The comic book aesthetic and freedom of choice are EXTREMLY limited in Fireaxis's 2012 Xcom. They're designed for CoD meatheads and have waaaay to much handholding throughout the entire experience.
we owned Enemy Unknown on the playstation, one of the 60,000 :D we got the playstation mouse with it lol we our household didn't have a PC until the 00s
Read between the lines and you can see Pheonix Point *is* Apocalypse the way it was supposed to be. The faction system and adaptive enemy are both obvious evolutions of what he wanted to put in Apocalypse.
Your kind of passing along a bad opinion as a fact which is not very much appreciated by OG Xcom fans. The comic book asthetic, the straight forward and rewarding gameplay and groovin' music all made Xcom UFO Defense a masterpiece which were all sorely missing in Apocalypse.
@@rallyecars7449 It's not a coincidence that Phoenix Point looks and feels a lot like Altar's UFO series - UFO: Aftermath comes from the cancelled Gollop "reboot" of X-COM called Dreamland Chronicles (it even has a few outright nods to that). I expect it really helped Gollop to sell that after the good reception of the new XCOM. The main difference is that UFO chose to go with real-time combat (like Apocalypse), while PP stuck with turn-based. They're all rather brilliant games. Heck, I even enjoyed X-COM: Interceptor, though that game had _serious_ issues and the combat was really poor. But I always had a thing for the potential of games, even if the implementation ended up lackluster. I really like that they _tried_ to make a sort of expanded universe, rather than just keeping with the turn-based formula.
Thanks for putting this video up. Great timeline of a franchise that spans generations. enemy unknown = loved it terror from the deep = missed it apocalypse = didn't like it. intercepter = fun space dogfighter with base building and research. finished on veteran. Ufo aftermath = lDidn't feel like the real thing. UFO 2012 = loved it.
i am now really hyped for his new project i heard that in the past he pitched an X-com like game with lovecraftian horror elements but it got rejected because the publisher said that horror games don't sell well, the pic put in the website look a bit Horror-ish i think he implemented his earlier vision. did he talk about that but i missed it. Need more INFO please.
tactical game and geoscape, what happened to the research tree, and economy were you could build what you had discovered to keep in-game economy running
About the random numbers frustration: this is why games like Dota use pseudo-random now. Pseudo-random memes random, except that certain outcomes' probability is lowered when they turn up too often.
I guess there is some confusion about the vocabulary. ALL random number generators that produce their numbers solely based on an algorithm are pseudorandom number generators (PRNG). They are completely deterministic, which is even a desired property. PRNGs are fed a seed value to get them started, and their deterministic behavior ensures reproducible results, even if they produce results that often virtually indistinguishable from random numbers. Besides, most people totally misjudge the “skewedness” of PRNGs. Even if a 95% hit chance is high, there’s still a 1 in 20 chance that a hit fails. And everyone will remember the fails, while forgetting the successes, because the fails are frustrating. What you mean is that certain games can fudge the distribution of random numbers, but that’s independent from the PRNG itself. True random number generators need natural sources of randomness, like natural radiation and other sources like that.
Michael K. Nithing beats the original for sure but man, xenonauts gives me an ulcer. I liked the remake but I absolutely loved Enemy Within. Can’t say the same for Xcom2 though. Hate it.
@@insomnicnarcoleptic7112 Interesting. I love the original, still play it from time to time, but I HATED the first Firaxis X-Com. The second one I love tough, but it is its own thing, not trying to ape the original. Xenonauts was pretty damn good imo, but you had to rank up the difficulty to hard, otherwise it became a very slow and tedious game.
While i worshipped gollop bros before, i can see now, that x-com 1-3 was kind of an accident, a joint effort between great minds of gollop's company and microprose. Which also means after their split, there was little chance of another legendary game by gollop. And of course there was also little chance of success for the new xcom since firaxis was missing gallop's team. Xcom2 however was better as they no longer stuck to the original x-com. After xcom1 they knew it's a shallow, dumbed down console game, and they embrace that. Why pretend to be something you're not and fail. And xcom2 did just that, far better than xcom1. Of course they won't achieve the legendary status that games like x-com, doom, red dead redemption 2, baldur's gate 2 has achieved though. This is exactly the same for the situation at 28:53. They were right to reject your Tom Clancy game with geoscape battlescape on a Ninendo DS. It's a DS, why would you try to make cyberpunk 2077 on a DS. It's MADE for more relaxing less sophisticated games.
