faetal on 16/6/2016 at 10:02
First I've heard of it anywhere, but (
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/06/14/phoenix-point-new-xcom-julian-gollop/) THIS sounds conceptually like it could be the best game ever conceived of for me.
Of course, it won't pan out the way it's conceived and will probably be a crushing disappointment and/or a giant mess which tries to do too many things at once.
But still, very interesting concepts. I'll be watching it closely.
icemann on 16/6/2016 at 12:44
Had a read of that yesterday. Sounds like the sort of game I'd enjoy, so I'll likely get it when it comes out.
Sounds like a mix of XCOM and the movie "The Mist".
twisty on 16/6/2016 at 14:08
It's a long way off so what makes you think that they won't be able to pull it off? It's ambitious sure, but with his background I think he's got as good a chance as any. Here's hoping anyway.
faetal on 16/6/2016 at 14:29
I don't have any strong opinions on whether they can pull it off really, that was just my attempt at a little pessimistic humour - basically because it reads like the ultimate in what I'd ever want from a game, it'll never happen for me.
I am actually optimistic though. Even if it fails to hit the height of its ambitions, it'll probably be an amazing game.
faetal on 16/6/2016 at 14:31
In terms for just how much I am looking forward to this game, Yakoob can back me up.
Yakoob - while you were in Lyon, did I spend about 30 minutes detailing to you an idea I'd had for an X-COM like game which involved hopeless human odds against a rapidly mutating enemy which improved, in an evolution-like fashion in increasingly difficult waves? Second question, did I also say that since I can't make games, I would love for someone else to just make it so I can play it?
Yeah, so this game is my most anticipated ANYTHING, and that includes if my wife gets pregnant again.
Pyrian on 16/6/2016 at 16:14
From a technical standpoint, it's so easy to do that I'm surprised there isn't more of it. Tying AI upgrade paths to some sort of responsive evolutionary algorithm? I could do that in my sleep.
From a design standpoint, though, it brings up a lot of interesting issues. Some of them are easy, but time consuming; you really really have to communicate to the player that the enemies aren't just getting tougher, but more resistant to your specific attack choices (and not just more damaging, but more effective against your specific defenses). That's not necessarily difficult in itself, but if there's a lot of upgrade paths (and for this to work, there has to be) that's a lot of cues to build in.
But other issues are more fundamentally challenging. Do you really want to make a game that actively punishes a player for preferring to play a certain way? Generally games that have a lot of viable upgrade paths struggle to make them all viable, here we're starting with the notion that none of them are viable long term. "Like to burn stuff? That's cool, but you'd better get over it before the next wave." IMO this at least means that to preserve a sense of having choices, you need at least one extra upgrade path for every path you intend to invalidate during gameplay. Which, again, is time consuming, but in this case also conceptually difficult, as making more distinct upgrade paths is a more challenging design (and making "equivalent but different" paths a la damage types is inherently less interesting).
On the flip side, having an overpowered upgrade path is less detrimental in this design. "Sure, the explosives path works better than any of the other paths - once. Maybe save it for a later wave."
faetal on 16/6/2016 at 23:20
I understand that it can be done in terms of implementing the mechanisms, I'm just hoping it can be done in a way which is balanced, fun and re-playable.
