PDA

View Full Version : XCOM Enemy Unknown - Combat looks strange?



tomme25
14-09-2012, 02:23 AM
Hi all.

I don't know how to describe this as well as I want to, because english is not my native language. But I will try.
Check out this video here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itzi92OGGT8

Look at 2.51, and 4.02 in the video.

Does that look strange to you? It sure does to me. Do objects in the game provide any cover what so ever, or is it only for stats? By stats I mean, the enemy has less chance of hitting you if you are in cover.

Anyway, if this is the case it sure disappoints me. I mean, getting shot behind cover. Does the plasma shots bend in the air? In the original X-com, and in Silent Storm / Jagged Alliance 2 the combat looks nothing like this. Projectiles actually hit stuff that are in the way...

So what do you all think? Because this might ruin the experience for me.

/Thomas

Wizardry
14-09-2012, 02:31 AM
It's amazing how modern graphics and camera angles actually detract from games. It's even more amazing how developers haven't realised this yet. I would answer your question but I can't even tell what's happening during the combat. Perhaps a more perceptive person can help you more.

TillEulenspiegel
14-09-2012, 02:50 AM
It's amazing how modern graphics and camera angles actually detract from games. It's even more amazing how developers haven't realised this yet.
inorite? It's like nobody appreciates the value in simple, clear graphics. It's crazy to sacrifice functionality and ease of use when the result doesn't even look particularly good. It's just kinda dark and bland and fuzzy.

tomme25
14-09-2012, 02:52 AM
Well, I don't have anything against the camera angels. I used to zoom in Silent Storm just to see the shooting in all it's glory. It's just that (if you look close enough) objects on the battlefield provides no cover. There is no real ballastics on the weapons. The projectils don't hit anything, it's all just stat based. The shooting are just a graphical effect, or at least it sure looks like it. In the third video you can actually see his soldiers shooting around cover, and through defenses.

Just look very poor. Why even have a cover system, if you can get shot behind it.

So damn disappointing.

/Thomas

Derps
14-09-2012, 04:57 AM
Looks like they're firing through solid objects. Nice.

c-Row
14-09-2012, 07:18 AM
Do objects in the game provide any cover what so ever, or is it only for stats? By stats I mean, the enemy has less chance of hitting you if you are in cover.

Educated guess - stats only. Doing a raycast and actually pointing the shot at a properly visible area of the target shouldn't have been that hard if the target has separate colliders for certain body parts. I don't think it will ruin my personal experience, though, since it's merely a visual representation of math already done within a fixed rule set and happens all the time in countless other games.

QuantaCat
14-09-2012, 07:44 AM
people, please. Wiz, you of all people should know they built in a feature that disables all the camera whoozing and stuff, just for you.

Also, it means that graphic representation still does not trump actual gameplay.

Mohorovicic
14-09-2012, 07:53 AM
Looks like they're firing through solid objects. Nice.

That's because the game is grid-based and the animations aren't good enough to adjust sometimes.

c-Row
14-09-2012, 08:00 AM
people, please. Wiz, you of all people should know they built in a feature that disables all the camera whoozing and stuff, just for you.

Also, it means that graphic representation still does not trump actual gameplay.

Happy 1000th post btw.

tomme25
14-09-2012, 08:29 AM
Educated guess - stats only. Doing a raycast and actually pointing the shot at a properly visible area of the target shouldn't have been that hard if the target has separate colliders for certain body parts. I don't think it will ruin my personal experience, though, since it's merely a visual representation of math already done within a fixed rule set and happens all the time in countless other games.

Yes I know that, all turned based games are the same. But I just think being in cover you should be protected. The shot should be a 0% hit, if you can see the enemy at all.

I just find it all very strange, never seen a turned based game just ignore cover like that. And just in those three short videos he released you can see many strange and borderline bullshit deaths on both sides. Especially in the third video. Shots bending around a corner, and one guy is shoothing through some logs on a enemy he can't see.

Makariel
14-09-2012, 08:57 AM
Does that look strange to you?
Not the final build. Sometimes what looks like a bug just might be a bug?

Squirly
14-09-2012, 10:10 AM
It has nothing to do with it being beta or a bug. Yes, whether you get hit or not is stat based. Going into cover ups the chances that an enemy misses but it doesn't completely negate the chance of getting hit.

This is actually a problem with graphics getting better and better, and people thinking that everything happening behind the scenes (like to-hit chances) should be 100% represented on screen. It's not always that simple or that easy. At one point the developer has to make a choice and if it happens that a "hit" occurs even though it clipped a wall, that's down to limitations of the engine, not a screw-up.

Edit: Also, if this kind of thing gets your panties in a bunch then there is a mountain of games out there that apparently aren't worth playing, despite the fact that they are awesome.

Drake Sigar
14-09-2012, 10:16 AM
people, please. Wiz, you of all people should know they built in a feature that disables all the camera whoozing and stuff, just for you.

Indeed. You can disable or modify a bunch of stuff such as the voice replies and the cinematic camera. The only thing you can't disable... is the fun!

c-Row
14-09-2012, 10:18 AM
The only thing you can't disable... is the fun!

Now this makes me wish for someone to mod in a greyed-out "FUN" entry in the options menu that's always set to "Enabled".

Kelron
14-09-2012, 10:42 AM
This is a fairly common problem, where the animations you see aren't quite in line with what the game's doing behind the scenes. Look at complaints against Morrowind or low-level D&D games, where characters stand their swinging their swords at each other to no effect repeatedly. Representing dodges and parries and glancing blows off armour was beyond their capabilities, so they did what they could.

That said, I'd expect a modern big budget game to be a bit more convincing than shown in that video. But as long as the game gives a clear representation of actual line of sight and cover, I won't mind too much if the animations are weird.

tomme25
14-09-2012, 10:51 AM
It has nothing to do with it being beta or a bug. Yes, whether you get hit or not is stat based. Going into cover ups the chances that an enemy misses but it doesn't completely negate the chance of getting hit.

This is actually a problem with graphics getting better and better, and people thinking that everything happening behind the scenes (like to-hit chances) should be 100% represented on screen. It's not always that simple or that easy. At one point the developer has to make a choice and if it happens that a "hit" occurs even though it clipped a wall, that's down to limitations of the engine, not a screw-up.

Edit: Also, if this kind of thing gets your panties in a bunch then there is a mountain of games out there that apparently aren't worth playing, despite the fact that they are awesome.

It is not the clipping that bothers me that much. You can see that in every game, it is the fact that protection is only stat based. Being behind cover, should give you cover, not just a stat decrease for the enemy. And how can the alien even see you behind a wall? It looks silly when the battle plays out. Plasma bolts turning around a corner, or going over a wall to hit your soldier. I also find it strange that older games have been doing a much better job when playing out the combat in a turned based game. Just check Silent Storm. Every item has a hitbox, and will and can block your shots. And it calculates that into the % chance of hitting your enemy.

Odd design choice this.

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 11:40 AM
Hrm... I think that reduced chance represents the fact that although it's a turnbased game, for the participents time would be flowing. That soldier behind cover would be much better protected, sure. But cover is not perfect protection. Hiding behind a wall they will be moving around to some degree, looking for their own shot, examining their surroundings etc. They may expose themselves somewhat or although behind cover, a stray bullet may get through or a rebound might catch them. It's chance. Which exactly what those stats you're talking about reflect.

As to not being seen - I suspect that if they are behind hard cover and have not been seen by anyone going INTO it, then they may well remain unseen. This wouldn't reflect in the ToHit % but in the fact that they are not being shot at or out manoeuvred.

So, I think the reduced chance to hit it a valid choice. Also, if my recent playthrough of the original XCOM is anything to by then it was pretty similar back then.

tomme25
14-09-2012, 12:37 PM
More examples from a new video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKSdQwjzmVI

First check 1:21. Wtf is going on here?

And then 3.13. How does he hit the aliens from that angle? Does the bullets travel through the house?

I don't want to bash to game too hard, because I'm looking forward to it. But stuff like this is hard to overlook.

/Thomas

Grizzly
14-09-2012, 12:42 PM
Yes I know that, all turned based games are the same. But I just think being in cover you should be protected. The shot should be a 0% hit, if you can see the enemy at all.

I just find it all very strange, never seen a turned based game just ignore cover like that. And just in those three short videos he released you can see many strange and borderline bullshit deaths on both sides. Especially in the third video. Shots bending around a corner, and one guy is shoothing through some logs on a enemy he can't see.

Oi - you can shoot trough cover - you can also snipe at someones body part that is not entirely behind cover.



First check 1:21. Wtf is going on here?

Bugs?

tomme25
14-09-2012, 12:49 PM
But they are not showing anything of the body.. that is the problem. Bullets go around cover.

Maybe a bug, maybe not. I'm not even sure he is trying to lean, still why in the hell does the bullets travel through the tank? It seems the last bullet somehow hits it. This combat mechanic is so damn confusing. Do the bullets hit anything in the world at all? Or is it just a nice show with random plink and plonks when you miss?!

But anyway, care to explain 3.13 scene?

EBass
14-09-2012, 12:49 PM
For all the complaints against the new JA games (which I think a lot was unwarrented but anyway) this is something they did really really well. If someone couldn't see you they wouldn't hit you and it was always fairly intuitive who could see what. They actually modelled the bullets really well and you could see them impact around your target realistically or onto their cover if you missed. Its not impossible, and I agree that does look a touch naff at points but its hardly a deal breaker.

Sakkura
14-09-2012, 12:50 PM
Maybe "cover" in the game represents both RL cover and concealment? Also, it is possible to shoot at stuff you can't see. It's just much harder to hit, which is something a stat penalty simulates well.

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 12:51 PM
Well, I am finding it difficult to see properly but it looked like in both those instances, the shots fired missed. That seems to me to be because there were obstacles in the way - they would never have hit.

But they shouldn't really be shooting in the first place - the squad members are clearly on overwatch and shooting at anything crossing their line of sight but there needs to be some checks in place to ensure they ARE crossing their line of sight.

The 1:21 sample had his overwatch routine place him in front of the tank, despite him having actually seen the movement. I can't decided if it's JUST an animation glitch or if it did then mean he was shooting into an obstacle. I suspect the latter.

3:13 Those aliens were one floor up, too far away and inside a building.

The basic mechanics fine to me but the conditions under which some of these automatic reactions occur don't seem thoroughly tested at this point. How old is that footage?

Drake Sigar
14-09-2012, 12:51 PM
More examples from a new video.
First check 1:21. Wtf is going on here?

And then 3.13. How does he hit the aliens from that angle? Does the bullets travel through the house?

1:21 - That's a bug. The squadie was in overwatch mode and reacted to a threat on the side he couldn't see. Might be a problem with the model of whatever it is he's leaning against.

3.13 - I think he was aiming much higher than the camera hinted, and you can hear the window smash. Still, it shouldn't have been possible to hit them from his position unless he was bouncing the bullets off the ceiling.

Edit: Angel pretty much covered it. Maybe things have improved now?

tomme25
14-09-2012, 12:53 PM
@SanguineAngel (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/member.php?2502-SanguineAngel)

Uploaded today

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 12:56 PM
But they are not showing anything of the body.. that is the problem. Bullets go around cover.

Maybe a bug, maybe not. I'm not even sure he is trying to lean, still why in the hell does the bullets travel through the tank? It seems the last bullet somehow hits it. This combat mechanic is so damn confusing. Do the bullets hit anything in the world at all? Or is it just a nice show with random plink and plonks when you miss?!

But anyway, care to explain 3.13 scene?

1. they don't look like they are showing anything because it is turn based - however, as far as the game is concerned time should be moving so each turn accounts for an amount of time. It's abstract. So as far as the rules are concerned, they will be moving around and exposing themselves to varying degrees. The chance reflects the chance to hit over the period of time the entire turn represents.

2. Likewise, it's previously been stated by the dev that although the animation is firing many bullets, the mechanic is a single hit/miss exercise (by an large. There may be specific exceptions) and so the entire firing animation is a representation of the mechanic, not a like for like recreation.

edit: Uploaded today eh? That's a shame. That some buggy animation but I don't think it's going to end up affecting the game too much. when thy're shooting from overwatch at impossible targets they will still miss so it won't matter. But it will be a bit jarring regardless, looking like they're psychic or something

tomme25
14-09-2012, 01:05 PM
And are you completely sure it is supposed to work like that? Seems sketchy.

"Oh, my best soldier died. Hmmm, he got shot through solid concrete, I guess I just have to imagine that he played peek-a-bo with the alien" I don't buy it.

For me it looks like lazy design. Never seen an tactical turned based game that makes you rely on your imagination for a soldiers death. Sorry.

About your second point. Real shame. I was hoping to see wartorn street after a fierce battle.

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 01:10 PM
Yes, it's at the core of turn based strategy. In the same way that in reality people don't wait patiently for one side to shoot before taking their own shots. Everyone's doing stuff at the same time. The two teams taking turns is an abstraction, in effect those actions are occurring concurrently.

As far as the cover mechanic specifically goes - it works in much the same way as in tabletop wargames, or in any other TBS I've played.

Wizardry
14-09-2012, 01:17 PM
And are you completely sure it is supposed to work like that? Seems sketchy.

"Oh, my best soldier died. Hmmm, he got shot through solid concrete, I guess I just have to imagine that he played peek-a-bo with the alien" I don't buy it.

For me it looks like lazy design. Never seen an tactical turned based game that makes you rely on your imagination for a soldiers death. Sorry.

About your second point. Real shame. I was hoping to see wartorn street after a fierce battle.
Are you serious? Turn-based games already have a highly abstracted timing system for you to play with, where characters move one after the other instead of simultaneously. This has many benefits. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't been following the development of this game as much as I should have), this game also uses grid-based movement, which unlike free movement is a spatial simplification which brings about another load of benefits. So you've got this grid-based, turn-based game, and you want cover to work using realistic ray tracing so that the animations don't look odd? Don't you think this extremely detailed hit detection based on absolute positions and orientations of weapons, characters and cover would be at odds with the rest of the gameplay? Because I do. I think what you're looking for is a modern phase-based free movement tactical game and not XCOM.

TechnicalBen
14-09-2012, 01:29 PM
AFAIK the UFO:AI fan mod actually does this quite well too. Either it does line of sight and rolls to hit, or it rolls to hit and plays it so you hit through line of sight (not through walls).

[edit]
Actually, thinking about it, it may just look clearer (although not "better", the graphics are really basic) on UFO:AI. So it's clear the bullets did shoot through a small wall, or the character was slightly exposed. I'll have to load it up to check. :P

tomme25
14-09-2012, 01:46 PM
Why not? Silent Storm does it. Perfect animations, bullets go where they are supposed to and leave bulletholes. If someone is in cover, hiding, you should not be able to shoot over and around that cover. Abstract or not.

And what is with all this animations talk anyway. I want the game to be somewhat realistic, that is all, and who would have thought that games that comes out 2012 could project realistic bullet physics. I guess I was wrong. And I guess shooting through buildings and tanks, over and under cover is acceptable gameplay.

I know turned based games are supposed to play out in realtime, and a combat scenario that takes maybe 10 minutes turned based plays out in 30 seconds. But being forced to imagine the death of your soldiers just seems weird. Isn't interuption shots supposed to simulate an ongoing battle?

Sparkasaurusmex
14-09-2012, 02:01 PM
Basically every mission would be a stalemate if you can just safely hide behind everything. You are always forced to imagine the death of your soldiers, in any video game. It isn't more "real" if a layer of abstraction is removed. Xcom is sort of like a board game, and the picture on the screen and animations are just the game's equivalent of dragging pawns around the board. Sure the technology makes it possible to have the animations closely relay what's being simulated, but it's not about what's possible here, only what's intended.

Shooop
14-09-2012, 02:09 PM
Looks like bugs to me. Yes you can shoot through and around some types of cover, but there were definite cases of enemies unquestionably out of sight behind solid objects being spotted and hit with frightening accuracy.

For a turn-based strategy game that is a huge problem. Bullets pass through materials, but not entire buildings.

Squirly
14-09-2012, 02:10 PM
For me it looks like lazy design. Never seen an tactical turned based game that makes you rely on your imagination for a soldiers death. Sorry.

Ok, firstly, it sounds like you haven't played a tactical turn based game recently because most of them are quite old and pretty much demand that you use your imagination. Turn-based isn't "cool" after all and has been neglected for the better part of a decade. Saying that Silent Storm did it better is one thing but that game also failed in a host of other matters, maybe because they spent so much time on other things like realistic hit-detection. It's a matter of priorities as I see it.

ado
14-09-2012, 02:19 PM
I personally don't see any of this as a big problem since it is a grid based TBS that has a stats system at work underneath. Think of it more as a digital board game than your regular Call of Duty shooting game. The graphics on top matter very little if the system at its core is sound, as long as they provide ample information on the goings on in your game. Which it seems to be doing quite well.

With that said, I am positive that the guy in those videos is playing a preview version (i.e. not the final product), and I'm sure that the devs are very much aware of these glitches and bugs and are hard at work on stomping them.

tomme25
14-09-2012, 02:30 PM
@Sparkasaurusmex (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/member.php?8649-Sparkasaurusmex)
I would love if every mission was a stalemate and cover actually providing cover instead of what I'm seeing in the vids. It would more accurately portray a combat zone then homing missile plasma bolts / bullets flying around and hitting soldiers hunkered down behind solid rock. And it would actually force the player to do some flanking, and make the player feel safe when he is bunkered down. With the gameplay I have seen it seems nothing is safe hiding behind. It's all run out and shoot, tactics be damned because nothing protects me or the enemy anyway...

@Squirly
Has there been any recently released tactical turned based games besides the new Jagged Alliance? And yes, I have played the classics, I'm not new to the genre. And sorry to say, but I have never been forced to use my imagination when one of my soldiers have died in battle. In JA2 you could clearly see what killed you. Standing in the open, getting interupted while walking down a hallway, same with all the other games. Here you can loose a veteran to a random sniper plasma shot to the face when he is in full cover.... If that doesn't break the immersion I don't know what will.

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 03:02 PM
You're talking about 2 separate things tomme.

Firstly, you're discussing it being at all possible to hit someone when they are in hard cover. That's a design choice. The fact is, Fraxis have decided that it is possible to hit someone in cover. I agree with them. Most strat games do the same and it makes sense.

Secondly, the reason people are talking about animation is because you are complaining about it looking like people aren't getting hit when they actually are, or vice versa. This is not because the mechanics are faulty (being able to hit people in cover) but because the animations involved are not portraying that event with sufficient clarity in certain circumstances. If the animation is called but one of the character models is obstructed by another model, it might look like bullets are hitting that object rather than the target but then the target still dies.

I guess you would like it if damage was calculated by working out the trajectory of each bullet and if it hits the fleshy bit then damage occurs. The problem here is that you would also need the target to be moving in and out of cover in real time so that the the bullets have a chance of making contact. Essentially you're talking about changing the entire game system to something more like company of heroes which, i believe, did calculate trajectories and work out damage accordingly but that was much more appropriate for a real time strat game where time was not abstract. That system would would not be much like the original XCom stat based system which is what they are aiming to honour.

I suppose you could have specific death animations, whereby if someone is "hit" then a separate animation is executed to display that. But it would still be prone to clipping (they would move out of cover only to stand behind something else, for example).

tomme25
14-09-2012, 03:20 PM
Okay, we disagree on the hard cover thing, that is fine, you like it, I dislike it, and it does not make sense to me. Nothing more than that :)

But the thing is the animations and cover is part of the same thing that bothers me. I know everything is calculated in the background, % and all that jazz, people don't have to tell me. But what I don't like to see in the videos are the poor animation- representation of that calculation. Sure, okay, you can shoot a guy in full cover, I can't do anything about that because it's a design choice but do the plasma shot really have to travel above and around cover, couldnt they just made it so it passed through the cover in a realistic matter. I would be more acceptive to the whole idea if it was something like that. Now it just looks silly.

And there is also the thing with shooting things with not even having the line of sight... like a building blocking your view :)

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 03:34 PM
Yeah, in fairness, I do think that the animation is definitely buggy as heck judging by those videos. The bigger problem for me is that they end up shooting at people that they shouldn't know are moving and couldn't possibly see, such as on the other side of a building.

But I suspect that even that is an animation issue largely. IE, if there is no line of sight then the animation just shouldn't be triggered. It's a case of adding parameters to the overwatch check.

The animation clipping walls and such is a deeper issue. I admit I didn't see projectiles going round cover, just through it. I sort of think round cover would be better. Sure, not ideal but at least you'd actually see the impact. Maybe they are still working on that sort of thing. I hope so.

Anyway, for most people here, I'm guessing it's not a deal break because it doesn't have a bearing on how the game will play. Just, as you say, break the immersion a bit.

Tres
14-09-2012, 04:39 PM
After watching a bit more of gameplay footage I'm legitimately worried about camera. I have no idea wtf is going on half of the time there. Then again I'm a person that stopped playing Silent Storm after an hour because of camera issues.

Can you disable these zoom-ins when firing? That's got to be the most annoying thing ever.


It's amazing how modern graphics and camera angles actually detract from games. It's even more amazing how developers haven't realised this yet.

Yup.


It's like nobody appreciates the value in simple, clear graphics.

Frozen Synapse rite?

SanguineAngel
14-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Can you disable these zoom-ins when firing? That's got to be the most annoying thing ever.


Yeah, I'm sure he's previously said in one of the more recent RPS interviews that you can be permanently isometric, no cinematic camera angles

TillEulenspiegel
14-09-2012, 05:39 PM
Frozen Synapse rite?
You don't even have to go that far. Just use a graphics style where things are distinct, which is the norm with most 2D games that don't stray too far towards photorealism. For 3D, look at something like Unreal Tournament 99.

arathain
14-09-2012, 05:41 PM
I find gamers' inability to accept abstraction, or even really understand it (not referring to the OP here, since he/she seems to grasp the concept, but dislike this particular implementation).

I think for Company of Heroes shots are only modeled if they miss, so that in certain niche circumstances you can see an anti-tank shell curve in flight a bit if the right roll was made by the gun. Missed shots will damage whatever they happen to hit. I also seem to recall a rolled hit can be stopped by another unit in the right place, leading to occasional friendly fire. Anyone know for sure?

Total Annihilation and the Supreme Commanders fully modeled each shot.

I go with SanguineAngel thinking here. A unit who is in line of sight but in heavy cover is one who is still actively participating in the encounter- that is, leaning out of cover to check what's happening and trying to get off shots. They're hard to hit, but still somewhat vulnerable. If you really need some extra help suspending disbelief remember that the alien weapons are more powerful than anything we currently have available, and may have substantial penetration or splash damage, or similar properties that reduce the value of cover, even concrete or metal.

Tres
14-09-2012, 07:13 PM
I think for Company of Heroes shots are only modeled if they miss, so that in certain niche circumstances you can see an anti-tank shell curve in flight a bit if the right roll was made by the gun. Missed shots will damage whatever they happen to hit.

That's one of the reasons why Men of War is so much better. It's not that weird mix of realism and symbolic representation.

QuantaCat
14-09-2012, 08:07 PM
Thanks thanks, its been a long way, I think I posted the first 800 posts like half a year ago, then the final 200 only spread out over half a year :D

Also, Im sad that wiz didnt reply to my 1000th post D:

Which does remind me, however, how have you been, wiz? havent seen you around for quite some time...

Wizardry
14-09-2012, 08:55 PM
people, please. Wiz, you of all people should know they built in a feature that disables all the camera whoozing and stuff, just for you.

Also, it means that graphic representation still does not trump actual gameplay.
Congratulations on your 1000th post.


Which does remind me, however, how have you been, wiz? havent seen you around for quite some time...
I've been busy while letting my anger regenerate.

QuantaCat
15-09-2012, 10:32 AM
Awesome :D

Too bad they decided to go with fake TB combat for The Eternity, eh? I thought they would have loved it a bit more...

On the other hand, it *looks* like Shadowrun Online might honour it, but I cant remember if you liked that universe or not. (Im not fond of it, myself.)

coldvvvave
15-09-2012, 11:33 AM
I've been busy while letting my anger regenerate.

http://i.imgur.com/nwOOX.jpg (http://imgur.com/nwOOX)

laggerific
16-09-2012, 11:10 PM
I seem to recall in the write up on xcom that there was a skill or something that allowed a soldier to shoot at anybody as long as they were in somebodies line of sight. I thought this was a strange skill, but that's what it looks is happening to me at first glance.

b0rsuk
16-09-2012, 11:53 PM
I find gamers' inability to accept abstraction, or even really understand it (not referring to the OP here, since he/she seems to grasp the concept, but dislike this particular implementation).


That excuse no longer works when you make graphics very realistic and detailed. It's natural for players to complain when otherwise the presentation leaves little to imagination. A game should be consistent.

Koobazaur
17-09-2012, 12:15 AM
There's "uncanny valley," lack of imagination and inability to accept abstraction. And then there's shooting through thick concrete walls. Apples and oranges.

I mean if someone is getting hit since they are slightly sticking around a corner, but some of the tracers fly through the wall because they are randomly generated - that's fine, technical limitations and all, I can live with that. But if you are absolutely fully covered up and still getting hit, that's just illogical. I have a hard time accepting it as an arbitrary game rule not because I lack imagination, but because even within the game world, that rule feels irrational.

arathain
17-09-2012, 01:16 AM
I can understand that. Still, I'll take flashy graphics and interesting tactical gameplay and where the two clash I'll shrug and say it's worth it. But that applies to me only.

Bobtree
17-09-2012, 01:32 AM
I seem to recall in the write up on xcom that there was a skill or something that allowed a soldier to shoot at anybody as long as they were in somebodies line of sight. I thought this was a strange skill, but that's what it looks is happening to me at first glance.

I think that's for snipers, but they still need line of sight to hit the target. Then they don't need to be close enough to see if someone else is.

QuantaCat
17-09-2012, 07:43 AM
I think that's for snipers, but they still need line of sight to hit the target. Then they don't need to be close enough to see if someone else is.

It just sounds like a range thing.

b0rsuk
17-09-2012, 09:11 AM
The way it works in Enemy Uknown and Terror From The Deep is that soldiers can act as spotters. Soldier A explores and encounters and alien. Soldier B can shoot it he has a line of sight, even if he's not close enough to actually see it. Sight has range limit in these 2 games.

victory
17-09-2012, 07:41 PM
Yet another case where attempting a "cool" presentation backfires and looks much worse than a more rudimentary presentation, because it doesn't match what is actually going on in the game system.

I remember they have said the dramatic codbro zooming can be disabled, so that's something at least. Still, they wasted time on making it.

DaftPunk
17-09-2012, 08:57 PM
What did they say about the story in new X-Com,:o

The First Door
17-09-2012, 09:52 PM
As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't been following the development of this game as much as I should have), this game also uses grid-based movement, which unlike free movement is a spatial simplification which brings about another load of benefits.

I'm relatively sure that Jake Solomon has mentioned in a couple of interviews that the game isn't grid based, but they've added a grid in the PC version because it makes more sense to play that way with a mouse and keyboard. If you look at the console interface, they are driving a cursor around with an analogue stick and there is no concept of a grid. Although the cursor does seem to 'lock' into cover.

arathain
18-09-2012, 02:38 AM
Yet another case where attempting a "cool" presentation backfires and looks much worse than a more rudimentary presentation, because it doesn't match what is actually going on in the game system.

I remember they have said the dramatic codbro zooming can be disabled, so that's something at least. Still, they wasted time on making it.

I'm going to wait and see on that one. Alec wrote today that he was skeptical about the cinematic camera, but that it has really won him over as something which adds to the tension of the experience. Jake Solomon in one of the recent interviews claims the folk working on the game almost always leave it on, even though they've been playing a ton. We'll see- it looks like it might work for people than one would expect. This would hardly qualify it as a waste of time.