The Escapist - X-com: The Truth Is Out There

[Sorrow]

I was reading The Escapist and I saw an article about X-Com - X-Com: The Truth Is Out There. It's pretty interesting. Edited March 7, 2008 by Sorrow

[Gimli]

Many thanks Sorrow, I already posted about this on SC, here's a link: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/X-Com...rtic-t6841.html

 

Note that Stephen Goss, lead designer of X-COM: Terror From the Deep, has made a comment in the comment section of the article.

[Sorrow]

Heh .

It's interesting to read why the game was so successful. I never linked it's success with X-Files as my first contact with similar games was on Commodore C-64 when I played Laser Squad and loved it.

Then my mother bought a PC and one of guys in primary schools borrowed me a big cache of diskettes. There was a lot of games, including X-Com: Terror from the Deep and Transport Tycoon: Deluxe.

I fell in love with X-Com - I loved the music, the sounds, the atmosphere they created and the gameplay, which was a development of Laser Squad mixed with strategic-economic game.

A few years later I bought myself X-Com: Collector's Edition and finally had an opportunity to play Ufo: Enemy Unknown.

 

I disagree with linking the retro science fiction stylistics of the city with loss of connection to the old X-Com. To me, it was a natural development of the setting as the Earth's eco-system was destroyed when T'leth exploded. Also, I liked learning about how the world has developed from manual and Ufopedia.

The main problem was losing the tension and suspension generated by turn-based gameplay with deadly weapons and a lack of lightning system in tactical missions.

 

The talk about "long term plan not being understood by fans" by that David Ellis guy are pretty funny. I wonder what he thought: "We have a fanbase for our great tactical/strategic games so we'll make a flight sim and a shooter.", or what?

[NRN_R_Sumo1]

Long Term plan.

 

*jumps off a building*

Edited March 16, 2008 by NRN_R_Sumo1

[Gimli]

Sorrow, I think that some people don't like Apocalypse not so much because of the retro 50s style, which was nice, although I feel Fallout did it much better. I think it's because it went on a tangent: it went from the Geoscape to the Cityscape, the aliens didn't have anything to do with the aliens from UFO and TFTD, the combat was much different in pace, plus they added RTwP which caused both combat systems as well as the gameplay to not be balanced all that well. And with a few more changes it seems that for some people it wasn't the same gameplay anymore. Apocalypse seems to have more straightforward tactics, as opposed to UFO and TFTD which were more about going "stealthy", simply because if the aliens saw you, you were most likely dead.

Apocalypse makes sense within its own context, but it doesn't connect to the other two all that well. There's also some plot holes, but then again UFO and TFTD have them as well.

A mixed bag Apocalypse is. :/ Some really, really good ideas and some not so good ideas. Oh well.

 

As for Ellis, the idea of spreading the universe into other genres isn't bad per se, as long as it's clear that these are spin offs and the strategic games are the main games. Interceptor could have been a nice spin off, if I'm not mistaken it's the only game to offer a mix of a base management game with a space sim. But from what I can tell (haven't played it myself) it wasn't executed all that well and it seems the design wasn't as good as it should have been. It seems it has the same fate that Fallout Tactics has, a nice idea for a spin-off which didn't turn out so well.

Alliance is a bit different, I think that even the basic idea when it comes to gameplay wasn't good. From what I read it seems like it was going to take you through the game in a very linear, level based way, where you'd be lead around by the nose. Given X-COM's open-endedness, I think that would be the exact opposite of what X-COM stands for.

Genesis was spot on when it comes to the setting, but it seems like it would have gone for RTwP which a part of the fanbase doesn't like. The intro to the game was pretty cool, though.

There is a problem that I think people are not aware of. It doesn't make much sense for the game to always be about defending Earth from aliens, simply because the question is: why not spread through the galaxy when you have all the technology? Why would each game be about defending Earth? The Frontier makes sense in that regard, and then so would a game like Interceptor. The problem is that when you move away from Earth, there's the risk of losing the connection with the game. Why would you care about some other planet that humans colonized?

It seems to me that which ever direction you tried to go, it has a lot of drawbacks in the long term.

 

I'll also say I liked the idea of an alliance with the Ascidians that was to be introduced through Alliance, it would have opened up the story more and made things more interesting. I think it's certainly possible to make good X-COM games in other genres, but honestly if I had the rights to X-COM, I'd be hard pressed to move into them, simply because it would be difficult to transfer some important aspects of X-COM into them.

 

The sad thing is, X-COM's setting has a huge amount of potential, it's just that right now, the story is poorly linked. Not that it couldn't be fixed...

[Sorrow]

Sorrow, I think that some people don't like Apocalypse not so much because of the retro 50s style, which was nice, although I feel Fallout did it much better.

Actually, I met only one person that didn't like the change in style, so the article is inaccurate here . As for Fallout - I think that there's a big difference - Fallout was retro in a "future the way the people imagined it in 50s" way, while Apocalypse was retro in a "the government wanted the city to look nice, so they decided to enforce the 50s style, but it's still the X-Com setting" way.

