![]() Get tired of players complaining about it and remove that item/ability completely. Like make changes to the game in order to balance one single item/ability, keep making those changes till players shut up about it. They fixed bugs and did re-balancing in the same way. Like there is a bunch of separate people who just work on their own part of the project, but not able to do so in a way that all pieces actually fit together in a logical manner. Like a proper reboot of old games.īut then as they kept adding features you start to get feeling that no one is actually designing this game. They felt mechanically as old simulation based games but had a modern UI and controls. Early backer builds where my favorite versions of the game. I think you summed up well "forgetting to design actual product well on it's own merits", and I think having had the epic cash upfront has played a part. ![]() Personally I haven't even finished Xcom/wotc2 first play through so I think I will pass on PP until I completed the run with the Aliens :) Somehow now PP looks and feels way off to what was shown at that first gameplay but I could be wrong with the way I perceived my memories. Thanks for the insight on the game mechanics, I remember the initial gameplay test release a few years back when was announced and I've to admit I was pretty well impressed and exited. Then forgetting to design actual product well on it's own merits and then never sacrificing those "competitive" features even if they clearly don't make your product better. Overall, PP is like a result of someone focusing too much on trying to make a product that appears better than competitor. Technically you can get "better" weapons but you won't feel like your R&D is achieving anything. In PP they removed progression pretty much completely. ![]() Last xcom had a tendency to make old weapons completely inferior after some key research projects, some people didn't like that. There are other factors, like ability heavy gameplay by mid-game, that effect this too. So both ballistics and cover loose their utility as a result. Now everyone can run so far in a single turn that in most cases you can flank and shoot someone in cover in a single turn or change 50% hit chance shot to a 100%. The decision to add a melee specialized faction (yes, "great" gameplay diversity) lead to decision to increase overall mobility of all units, so poor idiots with clubs could have a chance to run and bash someone in one turn. In practice, ballistics and "true" cover are driven into uselessness by other design choices. That's why corporate bots here can't shut up about ballistics, like it's somehow a complete game changer. ![]() They are marketing the game to the same crowd and keep highlighting those few features that are sort of "universally hated" in XCom and PP allegedly fixes them. Gameplay mechanics might have some nice touch but overall this is another clone too close to be different Pretty much yes. Even the procedurally maps to what I saw resemble the reboot. It seems PP is much closer to XCOM reboots than the original 90's xcom. Originally posted by Kunovega:If he's lumping it in with Xenonauts I think he means it's better than the original Xcom's (from the 1990's) which is also a more fair comparison since Phoenix Point is made by the original Xcom developer, but he had nothing to do with the modern Xcom reboots ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |