Gears Tactics evolves turn-based tactics games combining signature fast-paced brutal action and character-driven storytelling with customizable squads, upgradable weapons, and of course, massive boss battles. Gears Tactics is also the first Gears game to be specifically designed for PC gamers.
The problem with a concept like this one (apart from being based on the utterly shallow Gears "universe") is that it's difficult to bring something unique/interesting to the table with competitors like XCOM 2, Xenonauts, Phoenix Point, Phantom Doctrine, Mutant Year Zero and so on.
The lack of a grid + three actions available per turn sounds like a streamlined concession more than anything else, unless celebrating kills with chest bumps and fuck yeahs is considered an alluring feature.
Having just finished Gears 5 (which I absolutely LOVED) and being a big XCOM fan, this game actually has me pretty interested based on the video above.
I think this is all graphics but not much in terms of gameplay.The UI and HUD, skill trees.. all looks very basic..showing nothing new that hadn't been seen before. Their hook seems to be big boss monsters I think. but didn't Pheonix Point already beat them to it on that front?. I don't think it's worth the price they are selling it for anyway. I'll still play i thtough.
I'm not sure prudilav. I remember seeing them in the early beta versions, but I didn't play enough of the main game to confirm whether they made it in the game or not? . That's a pity if they aren't in the game, I suppose gears has something new then if so heh.
The problem is that Phoenix Point is a buggy unbalanced mess with deeply flawed and unfun core mechanics and this game is new and we have very limited information. It might still turn out ok.
For me it was the exact opposite. I had hopes that PP would fix the flaws that XCOM2 has and bring some innovation.
But it failed miserably in the gameplay department. Free Aim shooting with no clear sight lines or ways to gauge the effectiveness of your shots. Broken classes with ability combinations that allowed one turn map clears (some of them are now fixed by nerfing amny abilities into oblivion instead of keeping them useful). Pointless and tedious base management. Cheap lackluster visuals. I can go on and on.
The only good things in PP were the 2D art and the writing (not the story or progression but the actual texts).
XCOM despite its many flaws is fun to play and the emergent storytelling is strong which makes you attached to your soldiers.
For me it was the exact opposite. I had hopes that PP would fix the flaws that XCOM2 has and bring some innovation.
But it failed miserably in the gameplay department. Free Aim shooting with no clear sight lines or ways to gauge the effectiveness of your shots. Broken classes with ability combinations that allowed one turn map clears (some of them are now fixed by nerfing amny abilities into oblivion instead of keeping them useful). Pointless and tedious base management. Cheap lackluster visuals. I can go on and on.
The only good things in PP were the 2D art and the writing (not the story or progression but the actual texts).
XCOM despite its many flaws is fun to play and the emergent storytelling is strong which makes you attached to your soldiers.
Agree - I had such high hopes for PP, and for me so far the game has been a complete letdown. For instance, they haven't even enabled ironman mode yet - in spite promising that it would be part of the initial release.
Also the way the game balance worked in the earlier versions (where doing *better* early would make the game *much harder* later, i.e., it was optimal to actually fail to some extent) was completely unsatisfying for me (this might have been fixed in the more recent versions, not sure).
It's just a rule. I don't see anybody complaining about dice in D&D. XCOM has so many ways to mitigate randomness and to plan for bad rolls. That's the point of it - managing your resources.
It's clearly presented to you as a number and it's much better than what PP did - where you can see that the sightline is clear in the interface but then you just hit the cover you are hiding behind instead.
It's super frustrating. I know that 99% doesn't mean 100%, but it should have a much higher chance of succeeding than failing to hit, which in XCOM seems to be the exact opposite. It's just crap coding.
And with a dice you have a more or less guaranteed chance to hit something. With 99% possibility, in 10 turns that would mean that you should have 90% of the times a hit, so 9 out of 10 should be hit. In XCOM it's, if you're really lucky, 9x miss and 1x hit.
the code has been examined and the game actaully cheats in your favour except for the last difficulty setting.
Then the code completely sucks, I've coded my share of random stuff over the years, I've never had anything that works as bad as XCOM.
I would say that you're just very unlucky however XCOM system somewhat prevents that from happening so my best guess is that you're just bad at this game by relying too much on one action with no backup plan.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
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
. That's a pity if they aren't in the game, I suppose gears has something new then if so heh.
