Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Are we allowed to have one Junpei?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Judge Schnoopy posted:

Lol the EGM review of 75:


"Hrrnnngggg rng is haarrddd and I want to win every single battle with no deaths all the time why is this game forcing me to make tough choices waahhhh"

That doesn't feel like an unfair claim to me. "That's X-COM!" isn't for everyone and the fact that you can lose due to random chance can be frustrating to people. It's a fair thing to mention in a review.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

dogstile posted:

One of his bad points was "i missed a 95% shot". That alone is worth ridiculing.

Some people feel like strategy games should be largely predictable. A lot of games have behind-the-scenes fudging to avoid that situation where you get put into a bad situation when you take what should be a safe shot. I personally like the unpredictability and scrambling to compensate for bad luck that is a central part of XCOM experience but it's also valid to not enjoy what amounts to "you did everything right and still got screwed" elements of strategy game design. It depends on what you're looking for.

That said if the biggest criticism of XCOM 2 is "it's XCOM 2" then that's a good thing.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

CharlieFoxtrot posted:

95% chance to hit means a 5% chance to miss.

The displayed hit rate in a game (including the original XCOM) is not really the actual hit rate. Not in the least because 100% hit rate shots could still miss in XCOM for minor reasons. A lot of games fudge things up and down for this reason.

Ravenfood posted:

Its the new critical will loss effect. You keep it until you go through a mission without taking damage, then you get all the will back and (possibly?) a few extra on top of it.

That's pretty awesome.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Furnaceface posted:

Isnt it usually because of rounding up to whole numbers? 99.5% hit i still a .5% miss chance but it would be rounded up to 100 on the display.

Yeah with XCOM IIRC it was that they rounded to the closest whole number so technically a 99.9% chance hit would be come 100% but could still miss.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Colapops posted:

Shen's Gift DLC includes a new mechanized class: orbital frames. Two skill trees are Jehuty and Viper.

Modders please. You can even put tits on them I don't care.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Has anyone who picked up from GMG got their code yet? I assume not but I guess I'm being paranoid.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

CapnAndy posted:

I got up through the first terror mission last night before I got tired and went to sleep. I feel like the game's still got its kid gloves on, though, since I don't have a doomsday timer to work against yet and so far none of the missions have threatened me with consequences if I fail or ignore them. Or maybe I'm just doing really good? That doesn't seem likely, though.

I do have a question: twice now I've been in Concealment, ended my turn, and then the aliens moved on their turn so that soldiers who were safe before are now in alert tiles. Is there any way to avoid Concealment being blown at that point? I've just been going "okay, gently caress it then" and opening fire, but if I can wait it out by holding still that'd be nice to know.

If a soldier doesn't move they won't be seen but if they get flanked they're boned. It depends on the situation but I've found it better to break cover at that point rather than risk losing the bonus all together.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

LuiCypher posted:

My guess? They put EXALT in there to see how you'd deal with an insurgency! Which is exactly what you are in this game.

No wonder the alien tactics are much better than in EW.

Oh man. That would explain why you get MECs and Alien DNA too. They want to test how their soldiers work against it. :allears:

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Ilustforponydeath posted:

You're unironically part of the ADHD generation

No, the timers are legitimately a good addition that encourage more thoughtful gameplay than "I gotta turtle-overwatch all the way up."

Coolguye posted:

Cover is tougher this time around and sometimes a single explosion doesn't destroy poo poo

Which is weird since the first tutorial mission has you bombing out of a wall with a grenade

Yeah, I think that's a dumb thing in the tutorial, it kind of sets a wrong expectation.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Ilustforponydeath posted:

You're the type of person who wonders what the point of super mario bros would be if it wasn't for the timer.

No I'm not because the core gameplay in Super Mario Bros doesn't reward small timid movements without it. There are however several excellent levels in Mario games which make use of a timer to encourage you to take risks and do things you wouldn't normally. The timer wouldn't improve ever level but it improves those levels. Meanwhile without forward encouragement in X-COM you're pushed towards boring timid slow gameplay, and no amount of "but you don't have to" will change the fact that a lot of people adopted that playstyle without outside encouragement. That was the entire reason they added Meld to EW.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Ilustforponydeath posted:

Whoa there charles dickens. Meld was optional, not something the game wields as a U LUSE button.

