KickStarter Phoenix Point - the new game from X-COM creator Julian Gollop

[ERYFKRAD]

Xenonauts from the same dev

Same dev? Goldhawk Interactive has nothing to do with Gollop games dude.

 

[True Ukrainian]

Xenonauts from the same dev

Same dev? Goldhawk Interactive has nothing to do with Gollop games dude.

Yeah my mistake. Goes to show how much better what originally was a fan made game has become.

 

[ArchAngel]

Xenonauts from the same dev

Same dev? Goldhawk Interactive has nothing to do with Gollop games dude.

Yeah my mistake. Goes to show how much better what originally was a fan made game has become.

Xenonauts is not better. It is a bad copy of Open Xcom. I would suggest to people to always play Open Xcom over Xenonauts

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Xenonauts from the same dev

Same dev? Goldhawk Interactive has nothing to do with Gollop games dude.

Yeah my mistake. Goes to show how much better what originally was a fan made game has become.

Xenonauts is not better. It is a bad copy of Open Xcom. I would suggest to people to always play Open Xcom over Xenonauts

Xenonauts is still much better attempt than UFO 2:Extraterrestials for example.
Besides wasn't Xenonauts released before Open X-com was complete?

 

[LannTheStupid]

Nothing can compare with real simulations in Phoenix Point tactical battles.

Unfortunately, XCOM games are not played only on the tactical layer.

 

[PanteraNera]

Nothing can compare with real simulations in Phoenix Point tactical battles.

Unfortunately, XCOM games are not played only on the tactical layer.

 

[eXalted]

Nothing is better than OpenXcom.

Even Xenonauts - the only thing it makes me do, while I fight with the UI, is to just play OpenXom.

 

[ArchAngel]

Nothing is better than OpenXcom.

Even Xenonauts - the only thing it makes me do, while I fight with the UI, is to just play OpenXom.

Even if UI was perfect, except for real time air combat it has nothing that Open Xcom didn't do better. They could not even recreate features Xcom had (like Psionics for players or completely destructible terrain including UFOs)

 

[gurugeorge]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

 

[ArchAngel]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game.

There is some gameplay video from that early version, it looked better than what we got.

 

[eXalted]

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

That was a good decision on their part. I like playing XCOM2 (Long War 2). If a game is too similar to the classic one, the "why do I just not play the original" feeling will start creeping up like with Xenonauts.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

(Trying to make a new XCOM game with nufiraxis repository of Sims2 production values and "for 4yo and up" boardgame-like arbitrary rulesets)
-Hey, Jake. Remember how that old-ass XCOM gaem had the framework that allowed for unparalleled freedom and creativity in gameplay and doing some p crazy shit? Like using high-powered manually guided munition to punch a hole in the roof of a giant, multi-floor alien battleship to then drop flying power armor commando dudes through there to eliminate enemy commander in a swift precise strike without battling through hordes of grunts on the lower floors. That's fiddly and no-fun, right?
-You know, now that you put it that way, that does sound fiddly and un-fun.
-Let's just blame it on action points being too high iq for modern gaymers and roll with plan b.
-Not like it's untrue, lmao.

 

[ArchAngel]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

(Trying to make a new XCOM game with nufiraxis repository of Sims2 production values and "for 4yo and up" boardgame-like arbitrary rulesets)
-Hey, Jake. Remember how that old-ass XCOM gaem had the framework that allowed for unparalleled freedom and creativity in gameplay and doing some p crazy shit? Like using high-powered manually guided munition to punch a hole in the roof of a giant, multi-floor alien battleship to then drop flying power armor commando dudes through there to eliminate enemy commander in a swift precise strike without battling through hordes of grunts on the lower floors. That's fiddly and no-fun, right?
-You know, now that you put it that way, that does sound fiddly and un-fun.
-Let's just blame it on action points being too high iq for modern gaymers and roll with plan b.
-Not like it's untrue, lmao.

That sounds too complicated. My team just stayed in Skyranger and used MC to get other aliens to murder their commander (or disable him with those ranged weapons aliens use).

 

[Latelistener]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

The guy decided that he's the smartest and ditched random level generation in XCOM. Then basically admitted that he was wrong and something was amiss and added it to XCOM 2.

So, if you follow that trajectory maybe XCOM 3 will have even more features from the original X-COM, as the guy will slowly realize that the game from 90s is more fun than his because it has better design he desperately tried to get away from because he thought that "1:1 remake was not fun"?

I also noticed that some games recently are moving from away from his limited 2AP system to time units, like Last Spell or Troubleshooter.

 

[gurugeorge]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

The guy decided that he's the smartest and ditched random level generation in XCOM. Then basically admitted that he was wrong and something was amiss and added it to XCOM 2.

So, if you follow that trajectory maybe XCOM 3 will have even more features from the original X-COM, as the guy will slowly realize that the game from 90s is more fun than his because it has better design he desperately tried to get away from because he thought that "1:1 remake was not fun"?

I also noticed that some games recently are moving from away from his limited 2AP system to time units, like Last Spell or Troubleshooter.

I actually thought the 2AP system was a good discipline, particularly in the first game. It made the first game sort of clean, fast and simple, board-game-like, which definitely had its own charm. And the success of the game showed that their instincts about that were right - it had a broad audience. I thought that the 2AP design started to fall apart more and more as they started trying to introduce more simulationist elements. It seems to me that the more simulation you aspire to, the more you need a more generous and flexible AP system.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

The guy decided that he's the smartest and ditched random level generation in XCOM. Then basically admitted that he was wrong and something was amiss and added it to XCOM 2.

So, if you follow that trajectory maybe XCOM 3 will have even more features from the original X-COM, as the guy will slowly realize that the game from 90s is more fun than his because it has better design he desperately tried to get away from because he thought that "1:1 remake was not fun"?