 

I think it's because it went on a tangent: it went from the Geoscape to the Cityscape, the aliens didn't have anything to do with the aliens from UFO and TFTD, the combat was much different in pace, plus they added RTwP which caused both combat systems as well as the gameplay to not be balanced all that well. And with a few more changes it seems that for some people it wasn't the same gameplay anymore. Apocalypse seems to have more straightforward tactics, as opposed to UFO and TFTD which were more about going "stealthy", simply because if the aliens saw you, you were most likely dead.

Apocalypse makes sense within its own context, but it doesn't connect to the other two all that well. There's also some plot holes, but then again UFO and TFTD have them as well.

To me changing from the Geoscape to the Citiscape wasn't a big problem, because the Geoscape would be pretty depopulated anyway, since almost everyone lives in domed cities. It added a lot of detail, but on the other hand it's visible that the game is unfinished.

I liked the idea of new aliens that are even more alien and more powerful.

I think that if they kept the damage/armor values from UFO and made the new technology more powerful, there wouldn't be much change of pace of combat.

The article says that the RTwP was the original intended mode for Apocalypse and TB was added to please fans. Anyway, changing to RTwP changed the game balance to RTS style (low damages) and adding TB made both modes to be unpolished.

I was working on a mod that changes the damage/armor values to the original X-Com style, but still the game suffers from awful AI. The problem is that while in Laser Squad and Ufo the AI was pretty efficient and thus very dangerous, in Apocalypse it tends to do a lot of stupid and unnecessary moves, like walking around when firing, turning in random directions, etc.

I had situations when my soldiers were dangerously close to enemies armed with Laser Sniper Rifles (which in my mod do as much damage as the old Heavy Laser) but the enemy burned their APs on running around like headless chickens and kneeling and standing and doing other absurd things instead of shooting my soldiers.

It is very good in killing tension.

 

Also, there was another tension killing thing - weapon sounds and screams in UFO and TFTD were sharp, while those in Apocalypse were gentle and muffled.

 

A mixed bag Apocalypse is. :/ Some really, really good ideas and some not so good ideas. Oh well.

One thing that I liked beside the setting was changes in interface, though it lacked the thing that I wanted since TFTD - an option of having to confirm every command, so that my soldiers wouldn't die from misclicks.

 

As for Ellis, the idea of spreading the universe into other genres isn't bad per se, as long as it's clear that these are spin offs and the strategic games are the main games. Interceptor could have been a nice spin off, if I'm not mistaken it's the only game to offer a mix of a base management game with a space sim. But from what I can tell (haven't played it myself) it wasn't executed all that well and it seems the design wasn't as good as it should have been. It seems it has the same fate that Fallout Tactics has, a nice idea for a spin-off which didn't turn out so well.

I think that the main problems with spin-offs of known franchises is that the main games are usually among the best in the genre and spin-offs are usually mediocre. Also, someone has to make those spin-offs.

 

Genesis was spot on when it comes to the setting, but it seems like it would have gone for RTwP which a part of the fanbase doesn't like. The intro to the game was pretty cool, though.

I wonder if it's possible to make an X-Com style game in RTwP. IMO RTwP gives the player too much control over the time. For example in TB the player has his turn and then has to face the consequences in enemy turn and has time to actually be afraid of what lurks in the darkness.

On the other hand pure RT would require an advanced AI and preferably a squad based gameplay like in Close Combat, but would also limit the control of the player.

 

There is a problem that I think people are not aware of. It doesn't make much sense for the game to always be about defending Earth from aliens, simply because the question is: why not spread through the galaxy when you have all the technology? Why would each game be about defending Earth? The Frontier makes sense in that regard, and then so would a game like Interceptor. The problem is that when you move away from Earth, there's the risk of losing the connection with the game. Why would you care about some other planet that humans colonized?

It seems to me that which ever direction you tried to go, it has a lot of drawbacks in the long term.

I think that colonization and defence of another planets could be done in a Close Combat style RTW game with armoured infantry fighting against the regular army of aliens.

Some Close Combat games, like Close Combat 3 had pretty similar atmosphere of combat to Ufo - stealthy, deadly and without the player having absolute control.

 

I'll also say I liked the idea of an alliance with the Ascidians that was to be introduced through Alliance, it would have opened up the story more and made things more interesting. I think it's certainly possible to make good X-COM games in other genres, but honestly if I had the rights to X-COM, I'd be hard pressed to move into them, simply because it would be difficult to transfer some important aspects of X-COM into them.

I have the same feeling about it. The game was a success as a TB tactical game mixed with RT strategy because the mechanics were good for the theme of the game.

As I said, the only type of the game that would fit the theme of X-Com that I can think of would be a Close Combat-style RTW.

 

The sad thing is, X-COM's setting has a huge amount of potential, it's just that right now, the story is poorly linked. Not that it couldn't be fixed...

Maybe one of the UFO clones will evolve into a good series of X-Com style games...

Edited March 17, 2008 by Sorrow