|
|
| Page 3 of 9 |
Epsilon
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 9240
Location: War Room
|
 Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 04:38 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Quote: | Hi Guys
There was a little delay from the developers getting the final Gold Master. So we are going to be about two weeks late. Sorry for not posting this sooner. We are having a pretty big storm coming through and I forgot to update the forum.
David
|
Told you so, e-penis +1  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mYslead
Posts: 738
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 06:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrossWire
Posts: 208
Location: I make one tiny mistake and
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 13:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| SuicideRun wrote: | | csebal wrote: | | I don't see how UFO:ET improves the XCOM games in any way. |
real time air combat on the geo, smaller ufo escorts for bigger ufos, and ufos attacking your interceptors and transports instead of just reacting to your attacks is a tremendous improvement upon the originals, imo. |
Uhm.. i guess that makes a whole new game in itself. Sure they make sense and add to the game in a way, but is it enough to 'claim' it to be a 'new' game? I dont think so.. Then again, this might be subjective. Let's just say, that i've seen plenty of mods do change more in a game than they did change compared to UFO.
| Palegod wrote: | | As long as this game is completely turn-based and not that awful real-time crap the After***** games use, I'll be happy to give it a chance and I don't care if it's just an updated version of the X-Com games. |
As for the turn based vs real time debate:
Pauseable real time IS BETTER THAN turn based. Why? Because in real time the action makes much more sense, because the enemy can't cheat you by moving while you are unable to react, because you can't cheat by moving while he is unable to react, because you dont have to create nonrealistic 'reaction' events to counter for the fact, that otherwise you are unable to react.
real time is no less manageable than turn based, as you can pause at any time, and queue up orders as you wish.. or change already given ones as you wish.
In a real time environment, i can set my actions, then just sit back and watch the action unfold. In turn based mode, i have to spend my time giving movement orders turn after turn, even though all i want my men to do is to get from point A to point B.
news flash for you: turn based had its time, when the PCs were unable to handle real time calculations. Those times are gone. If you think turn based is better than real time in any way, then please.. try and give 1-2 reasons why you think so.
| Epsilon wrote: |
| Quote: |
We are sorry to announce that the release will have to be delayed from 16th April to 1st of the May 2007. Thank you for your patience.
Michal.
|
Haha
|
I think we can safely say, that the only news from this point on would be the game actually hitting the stores. 
Last edited by csebal on Mon, 16th Apr 2007 14:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 13:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| csebal wrote: |
As for the turn based vs real time debate:
Pauseable real time IS BETTER THAN turn based. Why? Because in real time the action makes much more sense, because the enemy can't cheat you by moving while you are unable to react, because you can't cheat by moving while he is unable to react, because you dont have to create nonrealistic 'reaction' events to counter for the fact, that otherwise you are unable to react.
real time is no less manageable than turn based, as you can pause at any time, and queue up orders as you wish.. or change already given ones as you wish.
In a real time environment, i can set my actions, then just sit back and watch the action unfold. In turn based mode, i have to spend my time giving movement orders turn after turn, even though all i want my men to do is to get from point A to point B.
news flash for you: turn based had its time, when the PCs were unable to handle real time calculations. Those times are gone. If you think turn based is better than real time in any way, then please.. try and give 1-2 reasons why you think so. |
Your opinion - I don't agree cos I prefer turn based.
If you wanna see how effective turn based can be - check Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com) which imo is the best system ever for a strategy game.
Just cos you don't like turn based it doesnt really mean that everyone else dislike it.
News flash for you: You speak for yourself and not every strategy player on the planet 
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 14:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthirs wrote: | | csebal wrote: |
As for the turn based vs real time debate:
Pauseable real time IS BETTER THAN turn based. Why? Because in real time the action makes much more sense, because the enemy can't cheat you by moving while you are unable to react, because you can't cheat by moving while he is unable to react, because you dont have to create nonrealistic 'reaction' events to counter for the fact, that otherwise you are unable to react.
real time is no less manageable than turn based, as you can pause at any time, and queue up orders as you wish.. or change already given ones as you wish.
In a real time environment, i can set my actions, then just sit back and watch the action unfold. In turn based mode, i have to spend my time giving movement orders turn after turn, even though all i want my men to do is to get from point A to point B.
news flash for you: turn based had its time, when the PCs were unable to handle real time calculations. Those times are gone. If you think turn based is better than real time in any way, then please.. try and give 1-2 reasons why you think so. |
Your opinion - I don't agree cos I prefer turn based.
If you wanna see how effective turn based can be - check Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com) which imo is the best system ever for a strategy game.
Just cos you don't like turn based it doesnt really mean that everyone else dislike it.
News flash for you: You speak for yourself and not every strategy player on the planet |
Combat mission? You mean the WW2 game, where you issue orders, then a one minute time plays out with those orders, after which you can issue orders again?