You don't lose if you fail missions in XCOM 2 either and in fact the game is balanced around the idea. Meld was a stopgap measure and XC2 is designed more fully around it.

Coolguye posted:

Yeah are folks playing on Veteran mostly saying the time limits are easy? On Commander you get 8 rounds and while it isn't oppressive, you sure can't mess around.

It is also many people's first time playing the game even if it carries over XCOM knowledge which probably makes time limits feel a lot tighter on higher difficulties than they actually are.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

RBA Starblade posted:

The game seems to rotate a lot more around the idea that you can't fight every fight, much less win them all. Though you still probably don't want to gently caress up the first retaliation.

Yeah, it's really baked hard into the game. The premise is that you lost the fight and are struggling back. The opening has you losing a bunch of guys but also emphasizes that you can call in evac at any time. The concealment mechanic encourages you to pick a good first fight instead of just fighting across the landscape. The way the missions are designed mean that total annihilation isn't always the primary objective. The new gear system means that retreating and keeping important gear as as valid a tactical decision as defending an objective. It's going to inevitably be a game where someone wins without any casualties but it's far more gear to push you towards accepting they exist and you will fail but you can come back from it.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Coolguye posted:

There's one other thing we got out of this DLC though: a hint that Vahlen actually does have a first name. At this point I think it's part of the joke that we won't ever actually get her name but she at least signed one of her posts "Dr. M Vahlen" so that's a thing.

Her name is flat-out stated in X-COM 2, isn't it? It's Moira

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2016/06/07/xcom-2-deploys-on-ps4-september-6/

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

FoolyCharged posted:

I found it pretty enjoyable and worth well more than they charge for it, but it doesn't have the replayability ew and wotc have. (Disclaimer: it's still got a fair bit more than most games because of the way the order you tackle the gangs changes things and the way you can't try out all the dudes in a single run. It's just it's good for 2-3 runs instead of being something I can binge gimmick runs on)

I think for someone who isn't prone to replaying games a lot or who is iffier about the massive lethality of standard X-COM, Chimera Squad is a great way to give them a taste. It's more linear and focused which can be a negative but makes it easier for a newbie to slip in.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

FoolyCharged posted:

Fiasco? I thought it was well recieved?

It was well reviewed and almost everyone who has played it praised it but it sold badly.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Zore posted:

I think at least part of it is also that they're not really making games that tap into what the audience wants? Like the Spider-Man games or the Batman Arkham games partially succeed because they offer a kind of wish fulfillment. You get to be (Spider-man or Batman) and the gameworld and game play are all designed around that power fantasy.

Meanwhile in Avengers or Ultimate Alliance 3 or Midnight Suns you really aren't? You don't really feel powerful or cool and it smooths out all the characters so they're interacting with the world in similar ways. People want big bombastic setpieces that make you feel like you're playing as the Superhero and they don't really offer that

MS was extremely good at that though.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Zore posted:

Not... really in gameplay. Some of the cutscenes were great for that, but the game itself had a weird disconnect especially as it went on with how enemies scaled. And some heroes just absolutely sucked rear end because they specialized in things that didn't scale *coughSpider-mancough*, or had their whole decks nearly completely invalidated by the way the game rewarded stacking damage and avoiding it at all cost.

I am not sure what MS you played but Spider-Man was kicking ads for me throughout. Easy repositioning and environmental effects go a long way. More to the point the game actually made things feel impactful and adhered to the character's abilities incredibly well

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

revtoiletduck posted:

I kinda thought that the randomness of card draw was the defining feature of card games.

Not precisely. It depends on the game.

A lot of the fun of card builders isn't in the randomness but in how the pressure of 'random' card draws makes you build your deck. The best X-COM example is that a badly built deck is like taking a potshot and a well built one is like properly flanking and stacking in your favor to the point randomization is minimized. The random draw serves the same purpose as RNG in X-Com in that it is there to give you something to try to work your builds around and also occasionally throws a wrench into plans to keep things interesting.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply