[Colonol Dekker]

Through force of habit we'd all model Freespace stuff. . . . .
 
Seeing a Sath getting shot down over London and battling shivans may seem fun. . . . . But they have beam cannon faces and pointy wristwatches. 

[NGTM-1R]

How about helping them out produce content for the game instead?

The UFO:AI devs get a bit asshatty. I know there was once an offer of major help if they would put in in-mission saves for the casual players, but this is apparently regarded as heresy. I'm not a save-scummer myself, but that'd be my condition for assisting as well.

Xenonauts is being professionally made.

[TrashMan]

Missions are short, so in-mission saves aren't a necessity. FS doesn't have them, so?
It was their design decision and you should respect it.

There's nothing unprofessional about saying "no" to your suggestions. It clashes with their vision.

[redsniper]

WTF? The original game had in-mission saves. They should totally be allowed.

[BlueFlames]

There's nothing unprofessional about saying "no" to your suggestions.

It depends on how they go about saying 'no'.

Professional:  "We understand the nature of your request, but feel that our efforts are better directed toward other challenges at this time."
Unprofessional:  "Casual players?  They can learn to play the damn game or **** right off."

I don't know how the UFO:AI devs chose to say it, but to assume one way or the other is a mistake.

Also, some X-COM missions took a hell of a long time.  Consider raiding landed battleships, terror missions, attacking alien bases, and defending your own bases.  Those would all take place on huge maps, with loads of aliens.  If UFO:AI is going to implement larger missions, it'd be kind of them to provide a means to stop in the middle to eat/sleep/work for the people who aren't quite hardcore enough to prioritize those things behind a video game.

[mxlm]

It was their design decision and you should respect it.

There's no reason to respect poor decisions.

[Colonol Dekker]

Before this turns into a stupid arguement.


They're making the game, It's their baby, They can choose how they make it.


Anyway........I'm not a fan of this new one as there is no jetpack armour.

[TrashMan]

WTF? The original game had in-mission saves. They should totally be allowed.

There's no should.
UFO: AI isn't a X-Com copy, there's nothing that's "supposed" to be in there. Unless it's in the design document. Which it wasn't.

Understand that I love in-mission saves myself, but this "it totally should be in there because I say so, and not doing it my way is completley wrong" mentality irks me to no end.

[TrashMan]

I don't know how the UFO:AI devs chose to say it, but to assume one way or the other is a mistake.

That depends which dev you're talking too. Winter is the more vocal and explosive one.
They don't want to change that because that's not how they envisioned the game. It's really that simple. It's THEIR vision. Their game.

Anyway........I'm not a fan of this new one as there is no jetpack armour.

It's planned and waiting for a model. I made one for them, but it still needs to be UV mapped and animated. Not that I'm gonna do it, I just sent the mesh their way.

There's no reason to respect poor decisions.

Why is it a poor decision?
I've played many a games without in-mission saves. It's a welcome feature that makes the game easier, but it's far from a game-breaker. I've yet to see a game tank because it didn't have in-mission saves.

[BlueFlames]

They don't want to change that because that's not how they envisioned the game. It's really that simple. It's THEIR vision. Their game.

Not contesting that.  There's just no need for any of them to be an ass about how that message is conveyed.  "Vocal and explosive," aren't exactly adjectives that scream professionalism.

Anyway........I'm not a fan of this new one as there is no jetpack armour.

It's planned and waiting for a model. I made one for them, but it still needs to be UV mapped and animated. Not that I'm gonna do it, I just sent the mesh their way.

I think he was referring to the 2k X-COM shooter, not UFO:AI.

Anyway, regarding my previous rationale for in-mission saves, I have some more rookies to grind into the walls of a battleship. 

[NGTM-1R]

I can't find the E3 bits yet.

However I can find Noah Antweiler reacting to it by screaming, at the top of his lungs, "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTRRRRAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!" on the show floor at E3, so I'm not very hopeful.

[BlueFlames]

Watched Spoony's E3 videos last night, myself.  I think he might have hated 2k's X-COM more than that horrible hotel.

The sad thing is, I think X-COM could have served as the basis for a really good survival-horror FPS.  My dream X-COM game is a remake of the original with a prompt before each tactical mission:  "Lead from the base, or lead from the ground?"  Working from be base causes the mission to play out as the original, a turn-based strategy.  Leading from the ground would put you in the shoes of the ranking X-COM officer, to lead the squad through the mission.  And just imagine how badass that could be!  Disembark from the Skyranger into the inky darkness of a nighttime terror mission.  Breach a supply ship, whilst praying that the Sectoid leader onboard doesn't break the mind and will of the Sergeant covering your back.  Try to stay a step ahead of that damned Chryssalid and the zombies that used to comprise half your squad, while you decide to either retreat or make a final stand.  Watch on the monitor in your quarters, as your interceptor makes a final pass against a battleship before Ethereals begin to pour forth and make a beeline for your base's access lift.  Even if only the shooter option existed, it'd capture the much vaunted immersion, and feel in nearly every way right to have the X-COM name attached.

2k doesn't even seem to be trying, though.  So far, their shooter really does look like a reskinned, open-air Bioshock.  The custom weapons, the 1950's setting, all of it looks more at home in a Bioshock title than an X-COM game.  If someone leaks a list of available plasmids in the game, I'll be totally unsurprised.  They've offered no connection to the original, and I'm reasonably sure that had an invasion in the '50's reached the magnitude shown in the trailer, there'd be some more canon events in the X-COM timeline between the Roswell crash in 1947 and the alien escalation in 1997.  Everything 2k claimed as an homage to UFO Defense feels very much like VATS did in Fallout 3 - a hollow attempt to placate fans, while they make a game that does not follow on with the rest of the series at all.

I'll probably do with 2k's X-COM what I should have done with Bethesda's Fallout 3 - skip it.  I'll grant, 2k is a hell of a lot more compotent than Bethesda, but I just can't abide another one of my favorite classics being reduced to a title to be exploited.  Why couldn't XCOM be called It Came from Outer Space!!! or something similar (and probably shorter)?  Give the '50's shooter a '50's name and leave the X-COM brand alone, until you're ready to do it properly, 2k.

[Grizzly]

The sad thing is, I think X-COM could have served as the basis for a really good survival-horror FPS.  My dream X-COM game is a remake of the original with a prompt before each tactical mission:  "Lead from the base, or lead from the ground?"

I once read about Hidden and Dangerous 2 handeling things the same way: It allowed you to switch freely between first person and an strategy UI.

[NGTM-1R]

I have to agree with Blue Lion. I can think of at least a few good ways to think of an X-Com shooter. I've already mentioned SWAT4: detail-heavy and incredibly unforgiving. Some of the original Aliens vs. Predator games had elements of the proper paranoia an X-Com shooter would need.

So in short, could you make a decent X-Com shooter? Absolutely. It would be dark, creepy, hard as hell, and owe much to the more frustrating shooters of the last twenty years like the early Rainbow 6 games and SWAT4. It would be the antithesis of everything a casual shooter ever was, forcing the player to think and plan tactically.

Just like the original. And it would be glorious.

[Colonol Dekker]

GRAW crossed with AVP 2000 (marine atmosphere) and XCOM Alliance would make my day.

[TrashMan]

That's assuming it's actually dark, difficult and tactical.

But that many actually scare off casual players. So I don't hold high hopes.

[Colonol Dekker]

I was just stating my own ideal recipe for a revival.
 
 
But yeah, I agree with ya. Although some nub who's never played the originals may not be that bothered as they'll have no point of reference to scale their expectations / disappointment.

[BlueFlames]

Although some nub who's never played the originals may not be that bothered as they'll have no point of reference to scale their expectations / disappointment.

And this is why I don't get why 2k is using the X-COM name.  They have to know they're alienating the existing fanbase, and because the original is so old and the series so stagnant, brand recognition isn't going to draw in any new players.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like all they've managed to do is ensure that people who enjoy both shooters and X-COM will keep away from this game.

[Scourge of Ages]

Je

If anybody's interested and/or didn't know about it, UFO:AI just released v2.3. It's fairly impressive, and supposedly a huge improvement over 2.2.
Here: http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/News

[Rand al Thor]

Bang on the money BlueFlames.