I also noticed that some games recently are moving from away from his limited 2AP system to time units, like Last Spell or Troubleshooter.

Nah, he'll learn nothing and make it more like Chimera Squad or Midnight Sons.
They've been slowly getting rid of the expendable soldier formula and replacing them with super heroes.
Hell, in XCOM 2 they gave you literal super saiyans.

 

[ArchAngel]

Most new TB games are no longer using 2 AP, even if they just change it to 3 AP

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

The guy decided that he's the smartest and ditched random level generation in XCOM. Then basically admitted that he was wrong and something was amiss and added it to XCOM 2.

So, if you follow that trajectory maybe XCOM 3 will have even more features from the original X-COM, as the guy will slowly realize that the game from 90s is more fun than his because it has better design he desperately tried to get away from because he thought that "1:1 remake was not fun"?

I also noticed that some games recently are moving from away from his limited 2AP system to time units, like Last Spell or Troubleshooter.

I actually thought the 2AP system was a good discipline, particularly in the first game. It made the first game sort of clean, fast and simple, board-game-like, which definitely had its own charm. And the success of the game showed that their instincts about that were right - it had a broad audience. I thought that the 2AP design started to fall apart more and more as they started trying to introduce more simulationist elements. It seems to me that the more simulation you aspire to, the more you need a more generous and flexible AP system.

I thought that PP's system was a good compromise between TUs and APs.
It was still an action point system, but movement didn't consume all of your APs so you still had some tactical flexibility and it reduced the frustration of misclicking and wasting a whole AP on an error.

 

[Jaedar]

I thought that PP's system was a good compromise between TUs and APs.
It was still an action point system, but movement didn't consume all of your APs so you still had some tactical flexibility and it reduced the frustration of misclicking and wasting a whole AP on an error.

Honestly, I feel the difference between PPs system and x-com TU system is mostly in presentation and x-com providing a lot more granularity for the actual actions (turning, crouching, snap/accurate/burst fire, moving things from ground to hand vs ground to backpack...). Weapons in PP always cost 25%, 50% or 75% of your TUs to fire, whereas x-com has numbers like 65% or 33%.

This is of course very different from firaxcom, where you only get to attack once per turn, and moving a single tile consumes as much ap as up to half your total max.

 

[ArchAngel]

I always remember that Jake Solomon interview where he said the very first thing they did was do a vertical slice of a 1:1 remake of X-Com in 3-d. But they said it turned out to be fiddly (not sure if that was the word he used, but it's the impression I got) and not-fun.

My guess is rather that they felt they couldn't do a 1:1 remake and had to do something "different," so they scrapped that and eventually ended up with the XCOM series (and clones and ripoffs) that we've got - which, to be fair, isn't that bad of a game in its own right, just was never really like X-Com.

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

The guy decided that he's the smartest and ditched random level generation in XCOM. Then basically admitted that he was wrong and something was amiss and added it to XCOM 2.

So, if you follow that trajectory maybe XCOM 3 will have even more features from the original X-COM, as the guy will slowly realize that the game from 90s is more fun than his because it has better design he desperately tried to get away from because he thought that "1:1 remake was not fun"?

I also noticed that some games recently are moving from away from his limited 2AP system to time units, like Last Spell or Troubleshooter.

I actually thought the 2AP system was a good discipline, particularly in the first game. It made the first game sort of clean, fast and simple, board-game-like, which definitely had its own charm. And the success of the game showed that their instincts about that were right - it had a broad audience. I thought that the 2AP design started to fall apart more and more as they started trying to introduce more simulationist elements. It seems to me that the more simulation you aspire to, the more you need a more generous and flexible AP system.

I thought that PP's system was a good compromise between TUs and APs.
It was still an action point system, but movement didn't consume all of your APs so you still had some tactical flexibility and it reduced the frustration of misclicking and wasting a whole AP on an error.

It was not AP system, it just made all actions other than movement cost 0% TU, 25% TU, 50% TU , 75% TU or 100% TU unlike UFO where it could cost anything from 10% to 75%. As a result it made gameplay easier for many players while not really losing advantages of TU

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Fair enough. It is true that in game they were called AP and you had 4 of them, but I can see the argument that that is merely a cosmetic feature and could just as easily be replaced by a percentage bar.

 

[whydoibother]

The nu-XCOM combat system was so good, that it basically became a genre. So many indie RPGs and tactical games adopted it. Can't argue that it made turn based tactical combat digestible for the masses.
I bet the new Jagged Alliance will also use some variation of that system.

 

[Latelistener]

But I would really like to see that original Firaxis 1:1 X-Com game. I think that's all anyone has ever wanted from a remake, just the same thing with snazzy graphics. I think most people could handle whatever fiddliness it entails, if they could handle the fiddliness of the original game. But I suppose ultimately Firaxis was looking for a wider audience.

By the way, I'm not sure why no one yet is doing anything using Unreal Engine 4. I understand how much work this is, but we've seen crazier things.

 

[Lacrymas]

The nu-XCOM combat system was so good

How is it good? I hate the cover-based mechanics it "introduced" that are infecting every single TB game nowadays.

 

[whydoibother]

The nu-XCOM combat system was so good

How is it good? I hate the cover-based mechanics it "introduced" that are infecting every single TB game nowadays.

I like it. Wish there were more Panzer Commander like flanking bonuses, charge bonuses, etc.
The thing I don't like is "Overwatch". Its too good, to the point that in nuXCOM2 they had to change level design and add timed missions to combat it. Just remove Overwatch mode, add more positional bonuses for adjacent to allies/not adjacent to enemies, etc, and we are set.