Yes.. i know that game. Interestingly enough, the only difference between that and a truly real time game is, that in real time you can pause to give orders at any time. So i guess you made your point on just how real time is not that bad after all..
About how turn based gameplay is made obsolete by newer PCs. You just proved it yourself. The prime example of turn based greatness you've given me is in fact a hybrid turn based - real time game, which is only limited compared to true real time games.
It is sad how some peope fail to see further than CnC when talking about real time. Real time is not a synonyme for clickfests or intolerably fast gameplay. It is merely a description on how the action in the game plays out. Turn based action gives you the freedom of thinking when making a move, but damn.. so does the pause button.
The only real difference there is that in turn based mode, you will never have the scale of immersion real time action provides. You can't just sit back and watch in real time - or hell.. even in slow motion.. how the enemy troops are slaughtered in a narrow corridor filled with lead through supressing fire. instead you can have: character A shooting a burst, then character B doing the same, then character C, etc.. all the while the enemy is standing still waiting to get slaughtered, doing nothing.
Yea.. i guess there is much on the side of turn based gameplay, apart from the short sightedness and prejudices of a few individuals, who got stuck in the early 2000s, when realtime meant CnC like clickfest. :/
Joe and Bill are nearing a turn in the corridor. the following discussion plays out:
Joe: Hey bill. watch where you go, there may be aliens behind that turn.
Bill: Sure Joe. I'll just take a look.
<Bill steps out from cover to check the corridor after the 90 deg turn.. dozens of enemies are lined up execution squad like>
Bill: Oh sh**. Joe.. there is a damn army here.
Joe: No worries Bill m8, just come back here for cover.
<A moment of silence>
Joe: Bill? You still with me? Get cover damnit!
Bill: I cant.. im out of TUs.. i will...
<sounds of automatic rifle fire fill the corridor>
Yea.. i guess that turn based gameplay REALLY helps with immersion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 16:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| csebal wrote: | The only real difference there is that in turn based mode, you will never have the scale of immersion real time action provides. You can't just sit back and watch in real time - or hell.. even in slow motion.. how the enemy troops are slaughtered in a narrow corridor filled with lead through supressing fire. instead you can have: character A shooting a burst, then character B doing the same, then character C, etc.. all the while the enemy is standing still waiting to get slaughtered, doing nothing.
Yea.. i guess there is much on the side of turn based gameplay, apart from the short sightedness and prejudices of a few individuals, who got stuck in the early 2000s, when realtime meant CnC like clickfest. :/ |
Just cos you see 1 minute action in Combat Mission it doesnt turn it into real time..it has just the things that you just explained but 1000 times better.
Your right, turn based is dead..and thats why games like Civilizations and Heroes Of Might and Magic doesnt sell...and thats also why Fallout 3 wont be made 
/Ankh
Edit: What you need to understand is that everyone has their own taste - just cos You don't think turnbased is anything good it doesnt make it shite and it also doesnt turn realtime games into the best options. In the end its all a matter of personal taste - which means you speak for yourself and not the whole PC scene mate.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epsilon
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 9240
Location: War Room
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 16:51 Post subject: |
|
|
On that note, Fallout 3 will be realtime
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 17:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthirs wrote: | | csebal wrote: | Yes.. i know that game. Interestingly enough, the only difference between that and a truly real time game is, that in real time you can pause to give orders at any time. So i guess you made your point on just how real time is not that bad after all..
About how turn based gameplay is made obsolete by newer PCs. You just proved it yourself. The prime example of turn based greatness you've given me is in fact a hybrid turn based - real time game, which is only limited compared to true real time games.
|
Nope, I do not agree. Cos you got 1 minute where you can NOT interact. Big bloody difference compared to what you prefer. It's still turn based.
It's a hybrid yes - but not the same shite as you seem to prefer. So sorry mate, your wrong. |
Um.. so i'm wrong because of why exactly? Oh yeah.. because you said so.
I always forget, that some people's pure words beat all kinds of reasoning and arugments.
| Quote: |
Edit: What you need to understand is that everyone has their own taste - just cos You don't think turnbased is anything good it doesnt make it shite and it also doesnt turn realtime games into the best options. In the end its all a matter of personal taste - which means you speak for yourself and not the whole PC scene mate.
|
What YOU need to understand is, that i have no problem with the old turn based games. I have problem with games that are created these days, and still refuse to move into the 21th century. Some of the best games i've played in the last 20 years were turn based, and still.. i dont think that turn based gaemplay has a serious place in todays gaming anymore.
Its just a question of moving on with the time. There is simply nothing today that justifies turn based gameplay. That is.. for tactical games. Certain strategy games are turn based by nature, but thats a different story. Have to add though, that even those could be made real time.
So yea.. it is a matter of personal taste. That is, if you say YOU like it better than real time. Once you start telling that it is generally better or worse than the other, or that the other sucks.. well.. Thats when you better start coming up with some arguments to support your claims.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 18:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| csebal wrote: | Um.. so i'm wrong because of why exactly? Oh yeah.. because you said so.
I always forget, that some people's pure words beat all kinds of reasoning and arugments.
|
Why do I need to give you a 200 row long explanation when I just don't agree? I don't agree that the realtime beats turnbased. I read what you suggested should be the reason but I just don't agree.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 18:25 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 18:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| csebal wrote: | Um.. so i'm wrong because of why exactly? Oh yeah.. because you said so.
I always forget, that some people's pure words beat all kinds of reasoning and arugments.
|
Cos the realtime you prefer you can stop and give new orders no matter whats going on - CM is still turnbased its just that you get to see your orders being carried out and as you can rewind - fast forward and check it from different angles I wouldnt call it realtime.
In the realtime games you pause (well, some of them anyway) or give orders right away and will be carried out right away too with no option to go back and see what you did wrong or study what you did before you setup the next orders.
I would rather call CM turnbased than Hybrid.
My reason to prefer turnbased is that it's more relaxing and give's better overview when you play against human oponents. Only time turnbased wouldnt work is in a mmorpg or similar.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mYslead
Posts: 738
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 18:41 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have anything against real time rpg/stragegy.
I mean, I liked Aftershock. but, you can't deny the greatness of classics like Fallout, Fallout 2 & the Jagged Alliance serie!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 19:35 Post subject: |
|
|
I know most of people like RTS, and then when 1 game is TBS you all get mad and complain about it.
I like TBS and I cant understand why we have to explain that. I like it, period.
its simple, people that dont like TBS, just dont play it. You have lots and lots of RTS games to play. Let that we who like TBS enjoy at least 1 game of that kind.
TBS is dead, true, but i still like it.
I really dont understand this kind of discusions.
BTW i hope Fallout 3 never see the light. they are going to kill the series. If they are going to make another all-the-same-alike RTS, use another name/scenario. Please, leave the dead alone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 19:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| k-limero wrote: | I know most of people like RTS, and then when 1 game is TBS you all get mad and complain about it.
I like TBS and I cant understand why we have to explain that. I like it, period.
its simple, people that dont like TBS, just dont play it. You have lots and lots of RTS games to play. Let that we who like TBS enjoy at least 1 game of that kind.
TBS is dead, true, but i still like it.
I really dont understand this kind of discusions. |
Yea, this is what gets me too--it's not enough that 95% or more of all strategy games these days are real-time, but people who like that garbage seem to want the remaining percentage as well. I prefer my strategy games to have the depth of chess rather than checkers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 21:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| csebal wrote: | | SuicideRun wrote: | | csebal wrote: | | I don't see how UFO:ET improves the XCOM games in any way. |
real time air combat on the geo, smaller ufo escorts for bigger ufos, and ufos attacking your interceptors and transports instead of just reacting to your attacks is a tremendous improvement upon the originals, imo. |
Uhm.. i guess that makes a whole new game in itself. Sure they make sense and add to the game in a way, but is it enough to 'claim' it to be a 'new' game? I dont think so.. Then again, this might be subjective. Let's just say, that i've seen plenty of mods do change more in a game than they did change compared to UFO. |
it doesn't, but it does improve upon the original, which you claimed it didn't
| csebal wrote: | As for the turn based vs real time debate:
Pauseable real time IS BETTER THAN turn based. Why? Because in real time the action makes much more sense, because the enemy can't cheat you by moving while you are unable to react, because you can't cheat by moving while he is unable to react, because you dont have to create nonrealistic 'reaction' events to counter for the fact, that otherwise you are unable to react. |
turn based only means each player takes all the time he needs, not whether the turns are played out separately or all at the same time. a game that gives you an unlimited planning phase, then/before calculates the computers turn and then plays them both out in real time for a set period of time is not a real time/turn based hybrid and by no means the same as pauseable real time.
turn based will always offer superior strategical gameplay to real time, which is what is most important about strategy games, while real time will always have the better action, just as you said, which, technically... amounts to pretty little in a strategy game.
it's all about the calculations the computer can perform, and the computer always has more time to compute in tb than in rt. that's why rts games are mostly won with initial rushes, single unit amassing and rushing, and why a great deal of pathfinding algorithms suck monkey balls in rt (traveling salesman problem already is a cs nightmare in tb, and way more so in rt).
that's also why rts enemy ai's usually are either incredibly stupid or cheat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
| Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007 21:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Well said SuicideRun... I would also like to point out that I have nothing against RTS - I just want to see more Turnbased games - thats all.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ady5
Posts: 263
Location: A planet near you
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007 08:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Afterlight:
-AI is braindead(they all rush you, they don't even try to evade or flank you, and being in real time, they arrive in your line of sight all at the same time).
-if you split your force in teams, it's a sure way of losing that encounter(the enemy compansates the poor AI with a very high resistance to anything you can throw at them, until later parts of the game). So, keep your force intact=win game. Make flanking maneuvers by splitting your team=lose game.
-also, like it or not, having the option to save the game while in combat is a big detterent in the excitement of the battle. Knowing that you have the possibility to just rewind if you screw up makes you don't care about strategies and such.(just try to rush in a tbs with no save game option while in combat, and see what happens). I just hope UFO:ET won't have the save game feature while in combat.
I stopped playing UFO:AL after 10 hours of play. I still have and play JA2 and XCOM:EU after so many years. No matter how many weapons Shadowarrior can come up in AL, it won't compare to the original UFO. If you say AL is not a successor to the originals, no point in comparing AL with UFO:ET either.
Who likes Laser Squad type of games, will like UFO:ET. Who enjoys action strategies(CoH, SHOWW2), will like UFO:AL. Simple as that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23340
Location: Trelleborg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007 09:58 Post subject: |
|
|
I have a rather balanced opinion about tbs and real time, i have always preferred the first one, it has always given me a more relaxing experience and many times more strategic options and possibilities, from ufo to fallout and from fantasy general (it was a myth !) to final fantasy tactics, they were all tbs and they were all masterpieces that gave me a huge amount of strategic fun ...
However, i have to admit to myself that some "pause-able" real time games where strategic combat was involved, gave me a similar amount of fun and strategic options too in some cases ... i think at ufo afterlight and at the Baldur's Gate and NWN games (yes i know that these are rpg but i'm considering only the strategic / combat phases) ... well i must admit that they were all very enjoyable, very fun, even if with a little less strategic options that the tbs ones.
Of course not pause-able real time games are even not considered in this discussion.
To summarize, i still prefer a Final Fantasy Tactics as a style of play but i'll start happily playing soon Ufo Afterlight too !
There are only 10 kinds of people : those that understand binaries and those that don't.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malho
Posts: 49
Location: In the Hole
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007 12:46 Post subject: |
|
|
It's Realy today the released?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shadak
Posts: 1097
Location: Prague
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007 15:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| ady5 wrote: | Afterlight:
-AI is braindead(they all rush you, they don't even try to evade or flank you, and being in real time, they arrive in your line of sight all at the same time).
-if you split your force in teams, it's a sure way of losing that encounter(the enemy compansates the poor AI with a very high resistance to anything you can throw at them, until later parts of the game). So, keep your force intact=win game. Make flanking maneuvers by splitting your team=lose game.
|
Ever heard the phrase: Easy to play, hard to master? You just experienced that.
Just for the record: I wrote a long post telling you how wrong you are, but then i realized, that this discussion about UFO:AL here is as off topic as it could be.
Let me just say, that you are wrong on way too many points in your post. Shows how little you know about playing UFO:AL. Then again, your misconceptions support your obvious hate for the real time gameplay well enough, so duh.. i guess.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ady5
Posts: 263
Location: A planet near you
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007 19:17 Post subject: |
|
|
wow, csebal, i thought you're more mature than that. I guess i was wrong with that too.
Did i say the UFO:AL is hard? I said that as long as you keep your team in one you won't fail a single mission. That means the game is TOO EASY, not too hard. You only have one sure win scenario. If you try something else, chances are it will go wrong( i don't say that they go wrong every time, because only a retard will fail a particular strategy over and over again. Afterall, humans are built to adapt).
But enough ranting about UFO:AL. That game does not need to be mentioned in the UFO:ET thread. They're two separate genres.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 18th Apr 2007 03:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| ady5 wrote: |
snip
if you split your force in teams, it's a sure way of losing that encounter(the enemy compansates the poor AI with a very high resistance to anything you can throw at them, until later parts of the game).
snip
|
There you go. The above quote is what i meant and the above quote contains far too many mistakes for me to list them all.
have fun.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrossWire
Posts: 208
Location: I make one tiny mistake and
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scanberg_
Banned
Posts: 148
Location: Partying with my man Van Bannage.
|
| Posted: Sat, 28th Apr 2007 11:24 Post subject: |
|
|
No mention of the AI or difficulty. soldiers can't die, and other bad stuff.
Also why do all those games have that plastic look to them? I'd rather prefer something that looks like JA2 but with proper AI, and much more base managment, exploration, tactical options ect
this will be a decent time killer like every other game released in the last 3 months.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrossWire
Posts: 208
Location: I make one tiny mistake and
|
| Posted: Sat, 28th Apr 2007 12:53 Post subject: |
|
|
They have gone and nobbled it good style, stupid **** Devs. The troops are immortals and cannot snuff it, warra load of bollocks. I canno beleive it Scotty.
Buy it and be a nob rash
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 9 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
