I'm always okay with more XCOM clones. PTW.Honestly, I'd like a nuCOM clone that'd focus entirely on a covert/paramilitary conflict between human factions like XCOM:EW had. Yes, I know about Silent Storm, but I actually do want a more streamlined gameplay for this.
I'm always okay with more XCOM clones. PTW.Honestly, I'd like a nuCOM clone that'd focus entirely on a covert/paramilitary conflict between human factions like XCOM:EW had. Yes, I know about Silent Storm, but I actually do want a more streamlined gameplay for this.
Hell, I *played* something along the lines before nuCOM was even a germ of an idea, but I forgot the title altogether.
Procedural monster generation and adaptive tactics are things I've heard a thousand times that, if they even make it to the final product, are never what they were hyped to be.
Cautiously optimistic since it's Julian Gollop, but we're too early in the dev cycle for this stuff to be anything but pie in the sky.
No, it was some obscure TBS. I remember it was 3D with a Frozen-Synapsesque stylized graphics.I'm always okay with more XCOM clones. PTW.Honestly, I'd like a nuCOM clone that'd focus entirely on a covert/paramilitary conflict between human factions like XCOM:EW had. Yes, I know about Silent Storm, but I actually do want a more streamlined gameplay for this.
Hell, I *played* something along the lines before nuCOM was even a germ of an idea, but I forgot the title altogether.
Jagged Alliance?
I'm always okay with more XCOM clones. PTW.Honestly, I'd like a nuCOM clone that'd focus entirely on a covert/paramilitary conflict between human factions like XCOM:EW had. Yes, I know about Silent Storm, but I actually do want a more streamlined gameplay for this.
Hell, I *played* something along the lines before nuCOM was even a germ of an idea, but I forgot the title altogether.
Invisible Inc.?No, it was some obscure TBS. I remember it was 3D with a Frozen-Synapsesque stylized graphics.I'm always okay with more XCOM clones. PTW.Honestly, I'd like a nuCOM clone that'd focus entirely on a covert/paramilitary conflict between human factions like XCOM:EW had. Yes, I know about Silent Storm, but I actually do want a more streamlined gameplay for this.
Hell, I *played* something along the lines before nuCOM was even a germ of an idea, but I forgot the title altogether.
Jagged Alliance?
I think the real question is whether it will have snake tits or not. (PTW)Inb4 crab tits
Slightly less glamorous than one might imagine.I think the real question is whether it will have snake tits or not. (PTW)Inb4 crab tits
This looks awesome - whilst I like XCOM/2, I always felt that they had a sort of...gloss that I didn't like. It's the Fraxis gloss, which makes everything a bit cartoony and a bit hammed up whereas this looks more serious about being both grand strategy + tactical gameplay.Yeah, while a game can certainly take itself too seriously, I think there's a balance to be struck. The Mass Effect trilogy is a pretty good example for just how obvious the tonal difference between games is.
However, I'm always wary when developers show up and say a game will be released in a 2 (or more) years. They're still at the 'look at all our awesome ideas!' stage, before budget restraints and streamlining get in the way.
cause the gameplay in their stuff makes even the dumbest fiction endurable.
You know, the RPS article makes it sound like it is xcom cross-bred with Warning ForeverIt's more like fighting an army of spore creature creator creatures.
Dunno... xenonauts left me cold, somehow.
Maybe it was the repetitive maps, what felt like a smaller selection of aliens, or just the resource bottlenecks I inevitably encountered, but I never actually played Xenonauts all the way through.
I still actually prefer oldcom with a few mods.
I'm still waiting for an xcom game where it isn't still superior to take more troops instead of a tank, though.
The thing that killed Xenonauts for me was the 20-30ish hours late-game where I didn't research anything new or fight anything new. Took me almost a year to finish it because of that.
Hopefully this game won't have the same problems, hopefully.
So far it sounds interesting. More 4X stuff on the geoscape, mutating aliens, stuff like that. Less XCOM feel with soldiers, since they don't start off useless and permanently losing them is going to be somewhat rare it sounds like.I'm definitely OK with that, as long as there's still a chance - I don't want it to be that they just get 'injured' for a while and then come back, as it loses a lot of the danger, but I don't need them to be dropping like flies.
Is this thing going to be a thing soon or is it going to be a proto-thing for several more years? I don't evaluate on hype.
In short, Gollop talks the talk, but I am doubting his ability to walk the walk. Big talk, far too big talk. It already feels like a lot of pre-existing ideas rehashed together rather than something new and unique that truly integrates a number of relevant mechanics in an original way. A lot of buzz-words have been used, and presumably, a lot of technicalities utilized to make answers seem more interesting. I think we should all chill on this until it gets much closer to release. Also I'm not at all a fan of the art direction. All aboard the un-hype train.
My 2 cents anyways.
Sounds a lot like Peter Molyneux around the Fable 2/3 period. All I'm saying is that he's just kind of spouting off all these nice-sounding ideas and we're still two years away from a time when players can get their hands on the game.
EDIT: Cynicism not for the sake of cynicism, but because I think we've all experienced this situation a lot. "Hey, the original game was great! So now we're going to try to make this latest one the best ever!" Etc. A lot of times they end up just getting worse and worse and worse. I'm sure not everyone will feel the same.
Sounds a lot like Peter Molyneux around the Fable 2/3 period. All I'm saying is that he's just kind of spouting off all these nice-sounding ideas and we're still two years away from a time when players can get their hands on the game.Having played Chaos Reborn, also a (relatively) recent remake of a (relatively) beloved decades-old game, I'm inclined to think he knows his stuff. It did feel like it was growing in strange directions and trying to do strange things at times, but the core gameplay did what it intended to pretty well.
EDIT: Cynicism not for the sake of cynicism, but because I think we've all experienced this situation a lot. "Hey, the original game was great! So now we're going to try to make this latest one the best ever!" Etc. A lot of times they end up just getting worse and worse and worse. I'm sure not everyone will feel the same.
So far it sounds interesting. More 4X stuff on the geoscape, mutating aliens, stuff like that. Less XCOM feel with soldiers, since they don't start off useless and permanently losing them is going to be somewhat rare it sounds like.Lame!
Isn't he the person that actually made Xcom to start off with though? I mean, I'm usually cynical about such ideas but I feel as though he's one of the few people on the planet who's got strong enough credentials to actually pull something like this off.He's also the person who's since made simpler games barely anyone's heard of, like Laser Squad Nemesis, or Rebelstar: Tactical Command. I've become kind of disillusioned with big-name creators from the 80s and 90s. It just never seems to pan out. I'd like to be wrong, but to me so far this is sounding too much like trying to one-up XCOM rather than expanding on X-Com.
Dunno, Laser Squad Nemesis was pretty bloody great even though it was a smaller game. Its tactical combat was pretty damn good IMO.So far it sounds interesting. More 4X stuff on the geoscape, mutating aliens, stuff like that. Less XCOM feel with soldiers, since they don't start off useless and permanently losing them is going to be somewhat rare it sounds like.Lame!Isn't he the person that actually made Xcom to start off with though? I mean, I'm usually cynical about such ideas but I feel as though he's one of the few people on the planet who's got strong enough credentials to actually pull something like this off.He's also the person who's since made simpler games barely anyone's heard of, like Laser Squad Nemesis, or Rebelstar: Tactical Command. I've become kind of disillusioned with big-name creators from the 80s and 90s. It just never seems to pan out. I'd like to be wrong, but to me so far this is sounding too much like trying to one-up XCOM rather than expanding on X-Com.
I also hope enemies don't devolve, and aren't always evolving in response to player actions
Laser Squad Nemesis implemented its genre pretty well (basically a PvP Apocalypse-style combat test driver, no real base management).Isn't he the person that actually made Xcom to start off with though? I mean, I'm usually cynical about such ideas but I feel as though he's one of the few people on the planet who's got strong enough credentials to actually pull something like this off.He's also the person who's since made simpler games barely anyone's heard of, like Laser Squad Nemesis, or Rebelstar: Tactical Command.
Something I liked about UFO-series was that there was an incentive to have different weapon types in your squads. Some enemies were resistant to kinetics, others to lazors and so forth. So unless you were 100% certain what you were facing, it was useful to have a variety of different weapons in your squad. Plus there were higher options for different weapons.To be fair in oldcom you went assault rifle -> laser rifle -> heavy plasma, with very little reason to use anything else besides a few stun or blaster launchers.
In NuCom you just switch from bullets to lasers to plasma. There is no point ever using anything lower tier nor are there different damage types evolving next to each other. I hope this thing will have that.
I miss the dread feeling playing XCOM back in the mid 80s...
in the mid 80s...
I miss the dread feeling playing XCOM back in the mid 80s...in the mid 80s...
Old post, but huh?
So far it sounds interesting. More 4X stuff on the geoscape, mutating aliens, stuff like that. Less XCOM feel with soldiers, since they don't start off useless and permanently losing them is going to be somewhat rare it sounds like.Lame!Isn't he the person that actually made Xcom to start off with though? I mean, I'm usually cynical about such ideas but I feel as though he's one of the few people on the planet who's got strong enough credentials to actually pull something like this off.He's also the person who's since made simpler games barely anyone's heard of, like Laser Squad Nemesis, or Rebelstar: Tactical Command. I've become kind of disillusioned with big-name creators from the 80s and 90s. It just never seems to pan out. I'd like to be wrong, but to me so far this is sounding too much like trying to one-up XCOM rather than expanding on X-Com.
Giving this a bump to point out that it just entered funding on Fig,
https://www.fig.co/campaigns/phoenix-point
For those who might be interested.
Frankly, like Virtz, I'm also very disillusioned with the whole 'old famous developer is making a comeback' thing. More and more it's seeming like the first time around they just got lucky, or that whatever lightning in a bottle they'd captured has since long gone.I think a lot of that is that they're mostly just cashing in on their name with a pretty flimsy concept or a straight out remake. Gollop seems a bit more serious in his vision for this, and it seems like a serious project rather than a vanity cash grab.
Urgh. I'd have happily donated, but 100% no to fig. Never, ever, ever.Oh? Why not?
We have been working on Phoenix Point for a year, and we have a playable tactical battle system with great AI. We have started on the geoscape and large scale monsters. In order to realize our vision of a high quality, deep strategy game by the end of 2018 we need to expand our team. All the Fig funds will be used to build content and enhance the quality of the game.
So they'd be giving themselves a year and a half to finish the game if they got funded. Yeah, that's a timeline that sounds realistic......Satellite Reign finished damn fast, just a little over three years from the date of funding, and while good, the content was definitely of the copy/paste variety and a little shallow. And these guys are saying they could do a way more complicated game in half the time with the same amount of money? Does not compute. They imply they've got a working game already and they just need the money to make content. Now where have I seen that marketing pitch before.....
Oh right, this is Fig. LOL. Yeah, I'll just wait for a release.
Doesn't help that forum search doesn't find the relevant threads, it's been discussed in detail elsewhere.
TLDR: kickstarter clone whose ToS openly states a remarkably scammy overhead. No-one who could qualify to use a platform with legitimate overhead (<10%) would have any interest in using Fig(starter), regardless of founder reputation: the ToS explicitly, openly, rips off the project in fees. Thus, Phoenix Point has a problem that's getting it blacklisted from non-ripoff crowdfunding sites.
I.e., Fig's business model is strictly like Facebook Payments nee Credits, an intrinsically rip-off payment method that is viable only because the target market is mostly banned from using legitimate payment processors by ToS considerations regarding virtual goods. For the online game I help maintain: solution is do what the big guys do like Zynga and PixelNation. Not only not take payments on Facebook, but not even mention the possibility on Facebook.
If they have a working combat system and AI and like they say the rest is just adding stuff in, art assets, models, effects, etc. Then I don't see how a year and a half is unrealistic.
Fig's revenue share is 50% of sales receipts before 1.36x the Fig Funds is returned; after that, Fig's revenue share is 25% of sales receipts until (i) a total of 3x the Fig Funds is returned or (ii) 3 years after commercial launch of the game, whichever occurs first.As stated: openly, to their face, scams the developer.
Fig then pays out 85% of these revenues to shareholders of Fig securities related to Phoenix Point.
Oh well, I won't touch anything having to do with DoubleFine, they are scammers in a moral sense even if not so legally. Guess no cents will be spent on this one, unless the game is completely clean of their influence post-release.
How exactly?I have an inactive account with IndieGogo. Options there are a 9.9% cut in exchange for being paid in near real-time, or a ~6% cut for a Kickstarter-like all-or-nothing with ETA 1 month after requested fundraising period end.
Do you have a comparison deal with some other publisher that shows how bad this is? Because without something to compare it to it can hardly be called anything.
Well, its actually only reasonable for a complete financial clueless since investors will probably break even only in around 3 years from now, but at least its not a total waste like most of their other projects.
Better to pledge as a backer so the devs actually gets more and will have to give less to fig post release and put your investment money some place else. heck, even the banks with their current non existent interest rates are a far far better alternative.
Well that was interesting. Looks VERY much like XCOM. I wish they would switch it up more, maybe add more then two actions a turn to find a balance between the old X-COM time units and the new XCOM action points.
Yeah. Mechanics look solid, but the graphics and animations need some polish work.
Well that was interesting. Looks VERY much like XCOM.
Damn that is one brown game though.
To to mention the ability to disable limbs on an enemy. That's a pretty distinct aspect of the game compared to XCOM.
But I'm happy it's evolutionary. XCOM does a lot of stuff right, and it's interesting to see his take on what Firaxis did with it.
yeah i suspect there will be mostly evolutionary changes in tactical combat - someone mentioned the will point stuff as well as being able to take each move in turns, and i think most of these things are not finalized yet; plus there's the novelty of fighting big bosses; and i think the vehicle stretch goal has been hit?Vehicle stretch goal has indeed been hit. Vehicles actually may be the most interesting part of Phoenix Point - I've always wanted vehicles in an XCOM(-like) game, and the unmanned
I hope that limb shots do less damage or, more importantly, can only do so much damage to. It's silly to think that repeatedly shooting a hand will actually kill something in a short amount of time. It will cause pain, lots of bleeding, and make that limb nearly useless, but short of shooting the upper leg or other places with gigantic arteries you're not going to be able to quickly cause lethal harm through limb damage.
The exception is heads or other appendages that contain vital organs. Weird mutated human hybrid things might have different biology, but enough damage to the central nervous system, lungs/lung equivalents, or important circulatory system parts will kill anything.
Just read a backer Dev update. Lots of very interesting things in it!
To start, the geoscape map is going to work somewhat like the original X-Com but crossed with a 4X game. There will be hundreds of points of interest scattered around the globe and as you expand outwards from your base you will have the opportunity to explore these and interact with them. They could be havens (independent or part of another faction), scavenger sites, alien bases, and the like.
The overall map of the game is built at the start using a simulation of the factions and aliens expanding out into the world and competing, so there promises to be a lot of variation from game to game on what is where any why.
Weapon Ballistics is also getting a full overhaul and is going to be much more like the original X-Com with each individual shot being modeled out. A missed shot could still hit someone, and cover is going to be just that. Cover based on whether or not it gets in the way of the shot or not. You'll be able to see some stuff when firing to get an idea of the overall chance to hit as well as what cover is likely to get in the way.
Sounds like things are shaping up interestingly. Hopefully we'll get some more demo videos and the like soon so we can see what all of this looks like in-game.
what i took from the updateSomehow I doubt that'll be the result. Their main inspiration is the reboot and its sequel, and I doubt they'll suddenly put back all the simulation aspects from the battlescape. Not with the reboot's movement system, at least.
"we are adding back in all the good things that the dumb-downed firaxis reboot took out"
Yes, I have played them, but not a great deal. I don't think they have had any influence on my game design.
idk, Gollop has single handedly lead more dev teams making turn-based tactics game than probably anyone else on the planet, for almost 40 years ... I wouldn't be worried about lack of inspiration. If you want to guesstimate his thinking on game design then the thing to look at would be e.g. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars, which he headed for release in 2011.So Shadow Wars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCDb6oQXMmA)... yeah, not exactly confidence inspiring if you're expecting complexity. Neither was Rebelstar: Tactical Command.
The guy's made a large number of other turn-based tactics games since X-Com came out, so saying he's just cribbing from the X-Com reboots seems unlikely. That would only make sense if he'd semi-retired after X-Com and suddenly appeared back in the game dev scene, with them tacking his name on the box. But that's not really the case since the guy is a pretty hard working dev always working on new titles.
Hmmm... supposedly xcom apoc did it, but the claim was likely untrueXCOM Apocalypse made the claim for alien tactics, not the aliens themselves. It's noticeable if you savescum a lot in the early game or otherwise replay the same battle multiple times (the aliens do tend to alter their routing to die more slowly), but not noticeable to the casual player.
It is a shame likewise that the shady funding system behind Phoenix Point (which includes those disreputable Double Fine guys) prevents me from buying this, no matter how good the game ends up being.
It is a shame likewise that the shady funding system behind Phoenix Point (which includes those disreputable Double Fine guys) prevents me from buying this, no matter how good the game ends up being.
this is the dumbest of all possible positions to take
It is a shame likewise that the shady funding system behind Phoenix Point (which includes those disreputable Double Fine guys) prevents me from buying this, no matter how good the game ends up being.
this is the dumbest of all possible positions to take
I get not backing a game for that, but seems odd not to purchase a finished game because of their original funding platform.
What if the original funding platform was blood diamonds and slave children?It is a shame likewise that the shady funding system behind Phoenix Point (which includes those disreputable Double Fine guys) prevents me from buying this, no matter how good the game ends up being.
this is the dumbest of all possible positions to take
I get not backing a game for that, but seems odd not to purchase a finished game because of their original funding platform.
What if the original funding platform was blood diamonds and slave children?
It is a shame likewise that the shady funding system behind Phoenix Point (which includes those disreputable Double Fine guys) prevents me from buying this, no matter how good the game ends up being.
this is the dumbest of all possible positions to take
I get not backing a game for that, but seems odd not to purchase a finished game because of their original funding platform.
As described in previous posts in this very thread, the platform is not just funding platform. It continues to operate when the game starts selling and a big chunk of the money will go to Double Fine guys.
...No, there is no theoretical limit to how dumb a position can be. It's turtles all the way down, so to speak.
I love a lot of the games he's done since then. Most of them have been mentioned already. The man does know how to make a squad level turn based strategy game. But I think we've reached the point where he's got such a history that we simply won't find another team up like Microprose. The people who respect him for what he does won't tend to guide him away from what he wants to do to make any groundbreaking new combinations. (Or he won't tolerate working in such an environment anymore now that he's a celebrity of some note in the industry.)The people who would be able to break new ground don't see a dinosaur and honestly, sort of a one trick pony like him, as worth the trouble to get where they want.
At least double fine announced that DF9 closed down. A lot of early access game dont even do that. They just diappear.
....yes, so what is exactly dumb about boycotting an unethical publisher? Same logic applies to any purchase decisions where the reputation of the company is tarnished. It is exactly the same as avoiding Nestle or Comcast or any other company with soiled reputation. That is how consumers are supposed to have an effect on the free market, duh.
I'd explain and link shit but you know what? I've done that multiple times in this thread. Read if you want to know.
https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles
well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.
so again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?
Quotehttps://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles
So it took until literally last month before they had a Fig success story worth talking about? Well blllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww me down.
well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.
Quoteso again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?
Because Fig is a money making pyramid scheme dressing itself up as an advocate for indie developers. EA, Ubisoft, WB, they may all suck but at least you know where they stand. They're not selling you, indie game developer and minimum wage gamer, a pipe dream about becoming rich through your hobby or chosen profession. And with Kickstarter, they take a flat cut of the pledges and that's fucking it. The rest of it goes to the developer. No revenue sharing, no "minimum sales requirements on return." None. Of. That. Shit.
Let me put it another way though. Kickstarter asked you to gamble your money so you might get a fun game and some developer might earn a living. Fig is literally asking you to gamble your money to make money. I know these days people seem to think it's ok to pollute the entire entertainment sector with cash incentives for fucking everyone. To me, that's poisoning the well, by making it about something other than a good game.
development takes years. unsurprising that a small city builder-type game was the first to release (the fundraising target was under $200k). the platform launched in 2015.
this isn't remotely true, but keep listening to your gator youtube videos.
1) do you have any clue what a "pyramid scheme" is? they're not asking their backers to recruit other backers, who are then supposed to recruit other backers, etc. even if fig were a 100% scam, that's not what they're doing.
2) why exactly do you think they're selling pipe dreams? they're not offering anyone who isn't already a clearly established developer a chance to publish a game.
I’m interested in using Fig for my game. Are you accepting pitches?
Yes, we’re always on the lookout for great new games and would be happy to review your pitch. If you’d like to submit your game for consideration, please email pitches@fig.co and tell us more about what you’re working on. Due to a high amount of interest, it may take up to a week for us to get back to you -- thanks in advance for your patience!
so literally your objection is that when a normal AAA game is successful, some of the profits go to the AAA publisher (Ubisoft, WB, etc), wherewas when a fig game is successful, some of the profits go to the game's backers.
which is somehow "poisoning the well"
i guess all the kickstarter backers are so much happier to have t-shirts and their names in-game instead, huh
Quotedevelopment takes years. unsurprising that a small city builder-type game was the first to release (the fundraising target was under $200k). the platform launched in 2015.
And development takes less than years, too, as we've seen plenty of times from Kickstarter.
He did the research. He actually looked at their filings. You have done....what, that I should give more weight to your opinion than his factual information, exactly? Do you understand how shell companies and liability work?
You might not get how pyramid schemes work either. Fig sits at the top. They lure the developers. The developers, who don't want to front any of their cash, in turn recruit backers. And then the marketing campaign starts. So yes, I think fits the definition of a pyramid scheme quite well, where the people at the bottom fuel the success of the people at the top, and assume the risk.
2) why exactly do you think they're selling pipe dreams? they're not offering anyone who isn't already a clearly established developer a chance to publish a game.
QuoteI’m interested in using Fig for my game. Are you accepting pitches?
Yes, we’re always on the lookout for great new games and would be happy to review your pitch. If you’d like to submit your game for consideration, please email pitches@fig.co and tell us more about what you’re working on. Due to a high amount of interest, it may take up to a week for us to get back to you -- thanks in advance for your patience!
Yeah. They really look like they're only going for accredited and established developers, and not just casting a net for any fish with a dream. All the super professional outfits I know just have a general submission email for new business traffic.
A game selling $1 million in its first two weeks, for indie games, is not normal. It's not the standard. That's the pipe dream they're selling, both to developers and to the people that are like "Well shit if I throw in $1000 I could make $1000 by this time next year!"
Like I said. Some people like this brave new world where we talk games but everyone, including players, has a profit motivation. Some people don't see anything wrong with CS:GO gambling sites or gambling-esqe MTX in single player games, or any of that. I do. Kickstarter has already shown what happens when your devs are as hungry for sourcing money as they are making their game. We've seen what publicity does for these things: they either are stupidly successful beyond anyone's imagination or they publicly crash and burn in spectacular fashion. And that's before there's even a playable game.
I *like* a financial divide between the people that make the games and the people that play them. I don't like what money does to the relationship either out of game or in game between players and developers. There are too many opportunities for manipulation and straight up fraud when the people you're asking to be fans are also the ones funding your game and stand to make or lose money on it. It's only half about the game at that point, and I get too many half games already out of crowdfunded projects to want to see it become even more prevalent in the gaming space.
I like Kickstarter as a reasonable compromise. Dev studio asks for money to make a game, facilitator takes a small cut of just the pledge, and all the backer has to worry about is whether it gets finished and whether or not they'll like it. Christ, even without standing to profit from a game, Kickstarter backers are deeply concerned where the money goes and how it's spent. And that's already more than I want to be invested in most games.
That is exactly what I'm saying, genius. The Castles and Kingdoms campaign finished in January 2017. The OLDEST campaign on fig finished in september 2015. no fig game has even gone through "years" of development yet.
but completely elementary and meaningless to anyone who has any clue how financing works. Everything outlined in the video is completely elementary - and not even particularly complex to someone who's cased delinquent taxpayers for years. There's nothing interesting to see there.
It's not like fig backers are encouraged to go out and recruit more backers and earn a cut of whomever they recruit.
The only difference is that you replace big corporate money and investors with crowdfunding.
it's starting to seem like you really don't know much about any of this but watched an alarmist youtube video made by a guy who gets ad revenue exploiting your credulity
i'm not sure where you get this idea from. i think you watch too many youtube videos.
it's just as fair to assume they're someone willing to get little or no return so that they can invest in a developer or idea they like. buying a $1000 fig share of a game instead of paying $1000 for an NPC named after you seems reasonable.
It's a personal thing, but I kinda dislike it when a game continuously defines itself in relation to other games.This is concerning in general, but what worries me more is the idea that the exploration phase is inspired by Stellaris and that's something they want to brag about. Like... you've got your mystery boxes, usually there's nothing in them, often there's goodies you can build harvesters over if you control the area, and sometimes there's boxes inside the boxes which you can then open again for immediate goodies or goodies to build harvesters over if you control the area. That's Stellaris exploration, at least, so unless you're amassing society research I'm not sure why "our map has grey question marks on it" warranted pointing at a particular precedent.
Realistic Ballistics also kinda makes my eyebrows levitate spontaneously, particularly considering the videos already shown. I get what they're doing, and I like it, I just think they're overselling a wee bit. I'm going to be interested to see how cover will actually work out, considering that I really like the idea of what they're doing, but it has the potential to make a couple of things really... wonk.Every part of this sounds wonky and awful. FPS aiming to get around boxes on top of Fallout-style limb targeting? I don't see how that's going to work without making you wish it hadn't.
QuoteThat is exactly what I'm saying, genius. The Castles and Kingdoms campaign finished in January 2017. The OLDEST campaign on fig finished in september 2015. no fig game has even gone through "years" of development yet.
So if they've had one project go from campaign to release and sales in 6 months....where are any of the other success stories, or stories period, of how things have fared on Fig?
So I guess we'll assume that everyone who is planning on using Fig is as educated and well informed as a tax lawyer? Because I didn't know any of this and when I did, it made my decision for me not to use Fig. Interesting to a tax lawyer. Gee I guess not. Interesting to the rest of us rubes? Yeah, I'd say so.
QuoteIt's not like fig backers are encouraged to go out and recruit more backers and earn a cut of whomever they recruit.
What exactly do you call exhorting backers to spread the word, get more backers, to get the game they have a financial interest in to get more money, so it can potentially sell better and make them more money back?
QuoteThe only difference is that you replace big corporate money and investors with crowdfunding.
That isn't the only difference. Another difference is in how they sell you on who they are. EA, Ubisoft, big publishers are faceless. They're monolithic. This is the good old "hey, we're people just like you who love games! We're not greedy and self-serving like the ebil publishers. We're about community! And definitely not bending you over as fast as EA or anyone else for a buck." Another difference is EA isn't courting unaccredited investors to fund their games. They damn well would if they could, and after Fig got permission I wouldn't doubt if they're exploring their own avenues of offloading development costs directly on consumers.
Quoteit's starting to seem like you really don't know much about any of this but watched an alarmist youtube video made by a guy who gets ad revenue exploiting your credulity
And you seem like you've got horseblinders on with a Fig logo on them. Gee isn't it fun when we both pillory each other? Or how about we just drop the snide personal attacks like anyone is winning points here.
Quotei'm not sure where you get this idea from. i think you watch too many youtube videos.
I read industry news, from developers, who talk about their profits and what's likely versus not likely in the indie space. $1 million in two weeks is not normal, or even average. $10,000 in a couple weeks for your garden variety indie game is much closer to the mark.
Quoteit's just as fair to assume they're someone willing to get little or no return so that they can invest in a developer or idea they like. buying a $1000 fig share of a game instead of paying $1000 for an NPC named after you seems reasonable.QuoteIf someone wants to donate just out of the goodness of their heart or for a t-shirt, why would they seek the profit option at all? By definition you have a profit motivation if you seek the for-profit option. Ergo, your focus is not just on supporting the developer or the game, you've got an ulterior motive of personal enrichment as well.
Realistic Ballistics also kinda makes my eyebrows levitate spontaneously, particularly considering the videos already shown. I get what they're doing, and I like it, I just think they're overselling a wee bit. I'm going to be interested to see how cover will actually work out, considering that I really like the idea of what they're doing, but it has the potential to make a couple of things really... wonk.Every part of this sounds wonky and awful. FPS aiming to get around boxes on top of Fallout-style limb targeting? I don't see how that's going to work without making you wish it hadn't.
Quoteso far they're at 0% "that which sleeps" incidents so it's doing better than kickstarterQuoteFig has a total of, what, 12 funded projects?
You don't get to play with both sides of the coin.
QuoteYou still don't "know" anything. You don't know if this structure is normal for investment vehicles (it is) or why it was done, or what it means.
I can read, I've got a brain and it's not rocket science. You can judge the terms of a deal based on the average for how most people succeed in the indie game market and judge it as shit.
QuoteAgain, that's not how a pyramid scheme works. In a pyramid scheme you only get money relative to your own recruitment. Your pyramid income is 100% based on the bricks below you, not on somebody else's bricks, or the overall success of the enterprise.
Fig makes money no matter what. It's just a question of how much they make. But they can't make anything without developers.
Developers get money no matter what. They get the pledge at a bare minimum. But only if they have backers.
Backers get fuck all unless it actually succeeds, and to recoup their investment at least the game has to be a huge success or it takes 10 years. Their take is proportional to what they're willing to put in. Fig scheme IS 100% based on the bricks below them.
QuoteAnd let's be real; being an accredited investor doesn't mean anything anyway. half the goddamn population of the US lives in a household with an "accredited investor." of course they take money from unaccredited investors.
1) Half of joint US households make over $300,000k each year? Try again. (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&q=average+us+household+income&oq=average+us+hou&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l4.1780580.1782152.0.1783323.14.10.0.0.0.0.199.1124.0j7.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..7.7.1119...0i67k1j0i131k1.sfD3KlxDHFw)
2) EA isn't directly asking investors to pay for the development of their next game. Because actual investors would say "Kiss my ass."
3) Accredited investor status is there to protect both the investor and the business. But it's mostly to ensure people don't gamble their livelihood away in the stock market.
You can get all that from Google by the way. Or "that youtube video which I just took as gospel and is factually correct but no one should actually listen to it."
Quotewell if you keep dropping the parts where you're objectively wrong (like "reputable companies don't solicit game ideas through email") then there won't be much left, huh?
You're really gonna stand by Paradox as your example? They've pulled some shady BS on their own time too. So no, I don't consider that me being "objectively wrong" because I don't hold up Paradox as some exemplar of professionalism or huge business. And more to the point, to Fig, developers are as much bricks in the pyramid as backers in Fig's eyes. They need developers as much as developers need backers.
QuoteYou misunderstand. Where did you get the idea that Fig is out there telling people they'll all sell $1 million of games in two weeks?
I didn't, because you're putting words in my mouth. Fig does the usual "investing is a risky business" spiel just like Kickstarter. The difference is they pitch making money as the thing that makes their platform special, as if making a plug nickle on half a dozen indie games is likely at the rate at which they have to sell for you to actually see a return. You've shown an example that proves their model, and what I"m telling you is it's an exception, not a rule. It's the Jackpot on the slot machine.
With Kickstarter it's "Ah shit, there's goes my $60 bucks and my fun" when it fails. Or it just doesn't take off to meet the hype and that's the end of it. With Fig it's "How did you not make me money!!!!" Those are two very different realities. As if making games wasn't hard enough to please publishers, now you got a fan base that also expects your game to be a financial success not just for its health but for their wallets too.
QuoteWhere is the dumbass accusation that Fig is somehow trolling for rubes coming from?
When they started trying to bring average people with average incomes into an investing scheme, using their favorite past time as bait.
Quotethe thing is, how can you argue this while also arguing that Fig is somehow a pyramid scheme or a scam? either it's ruining indie kickstarting by introducing a profit motive, or it's not because it's a scam that doesn't deliver games. you can't argue both.
Control F on this thread and look for scam. Look who hasn't said it.
I do think it's a pyramid scheme though. It just happens to be a pyramid scheme that sometimes has a happy ending and produces an actual product.
It's putting low dollar investment in front of average people and asking them to gamble like actual investors do with their money. And I find that pretty scummy.
I'll admit, I generally have a low opinion of investing period and that does color my bias. It's fine when it's not intruding on my world. But when someone is trying to change the way games get made and suddenly average fucking gamers are trying to make money, it's not really a hobby anymore is it? Real money trading in games, gambling on skins you can then sell for $1000, microtransactions, it's all about siphoning money away from people in little bits via their hobby. Buying the game isn't enough and hasn't been for a while. Now you need to keep giving them money. Now, even paying for it to be made isn't enough. You can' get people to foot the ENTIRE BILL for it right? Right? There aren't enough whales for that right? Unless....what if you turn average people can't afford to spend money like that in to gamblers, just telling them to pull the lever and maybe they'll be rich without having done a thing (except risk their money.)
I don't think you can compare share prices like that. How much return are you promised for 60 Euros in Ubisoft, how much for $120 in EA and how much for $1000 of a Fig game? That's apples and oranges. A "share" is whatever it's worth. A share that's worth half of another share may or may not be a bargain. You can't compare them. It's a economically meaningless complaint.
$1000 could well be a bargain, if you're getting a $200 return per share. Without more information you can't tell if it's a good deal or a bad deal. The price doesn't tell you jack shit. If you think so, here I'll sell you a pile of defunct dotcom-era shares for a penny a piece. Bargain!
Just the fact that you can get "8 EA shares" for that prices doesn't tell you anything. What's the dividend like on EA shares?
3) Accredited investor status is there to protect both the investor and the business. But it's mostly to ensure people don't gamble their livelihood away in the stock market.
Can we maybe keep this to its own thread or PMs?
Can we maybe keep this to its own thread or PMs?
I don't see how. If the argument is "I'm not going to buy this game no matter how good it is because of its funding method" then the funding issues are key to discussing the game.
In what way does being an unaccredited investor prevent you from gambling away your livelihood on the stock market?
Can we maybe keep this to its own thread or PMs?
I don't see how. If the argument is "I'm not going to buy this game no matter how good it is because of its funding method" then the funding issues are key to discussing the game.
There could be a nice dedicated 'How I Learned To Begin Worrying and Hate the Fig' thread! You could have your own alerts and wouldn't be troubled by these bizarre people who want to interrupt your discussion of financial policies by talking about this irrelevant 'Phoenix Point' game-thing.
Just imagine what you could do if you weren't pouring lant in everyone else's corn flakes!
Your mutual hissy-fit is like if someone says 'I'm not going to by this game because I'm a Christian and it features the Devil being a good guy!' and you then proceed to debate the nature of Christianity, artistic meaning, and the purpose of games. It's fucking irrelevant. If he doesn't want to buy it because of the funding method, okay, tough. That's his problem, and it's beyond the context of discussing the game. You want to discuss fig, discuss fig, but it kills my desire to talk about this game in any way when it's filled armchair economics and general pissing.
Would you kindly take it where it belongs? Fig is not Pheonix Point. The Pheonix Point thread does not deserve to be Fig's nidus of Hate.
PPE: Looked at the actual 'detailed' post on the ballistics. (http://forums.snapshotgames.com/thread/realistic-ballistics-progress-report/) It does not fill me with hope. This feels like the kind of thing that ends in screaming frustration when a soldier has the wrong pose behind cover.Yeah this reminds me heavily of DF's "screw damage values, let's emulate physics" approach. Which... physically works, I guess, but has some wonky-ass and not necessarily desirable results, like armor of a material rendering you virtually immune to weapons of said material.
Getting back to despair and hatred about the game itself:PPE: Looked at the actual 'detailed' post on the ballistics. (http://forums.snapshotgames.com/thread/realistic-ballistics-progress-report/) It does not fill me with hope. This feels like the kind of thing that ends in screaming frustration when a soldier has the wrong pose behind cover.Yeah this reminds me heavily of DF's "screw damage values, let's emulate physics" approach. Which... physically works, I guess, but has some wonky-ass and not necessarily desirable results, like armor of a material rendering you virtually immune to weapons of said material.
In a similar vein, when he talks about how awesome the combat is but then admits that it physically prevents him from conveying information to the player and that the exact pose of your soldier is going to super matter and that it still can't model this other complex thing he wants to do, I find it hard not to worry that he's got madness in his eyes and is going to make a Best Thing Ever that doesn't really make the game better.
Personally the sense I got from it was that he was trying to return to original X-Com/TFTD/Apoc-style shooting where a bullet's trajectory checked if it hit something else, instead of just hitting or missing. The difference being that, as far as I recall from nuCom, you couldn't hit a friend/alien behind the target. You either hit or your missed, and you might damage cover but you'd never hit someone else.
Matthew 21:19
In the morning, as Jesus was returning to the city, He was hungry. Seeing a fig tree along the road, He went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. “May you never bear” fruit again! He said. And immediately the tree withered. 20When the disciples saw this, they marveled and asked, “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?
Personally the sense I got from it was that he was trying to return to original X-Com/TFTD/Apoc-style shooting where a bullet's trajectory checked if it hit something else, instead of just hitting or missing. The difference being that, as far as I recall from nuCom, you couldn't hit a friend/alien behind the target. You either hit or your missed, and you might damage cover but you'd never hit someone else.
Yeah, that does seem the most likely option. It does, however, seem silly that you can't derive a hit percentage. I just really, really, really dislike 'realistic ballistics' when what they mean is 'randomized raytrace'.
iirc one of the dev logs mentioned that people would only end up visiting a fraction of all locations and would sometimes have to pick one/a few out of many available choices.
In other words, LW2's geoscape.
In other words, XCOM 2's geoscape.
The 1999 game was an X-Com follow-up. The story is apparently that a dubious firm (Titus Interactive: they had a bit of a reputation for making really shitty games based on other IP) did a share takeover of Interplay, the real publisher, they then gutted all the IP and moved all development to their in-house team, while cancelling every game in development. That dubious firm then went bankrupt with huge debts a couple of years later. So they were basically bankrolling takeovers on credit, looting the IP, then trying to bootstrap all these shitty rip-off games in-house.
That basically fucked Gollop since his whole studio was invested in producing the game, and is the reason his next few releases were smaller ones as he clawed back from being completely broke.
Also, reading stuff before linking it is usually a good practice :V
I wish their designs had more colour.
I think more stretchgoals should be treated like that, free DLC's that get added later.Yeah, prevents the game from fucking imploding due to sticking extra stuff in...
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saU3_xJJrCg]yourtexthere[/url]
just watched some footage. it appears there's no random hit/miss but damage depends entirely on cover, positioning and weapons. is that right? is there a blog post specifically about combat?
if they really removed the chance to hit for a more strategic approach I'm sold
just watched some footage. it appears there's no random hit/miss but damage depends entirely on cover, positioning and weapons. is that right? is there a blog post specifically about combat?
if they really removed the chance to hit for a more strategic approach I'm sold
I know the original plan was to have more original XCOM style ballistics where every bullet hit or missed on its own (and could hit other targets). Not sure if they have kept to that plan or not.
I know the original plan was to have more original XCOM style ballistics where every bullet hit or missed on its own (and could hit other targets). Not sure if they have kept to that plan or not.
as long as it's random deviation from aim and not critical hit/miss I'm fine. on a second watch tho I saw a hit % on the ux, so I'll wait for some more let's play
It feels pretty much like the VATS system from fallout tbh. Regular shots which aim at the center mass and are susceptible to shot deviation (but to the extent that it's simulated shot spread not just random chance to hit/miss) and aimed shots which are pretty much the same but you get more control over where they may hit.
Which is a pretty neat thing to have and adds an extra layer of options and approaches while not neccessarily bogging down regular play where you can just use the general aiming most of the time.
A minor nitpick I have tho is that the interface is too damn similar to the new Xcoms, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's a perfectly serviceable interface, but I feel it's doing the game a disservice where folks might assume it's a mod for Xcom or something.
A minor nitpick I have tho is that the interface is too damn similar to the new Xcoms, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's a perfectly serviceable interface, but I feel it's doing the game a disservice where folks might assume it's a mod for Xcom or something.
I have no idea how Oldcom calculated its percentages ("calculated", hahaha!), but it had mechanics both for soldier accuracy and projectile drift.
Rather, accuracy just determined how tight the shot would be.Ah, right... I think I might have somehow mixed things up a bit with how the blaster bomb projectiles deviate very slightly in their flight paths.
IIRC oldcom's accuracy wasn't the chance of hitting the target, it was the chance of firing a perfectly accurate projectile. As a result of that (and the fact that certain partial cover could block the perfectly accurate shot) firing rapid fire was the best choice 90% of the time. Since a "miss" could still hit and a hit could still do 0% damage. The only reason to take aimed shots was if you were very far away, or if you had to shoot past friendlies.Even without those considerations, auto shot was still mathematically the best option when looking at the given percentage chances. And then Xenonauts came along and said "Hey, what if we shot three projectiles like auto shot, but gave it the TU cost of a snap shot?", and thus shotguns were born.
IIRC oldcom's accuracy wasn't the chance of hitting the target, it was the chance of firing a perfectly accurate projectile. As a result of that (and the fact that certain partial cover could block the perfectly accurate shot) firing rapid fire was the best choice 90% of the time. Since a "miss" could still hit and a hit could still do 0% damage. The only reason to take aimed shots was if you were very far away, or if you had to shoot past friendlies.
I'm not sure I really like the alien design - it seems a little too "generic biological-based aliens"Probably inevitable given their commitment to procedural generation. If they'd tried very, very hard I'm sure they could have made every single component of every single creature both recognizable and narrowly thematically consistent, but more likely we were always going to end up with kind of a grab bag.
As Umiman said, adapting enemies promotes strategies to game the system in return. Use lasers for three missions so now everything has laser reflective carapaces? Time to break out the ballistic rifles for a few missions so your advanced laser rifles are worth a damn again.If you read the AMA that Cthulhu mentions, it doesn't seem like it'll be an issue honestly. We'll see.
Looks like your guys will automatically move back into cover if you move them out and leave enough action points at the end of the turn, which is a nice touch.
It could be. It depends on how it works. Random could mean an evolutionary system where enemies develop abilities randomly and propagate the ones that get results, or it could just be each unit has a chance to develop an adaptation to your tactics, so it's not automatically becoming immune to everything you do.He consistently referred to it as though it's a per-unit thing. I thought he was pretty clear on the system: If a unit is successful, keep it, if it demonstrates low performance (he didn't say how they quantify this) then that basic unit chassis gets a random mutation – it swaps one or more body parts out with a replacement. Although that body part is chosen at random, it presumably has some kind of weighting and possibly limitations based on the flow of the game, but even with no weighting a system like this would allow natural selection to over time create enemies more effective against your strategy.
It'll be a tough balance. The important part is making it so you have to vary your tactics within a match, rather than making it an all-or-nothing thing where you have to change your whole setup each time.I don't agree with the notion that all meaningful gameplay should be at the tactical level, at the expense of the strategic. The tactical gameplay doesn't seem that dull to me that you need to mix things up within the (somewhat arbitrary, with regards to gameplay loop) bounds that are the beginning and end of a single skirmish.
Mist sentinels are huge immobile mushroom things, I have no idea what they doSpread mist, from the sound of it. I don't know what that means since it wan't in the previous backer build and I've not had time to peruse gameplay footage since the new one dropped, but it was described as a "literal fog of war", so I guess it's like smoke grenades and probably other enemies will have the potential to utilize it for special abilities if they roll the right body parts. Edit: Saw someone say that the mist not only occludes your vision but also, everything that it touches is visible to the enemy regardless of line of sight.
As for metrics, I'd imagine that each unit class would have a different mission role, and thus have different metrics. You definitely don't want something naive like keeping all units that survived a long time. Cheap meat-shields and/or tanks should be there to draw fire, so even if all your "zombie" units died during a battle, that might be a great success, because they drew fire away from your heavy-dps wizard-type creature. So, for shield/tank units, the percentage of player fire that they drew during the battle should be one of the metrics.
For the metrics, hand-crafting them seems like it would be pretty iffy. If I was doing it, I'd set the AI to battling other AIs, collecting data about each unit's performance (this would include all actions taken by the unit, and also against the unit), then feeding that into a *randomized* set of metrics. Different AIs then optimize their armies based on their random metrics, and the dumbest AIs get weeded out and the best AIs get mutated. Thus, you can evolve AIs which are better at working out how to evolve their armies.
Yeah, I definitely agree with this.As for metrics, I'd imagine that each unit class would have a different mission role, and thus have different metrics. You definitely don't want something naive like keeping all units that survived a long time. Cheap meat-shields and/or tanks should be there to draw fire, so even if all your "zombie" units died during a battle, that might be a great success, because they drew fire away from your heavy-dps wizard-type creature. So, for shield/tank units, the percentage of player fire that they drew during the battle should be one of the metrics.
For the metrics, hand-crafting them seems like it would be pretty iffy. If I was doing it, I'd set the AI to battling other AIs, collecting data about each unit's performance (this would include all actions taken by the unit, and also against the unit), then feeding that into a *randomized* set of metrics. Different AIs then optimize their armies based on their random metrics, and the dumbest AIs get weeded out and the best AIs get mutated. Thus, you can evolve AIs which are better at working out how to evolve their armies.
I'd love it to be that performance based, but I'm sceptical about how they'd pull it off. It's less that they don't have the skill (I'm sure they do) it's more that I believe it'd be extremely tricky to balance.
I had a friend that worked for a big FPS games company back in the the mid-00s, they helped developed some incredibly 'realistic' AI for an FPS - it could work as a team, adapt to your strategies and flank almost perfectly. The issue was that it was super, super frustrating for players and so they had to scrap all the hard work they did and make an incredibly cut down version of it. It didn't matter that it was cool, it got super annoying to be facing someone that could adapt to your strategies well - part of what we like in games is winning (or at least finding out a working strategy as in DF) and if it was constantly destroyed by an AI it becomes no fun.
