be violent in fact I can argue that cartoons can have just a much of a negative impact on youth that reality does. All I am saying is that is a parental decision, not a child. I am sure many parents allow their children of 8-12 to play PD no issue and watch them become masochistic or tone death to the violence and content of a game and life. Some feel that allowing them that and then explaining is a better tool to teach a child than not showing them at all and making them find out the hard way. I am not here to debate or tell a parent how they should raise their children, but there is a huge difference watching an assassin gun down someone in the head with splattered blood and graphic violence than a cartoon take down. Killing is suggested in Invisible, it is shown in PD. That is why games have ratings, so parents may have a guideline to make that decision. Video games have been ruled a disease and over use can be just as deadly as any drug habit. Gamers do not want to hear this as they play their 24th hour of gaming never leaving the house. Too much of anything is no good. As I said it should always be a Parental decision. Both games are stealth spy games and both deal with the subject matter in different ways. One more mature than the other. that is fact, but as far as violence in games that is my opinion. We are very careful which games we let the kids play. I bought PD for me
I think that is getting off subject a little. The tread is about how PD copied from Invisible Inc. and in my opinion, in some aspects they did, and I explained how.
As far as video games and the graphic impact or cartoony style I have explained that there are two types of players. One that want the game to be better graphically all the time. That playing a less graphic game is a step backwards. for example, Civ 6 to Civ 1-2.
and players who just want a great game no matter the graphics involved. They can play a Star Wars KOTOR 2 or Pong and have fun playing it. It is an individual preference, but a DEV has their own style of creating a game using the same tools. Style is always subjective.
As I keep saying a DEV is only as good as they are capable of being. You can overreach and the more ambitious a project the more that can go wrong if you don't have the proper people. A lot can go wrong.
Invisible Inc did what it set out to do. PD to an extent did as well, but it’s just starting. We will see where it goes. Be well.
Now you’re talking playing capabilities of a player, some are experts, some intermediate, and some novice. X-com is not really part of the tread. It was about how PD copied certain aspects of Invisible Inc. Timer mechanics has been part of turn based games for some time. Many games use it. Timer missions is not about engagement. It is about accomplishing the task within the timeframe permitted. To do proper timer missions in X-com is really about the squad you select, tactics you use and execution to a plan, not long engagements defeating all your enemies within an allotted timeframe.
Invisible Inc is about stealth and doing the tasks within the timeframe allowed. In PD, utilizing smart position, scouting unforeseen areas, the agent capabilities to the task, and puzzle solving difficult situations. You may not be able to avoid a confrontation, but how to do one quickly and get in and out is more beneficial than ok, got discovered and now I must battle an army. In Invisible, the longer you take the harder it can get. Try a harder setting if you think it’s easy. Same goes with X-com, try commander on ironman and then see if you think timer missions are hard. My advice is play the game at the setting your capable of playing.
If you are playing PD as some wargame with long engagements and battle plans you will most likely fail in harder settings. Like Invisible, it is stealth gameplay, not battle engagements.
Getting the task done, get in and out, not ok going to battle an army every three turns with my 5 agents. Good luck. Sometimes retreat is a good plan or even sacrificing a pawn for a rook a good thing.
Not part of the tread timers. There are no real timers in PD except the ones you create on your own. To me it seems your issue is tactics not timers.
I noticed PD story missions maps used in non story missions, but it's perhaps not for all. Overall it's also a matter of perception and how many missions you do in a campaign, this can be quite variable for both games. For my perception, XCOM1 vanilla was less good than PD on maps variations, but quite better with EW, but this doesn't consider the number of thematic graphics, which for me count less, and on this, there's no match. As PD is no match on many aspect, but with the budget and less experienced team, it's no surprise.
My only problem is this so extreme focus on gambling in new XCOM series. Moreover I didn't get appealed much by later additions in XCOM2 even if I consider it quite better than XCOM1. But stuff brought by extensions didn't convinced me much (expect the customization pack lol). All those extensions like if designers felt they reach an end on the gameplay and should make it evolve to something else. I'd say to this team, make your own FF7 instead.