All that to say, I imagine that it'd be a better option for them to just go 'if player has x> snipers: give some enemies long range cloaks' - you'll probably end up with the same result as a paired down survival-of-the-fittest based AI without the hassle of building it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with this.I don't think the idea that people who want better AI are dumb necessarily follows from this particular anecdote. Especially when you bring in comparisons of multiplayer and single player, you're making fallacious assumptions. There's no particular reason to suppose that people who think it should be smarter only play single player, first of all, and even if someone is bad at multiplayer (which I doubt has any strong causal relationship with opinions on AI) that doesn't invalidate their opinions on AI whether in a singleplayer or multiplayer context. Besides, most games have a lot of space in between the status quo and an actually good AI.
It's what bugs me a lot when people complain about the AI in strategy games. I understand it's easy to riff on them being stupid, but they as the player seem very unaware that they themselves are super dumb.
All it takes is one single MP match to humble them into the ground or make them ragequit forever.
They complain that they want better AI but I'd bet infinity money that these same dumbasses wouldn't want to play a game with that same better AI because they are garbage.
I mean, look at those Dota 2 bots. Given time no human can even remotely hope to challenge that. And even if it was nerfed to 1/5th the power most humans couldn't handle it.
To program an AI that can balance between the idiots and the geniuses as some tier of god-level programming.
Incidentally, in my personal taste I actually disable these AI learning features in games. I did it in Metal Gear Solid 5 for example, where the AI slowly ramps up their stuff based on what you do. I just turned it off because it's super annoying when every enemy has night vision and body armor and heightened senses and decoys don't work, etc. etc.
I can also see why there might be confusion.Yeah, I definitely agree with this.I don't think the idea that people who want better AI are dumb necessarily follows from this particular anecdote. Especially when you bring in comparisons of multiplayer and single player, you're making fallacious assumptions. There's no particular reason to suppose that people who think it should be smarter only play single player, first of all, and even if someone is bad at multiplayer (which I doubt has any strong causal relationship with opinions on AI) that doesn't invalidate their opinions on AI whether in a singleplayer or multiplayer context. Besides, most games have a lot of space in between the status quo and an actually good AI.
It's what bugs me a lot when people complain about the AI in strategy games. I understand it's easy to riff on them being stupid, but they as the player seem very unaware that they themselves are super dumb.
All it takes is one single MP match to humble them into the ground or make them ragequit forever.
They complain that they want better AI but I'd bet infinity money that these same dumbasses wouldn't want to play a game with that same better AI because they are garbage.
I mean, look at those Dota 2 bots. Given time no human can even remotely hope to challenge that. And even if it was nerfed to 1/5th the power most humans couldn't handle it.
To program an AI that can balance between the idiots and the geniuses as some tier of god-level programming.
Incidentally, in my personal taste I actually disable these AI learning features in games. I did it in Metal Gear Solid 5 for example, where the AI slowly ramps up their stuff based on what you do. I just turned it off because it's super annoying when every enemy has night vision and body armor and heightened senses and decoys don't work, etc. etc.
Ah, yeah. I thought you were making a point about AI in general, more inspired by the discussion of adaptive AI than contained entirely within it. Civ VI did come specifically to mind as the Civilization series as a case where some people think they're good while people who play online multiplayer would consider them scrubs. I think any good AI will adapt to the player to some extent, but that becomes a matter of semantics.
IMO, in a 4X game the opposing AI should not act like a player, but like a nation.
The AI in phoenix point should not act like a player trying to win the match, it should act like aliens, trying to... do whatever it is aliens want to accomplish. Eat tasty humans and not get wiped out? Sure, that sounds good.
Yeah, based on the videos people have made, this has the potential to be a great game, but I can't imagine the play experience being better now than at release. Why pay extra to test an alpha?So you can get ++gud by training and honing your skills, and then dab on the nubs by showing off how you got all the achievements on day 1 of 1.0.
I never understood that. I figured it's just the general 'they changed it so I hate it' reaction of peeps who don't wanna move to another distribution platform. Anything to add some competition to the market and get valve to make some long-needed changes to Steam is good in my eyes, even if it is a little inconvenient. Honestly, the biggest problem I had was every publisher and their mother making a brand new distribution platform for like, six games. Here's looking at you, origin.Having to use many different programs is detrimental for the consumer, both because of the inconvenience (remember that the main benefit of Steam initially is that unlike other methods of buying games, it is was more convenient than piracy) and because the more small launchers there are, the greater the chance one you're using will go under and take your games with it. Remember the shenanigans with Impulse, the old Steam-killer? Or what about Desura, slightly more recently? It's not at all unreasonable to place limited faith in the longevity of the current batch of challengers. Furthermore, there's the ethical issue. Desura and Impulse both stood on pretty solid footing in this regard, before they were bought out, and that change hastened both of their demises even if mismanagement was a bigger factor in Desura's case. As a final nail in the coffin, these things typically have a terrible user experience, and Epic is no exception. Personally, I just recently opened the program and found that they got hacked and blocked my password. That's what they should do if they get hacked, but... Steam doesn't really get hacked. And it took me a bunch of tries to reset my password because I needed a new password email for each of the shitty errors they threw. And even when it worked, that wasn't victory, because I didn't know it worked – the password reset threw an error then too.
Anyway, this game looks like cash fucking money. I'll buy it once the price goes down a tad, seeing as how I'll be picking up WOTC soon since I waited for the same from it.
No refunds would be them defrauding you to steal your money under false premises. This is "merely" them defrauding you to obtain an interest-free loan under false premises. Is the latter as bad as the former? No. Is it unremarkable? Also no.That's a bit excessive. False premises and fraud would be if they planned the whole time to release on Epic, and were never planning on offering Steam/GoG support. And they still are offering Steam support. I'm not saying their decision was a smart one, or the right one, but calling it fraud is definitely an exaggeration.
You can talk about “greed” when he doesn’t need money to fund the development of an entire AA-like game and also keep himself alive.
Don’t expect other people to be starving artists just for ~you~. Passion alone does not make a video game.
Then, try and tell me that Gollop's studio is in a better position that Telltale Games was, a studio with a number of bonafide hits under their belt.Telltale had been circling the drain for a while though, I think mostly because they didn't have a solid enough core audience. I agree with your general point, but I'd have used THQ as the example. They invested heavily into something that flopped (although it was a peripheral) and the next game they made was just kinda okay, when they needed a hit (and to make matters worse, launched the same day as a game that was a hit). Gollop isn't overinvesting in peripherals, but since this is the first game from Snapshot on anywhere near this scale, it's still very much an "all eggs in one basket" situation.
No option is going to make the uber-entitled modern consumer happy.I'll echo that "uber-entitled" is an interesting charge to levy.
In Gollop's AMA they confirmed they didn't need the money from Epic to release the game. So it's not entirely a matter of survival.Not immediately, no. But from here he has to immediately invest the profits from the game into additional support and expansions or an entirely different project, start another crowdfunding campaign, or give up on making games. If the first option doesn't pan out, he'll be stuck with the third option and also wishing he'd kept the money. If the second doesn't pan out, he'll be back to the third and- depending on where it failed- will also face a great deal of backlash and accusations of fraud, incompetence, and/or greed.
No option is going to make the uber-entitled modern consumer happy.I'll echo that "uber-entitled" is an interesting charge to levy.
it's the norm, not the exception, for just about every detail except for the broad game concept to be different by the end compared to the start. Except big name investors don't freak out because the details changed, including platform of delivery, final date, pricing etc. All of those are expected to be different by the end compared to when the investors put the money in. This level of specificity is in fact the industry norm, not some exceptional breach of "contract".Crowdfunders are not big name investors with no interest in a game beyond its investment returns, and they're not being sold "a financially successful product" with no other details. They're consumers purchasing a product for personal use, having been assured of specific features and qualities.
If any one thing is going to kill crowd-funding of game projects, it's the way the crowd responds to the changes that occur during a game development effort. That's where the sense-of-entitlement comes in and is much different to how a regular investor would react.
Sure, maybe game developers shouldn't promise these things if they "can't deliver" but that's basically like saying game developers shouldn't make any new games at all. If devs only made what they knew they could deliver, only the shittiest clone games would ever get made.
I think the main problem with Epic is that they are trying to compete with Steam not by being better, but by just gating games behind their service. And that sucks for anyone not in North America or Western Europe, since there is no regional pricing, meaning the rest of the world pays MORE than they would in Steam or GOG or even Origin and Uplay.This summarizes my problem with Epic pulling stunts like this. I don't have a problem with Gollop trying to get more secure funding for his game. I do have a problem with Epic throwing enough money at Gollop to buy out all the backers to get exclusivity instead of spending it to have a better store than Steam's.
However, for the breach of contract idea, was there ever a contractual date locked into this thing?They actually delayed the release date of Phoenix Point a month or two ago, and most people were fine with it.
Regarding the question of the Steam date, releasing on Steam later doesn't actually fulfill the agreement, since it wasn't just about releasing. They need to actually give backers the steam key.My understanding from my look at the announcement and Reddit was that they're still going to give backers a Steam key if they so desire, just a year later.
So earlier this year I was thinking of have to decide whether to pick up this or Xenonauts 2 this year.Don't be hasty. I think you need to consider carefully which of those has more balaten before making the purchase
But I guess this makes the choice for me. Thanks Phoenix Point!
They raised $765,000 on fig and continued selling the game on their site: this article from last Summer tells us they'd raised a total of $2,000,000 (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-08-13-phoenix-point-crowdfunding-breaks-usd2-million-heres-how-it-was-done) at that point in time. Looks like they were bringing in ~100k-200k per month back then, from their preorder sales through their site. Obviously not enough to sustain their company indefinitely, and maybe not even enough to finish the game -- I don't disagree with you there -- but still a lot more than $765,000.
Taking the Epic money is just good business, and I don't fault them for that, but the preorders they were selling explicitly stated they'd give you Steam/GOG keys and access to backer builds. I don't think it's "uber-entitled" to wish for the fulfillment of that contract. Snapshot Games was already delivering the backer builds directly: I have their launcher kicking around on my hard drive somewhere. If they can't offer Steam keys because of their exclusivity deal with Epic, the very least they could do is continue providing DRM-free builds to their current backers/preorderers, similar to how Steam preorders of Metro Exodus were handled after the Epic deal.
The issue, I think, a lot of people have is that Epic is actively taking agency away from us. Phoenix Point is easily the worst offender so far, because we've already given them our money and now they aren't letting us play their game (for a year) unless we download and use Epic's launcher, which just validates Epic's strategy. If Epic wants to bankroll exclusives, I don't really have a problem with that -- I'm only frustrated in this case because I already bought the product and the terms have been changed under my nose.
Well, if the version on Steam has the first year's worth of add-ons and DLC, it may even be better for patient consumers in the long run.
The aiming system seems pretty cool to me. I guess it could be annoying to feel like you have to do it every time, but even if you do, it's not like you have to consider that carefully every single time.
Is the Microsoft store just an outlet or another platform like Steam or Epic?
Windows... user... id? What?When you set up an account on a machine running newer versions of Windows, you now get an option to, instead of making it a local thing with your credentials saved only on the system, instead connect to a server and store your credentials there, using a unified account that also can be used for the Microsoft's OneDrive (cloud storage), windows store and other bogus web 3.0 trash.
Oh... I must've turned that down (I have windows 10). I guess the windows store is not an option for me then.It shouldn't be hard to get if you actually want it. I have it, and find it to be generally innocuous. But I'm still going to wait until the game comes out on Steam, on general principle as well as for my own convenience.
Also, I got a coupon for $10 off the Season Pass if anyone wants it. I'm getting the Season Pass for free for being a backer, so I won't need it.
Those who made one great work, made gaming history and then failed horribly when attempting a comeback 20 years later.
Not expecting a masterpiece, but something good enough at least.
game with a 2.2/10 score on gamespot.
game with a 2.2/10 score on gamespot.
Fuck. I don't think they give war crimes less than an 8.
Oh shoot, he did Magic and Mayhem? Hell yeah, that game was ace for what it was. The sequel ended up falling a bit flat though, so I dunno how much oomph the IP has in it.It seems you can blame Titus for the sequel.
Would be pretty cool to see some kind of remake/reimagining though.
Oh shoot, he did Magic and Mayhem? Hell yeah, that game was ace for what it was. The sequel ended up falling a bit flat though, so I dunno how much oomph the IP has in it.It seems you can blame Titus for the sequel.
Would be pretty cool to see some kind of remake/reimagining though.
Free aim seems like a weird thing to have in a turn-based tactics kinda game? Like, Future Tactics had it and the only real reason that game was cool was because Tim Follins did the music for it I think.
Free aim seems like a weird thing to have in a turn-based tactics kinda game? Like, Future Tactics had it and the only real reason that game was cool was because Tim Follins did the music for it I think.
By the way, is Phoenix using the xcom engine? It looks like it's using the xcom engine.
It's pretty sad how little coverage this game has. It used to be such hot shit.
I didn't even realize it came out as virtually nothing is covering its release.
And there's like... 2 reviews?
Guess this is what happens when you sell your soul.
75 / 7.4. It's doing ok as far as Metacritic stats go. Whether or not that translates to sales so people who invested get money out of it...remains to be seen.
we already got the money out of it, months ago. the guaranteed sales from Epic did that. got a check for ~$950 middle of the year, after a $500 investment in late 2017.
I'm not terribly fond of how expensive and rare new recruits are. Means I have a lot of downtime waiting for people to recover before I can really go off and do new missions, especially if I have one where a lot of soldiers got injured.
75 / 7.4. It's doing ok as far as Metacritic stats go. Whether or not that translates to sales so people who invested get money out of it...remains to be seen.
EDIT2: Wait, the mutation system was apparently cut? Wasn't that the main selling point of the game? Can someone who has it confirm that?
Holy, Sirens are OP. Not only do they have extreme amounts of health with healthy armor, but they can mindcontrol way too many people at once. With no cooldown.
I had a Siren mind control three soldiers in a row (one per turn) that I sent to kill it as I was getting desperate to free my MC'd soldiers. But nope, kept on just absolutely tanking the hits then mind controlling whoever was closest.
The Ambush maps are seriously annoying... you start off in the middle of a map, need to survive for three turns, and at the end of the third turn, reinforcements start spawning and you need to flee to an extraction point on the edge of map. Where's that zone? You don't know until it spawns. >:(Playing on Veteran (the default) ambushes are never difficult enough for me to care. The exits are also never more than a turn and a half away, from what I've seen, so it doesn't matter that much.
They get new weapons every map for me, and their heads/bodies shift now and then (whether this does anything I don't know; I suspect it's flat HP/armor boosts). I don't think the intended "slowly evolving to counter your strategies" bit really works, but I'm actually not sure how I'd tell.EDIT2: Wait, the mutation system was apparently cut? Wasn't that the main selling point of the game? Can someone who has it confirm that?
I can't tell if they're actually changing or not, but the research for Pandoran Evolution (or something like that) seems to imply that they're actively changing still. Of course, that could just as easily be general flavor text.
It also costs them Willpower to maintain, so if they grab half your goddamn squad in one turn they won't be able to keep them for long.Holy, Sirens are OP. Not only do they have extreme amounts of health with healthy armor, but they can mindcontrol way too many people at once. With no cooldown.
I had a Siren mind control three soldiers in a row (one per turn) that I sent to kill it as I was getting desperate to free my MC'd soldiers. But nope, kept on just absolutely tanking the hits then mind controlling whoever was closest.
Just stay back and take them out from a distance. My squad could drop one in a turn and a half of concentrated fire, even accounting for at least a quarter of my shots missing. Admittedly, I've only fought two, and I managed to get the drop on both of them, so I was in a highly advantageous position both times.
Yeah. I’m really enjoying the game but by god is it missing polish. It’s also funny just how much the game is similar to NuCOM 2. From the map aesthetics to classes to the tiniest UI detail. Stuff like the blue/yellow tiles are to be expected, sure, but less expected is the fact that the action points are pretty much communicated in the exact same way that NuCOM communicates its moves.
It kind of feels like a very good complete overhaul mod. Though I do like NuCOM better as much as I enjoy this game.
Also god I hate how bad the UI is at any information. It’s way too hard to tell what an enemy’s health sometimes, and not once have I been aware that someone’s ammo was running low.
Fun fact: you can evacuate civilians manually by sending them to the evacuation zone and sending them away like any other soldier. Most will probably notice this themselves but I didn’t instantly pick up on it.
On another note, armor is... extremely punishing. Especially later in the game. That one is super fun. Starter weapons literally become useless. My assault rifles did 0 damage to enemies no matter where they could hit them. NPC factions do upgrade their guns and you do get those with new recruits, but ammo is nonexistent and it feels like they come at least a bit behind the curve so you don't get their new weapons right when you start seeing enemies invulnerable to the starter AR.
And screw those artillery guys. The worm ones feel fine, but then you come across the actual straight-up damaging artillery ones which suck. They can fire a volley every turn from anywhere on the map, and while they suffer from inaccuracy it is extremely unlikely that they won't at least get one hit which is extraordinarily damaging. And if all of their shots get their target? You're screwed.
Also >AFTERBLANK SERIES MISSIONS BEING "QUICK"Alright, yeah, that's fair. It's been a while but I just remember missions being pretty engaging in Afterlight, because I had the 'more enemies' mod so every mission was nuts, so they didn't feel all that long. Aftermath sucked though.
All afterblank battlescape gameplay is, is just playing hide and seek in the infuriatingly big and maze-like maps with strange enemy AI. Then you have stuff like the damn multi-phase missions. Which suck. I hate those missions. It's the reason I never beat Aftermath. Then you have the goddamn frequency of the missions. Aftermath does let you delegate any non-story mission optionally, Aftershock lets you build defense facilities in your bases that work kind of like UFO Defense base defenses (though Aftershock defenses suck; they give you allied NPCs in the battlescape in places where you have defenses BUT YOU AUTO-LOSE IF THEY DIE), and Afterlight lets you build missile defense facilities which basically halve your defense missions in half.
Yet it's still waaaayy too many missions. You have a gazillion defense missions a second, which can get really annoying due to the insanely weird map layouts you get in your territory.
'Cause in Apocalypse, you get your research: it's very crappy until the endgame. You just kind of piddle around doing autopsies and boring things until you can make the 1-2 types of acid guns and ultimate armor, along with the dimensional-travelling ships. So it gets points back for the endgame, but still -- for most of the game you almost exclusively progress through looted equipment and equipment bought from the other factions (who get new stuff to sell at set time intervals throughout the game).
XCOM 1/2 have 2 action points with blue/yellow lines, each representing how far you can move in one action point. Any movement within blue always takes 1, any movement in yellow always takes 2. Firing a weapon always finishes your turn but can be done with one or two points left, I think reloading always takes 1. And so on. It's a nice system. I like it about the same as Phoenix Point's system's concept (jury's still out on the execution of it though).
Yeaahh. Apocalypse's progression across the board is just weird and, while arguably inventive, a bit off. It could have been better, but I still feel like lots of the progression in Phoenix Point is still related to design concepts in Apocalypse.stuffApocalypse was a rushed game, lots of planned features which got cut.
The intervals between getting new stuff wasn't time but score, Apocalypse had a slightly evil mechanic in that the higher the score you got the more the game progressed in terms of aliens and weapons, you could start the game just demolishing the Cult of Sirius and then end up with mid-game aliens wrecking your shit.
I really liked lots of ideas in Apocalypse though, it's probably my favourite in the series even with the shitty looking 60's stuff.
Was really close to buying Phoenix Point but I don't want to deal with Epic Games Store, I guess it might be a blessing that I will only be able to purchase it next year when the game is hopefully more polished.
Yeah, I've yet to encounter any kind of goo artillery. Probably the evolution system and/or, if it's relevant here, the enemy bases only making certain unit types, working indiscrutably in the background.
Which is kind of cool. Maybe.
So for stats:
Speed lets you move more tiles in the tactical map.
Will Power You "mana" of sorts to use for abilities. However, Will going down to zero means soldier will panic.
Does will power increase the number of Action Points?
Strength increases the encumbrance. Heavier weapons and Heavy armor (has jet packs), more ammo or items to carry.
Worm artillery is manageable. You get 3 worms catapulted at you, but they have to wait until the next enemy turn to act.
Fun fact: An assault with high speed and willpower can clear an Anu steal research mission on the first turn, without firing a shot. You only have to hit the 3 research terminals and the mission immediately ends. ::)GOTTA GO FAST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTHsOSGJHN0)
FĆST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dpV7KwDWCM)Fun fact: An assault with high speed and willpower can clear an Anu steal research mission on the first turn, without firing a shot. You only have to hit the 3 research terminals and the mission immediately ends. ::)GOTTA GO FAST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTHsOSGJHN0)
I like it too, but I want more depth—looking forward to expansions for more monsters, classes, gear and research techs.Agreed to all three
Most of my complaints boil down to Sirens are OP and Vehicles are underpowered.
On sirens, my stance is: Mind control should cost action points because it is a poor gameplay loop to create a baddy that can only be defeated by pouring fire and special abilities into it with your whole team, and if it doesn’t die in one turn (or came in a group) it will mindcontrol half your team because they just spent all their WP points trying to kill it and it literally costs it zero in both WP and actions to mind-control all of them.
On vehicles: they should be two-soldiers big not three soldiers big—they don’t do nearly enough damage to balance the contribution of three soldiers’ action economy. As such, even though i want to play with them and do all the fun mobility tricks they allow, I won’t because mobility is useless when you lack the troops to transport. Plus iffy balancing—your starter vehicle is better than all of the other vehicles in the game! Sure it has less ammo, but it blows up half the map and keeps soldiers safe at once—whereas the Muton is basically a souped-up berserker with no such advantage.
Other things that bother me are research: there is nothing to research and I was out of tech by midgame, then made friends with a faction and got automatic knowledge of like thirty techs—why wouldn’t they just unlock those techs for research letting me use my own science infrastructure? I honestly think it is a waste of effort to build research labs—just build training centers (they stack) and engineering to crack out armor and guns quickly
Finally—why are there even stats in this game? WP is the one stat to rule them all, beating Speed handily with Dash while Strength doesn’t ever seem even remotely useful.I don't fully agree on this one. I think it's not as "one stat rules all" as you say, and I think speed is equally important. But it does feel that str plays second fiddle to will and speed.
High WP is a lot of fun—especially as the technician with an infiltration buddy—drop spider mines, take control of them and nuke the enemy line, or file your turret 3-4 times a round, never moving and using all your actions to recover WP—rince and repeat until all is dead. Plus you can grab a vehicle and make it act multiple times in a round (sadly this pnly ever really applies to base defense because on a mission, a Vehicle+engineer leaves so little room for anything else~unless you wisely stole a cult vehicle early on)
6 Explosive Chirons - JUST NO, it counts as soft time limit to your battles... of 1-2 turns.I haven't been playing much recently, but this. I understand not clumping together is a wise strategy against explosives, but they do so much goddamned damage and break all of your limbs at once that anyone targeted by a grenade crab- not even an artillery grenade crab, the bipedal ones!- is just utterly fucked. Do I just accept that I'm going to lose one soldier a turn while fighting those enemies, and hope it's because their limbs are broken and they need a medikit to stop the bleeding rather than because they're straight dead in one round?
Bump for great justice. Am I seriously the only one playing this? I'm quite addicted despite the flaws and it's obvious-betanessSure sounds like you are. Most people will likely take another look at it when it gets a Steam release.
Yah there are still huge balance issues with chirons, sirens, and (to a lesser extent) armor. It was kind of a problem that they nerfed player techniques to deal with these (eg: assault dash) without nerfing the enemies.WHAT
Yeah. I definitely don't think it's a bad game but by god it's horrifically imbalanced; when the game just starts casually spawning in enemies that can disable or instakill your soldiers without line of sight from across the map, it doesn't feel too rewarding. I'm also the kind of person that cares way too much about mechanical progression in games. Phoenix Point really isn't too bad about this (especially compared to other X-Com games by the guy like Apocalypse) but it still doesn't feel like there's that much of a path forward in technology and whatnot.
So I'm probably going to continue to wait for DLC and balance adjustments.Yah there are still huge balance issues with chirons, sirens, and (to a lesser extent) armor. It was kind of a problem that they nerfed player techniques to deal with these (eg: assault dash) without nerfing the enemies.WHAT
I'm also the kind of person that cares way too much about mechanical progression in games. Phoenix Point really isn't too bad about this (especially compared to other X-Com games by the guy like Apocalypse) but it still doesn't feel like there's that much of a path forward in technology and whatnot.
The general feel I get, and I don't know if it's right or wrong, but whoever was designing the core systems of the game (gollop?) did a good job, but whoever was in charge of designing everything else attached to those systems did a very bad job. I don't hate it enough to give up on it yet, but it certainly is a letdown compared to what I was hoping for.I don't know if this is the answer but it's definitely got a weird mix of good and bad. Some parts work really well, some parts are okay but not great, some parts are just awful, and a lot of them kinda shift around depending on what you're doing or what they're interacting with. Last time I played (it's been a while), the body part system was a great example of this: It's excellent on its own, but makes snipers exceedingly powerful (because it rewards a gameplay option other than focusing fire every time, but that option is shooting their gun arms off every time), and makes explosives stupidly powerful against your guys because every part of their body gets crippled at once and there's nothing you can do about that.
One thing that I really like about XPZ that I wish would show up in more in other games of its ilk is a world that feels like other stuff is going on-- No matter how dangerous it is, people are still travelling for various reasons, not every warehouse is armed to the teeth, not every military patrol you run into is composed of SEAL Team Six veterans. It's not suitable for every setting, but it'd be nice.
You have the freedom to look at the pile of incoming jobs and say "No thanks, my team needs a break this week." without a doomsday clock ticking closer to oblivion unless your squad of a dozen very overworked, very exhausted soldiers are dispatched on their fourth mission in six hours.
Oh, and research that actually seems to be interesting. I don't remember why, but I found the research of the launch version of PP to be brutally uninteresting. Very minor numerical upgrades most of the time, I want to say?
Yeaaah unfortunately that feels like it’s very intentional. It’s a pattern for Gollop — progression largely in sidegrades.
It’s been a while since I played (and I plan on playing again when more DLC is out) but from what I remember it was the enemy’s severe progression (hope you like armor :):):) ) and your… lack thereof, that had me give up playing more. Very irritating.
I never got far enough to research actual improvements. If they even exist.
Yeah a lot of the autopsy/vivisection research gives a 10-15% damage boost against that type of enemy (though a lot of that is for enemies you don't really need a damage buff against, like the various worms).I never got far enough to research actual improvements. If they even exist.
I could have sworn there was an entire class of research, maybe autopsies or the equivalent of interrogations, that would give buffs like "+5% to-hit to this alien type"... maybe it was another game?
I found it did the characters aging and having descendants over the course of the adventures while being a tactical turn based game far better personally. And the stories and writing were far better too.Now I know why I preferred Massive Chalice: It was more strategic. Wildermyth's progression was more RPG. You levelled your character's gear and had minimal control over the creation of descendants.
Maybe I went Too Nintendo Hard on Wildermyth before figuring the game out on lower difficulties, but it never really scratched much of an itch for me.I had a similar experience. The way the story fed in felt pretty thin to me. Massive Chalice was a more straightforward tactical battler with a thin strategic layer... I think I actually got more time out of it than I did Wildermyth.
It's a min-maxer disguised as a story engine, which turned me off.
Now I know why I preferred Massive Chalice: It was more strategic. Wildermyth's progression was more RPG. You levelled your character's gear and had minimal control over the creation of descendants.Fair enough, different tastes and all that. I think that's a solid assessment of the differences.