XCOM demo is out!

[rms]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/24/unhidden-movement-xcom-demo-is-go/

rms

[Tim O]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:26:42 -0600, "rms"
<rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/24/unhidden-movement-xcom-demo-is-go/
>
>rms

What do you think of it? I'm not committing to a 6 gig download for a
demo unless it gets some great buzz!

[rms]

>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/24/unhidden-movement-xcom-demo-is-go/

What do you think of it? I'm not committing to a 6 gig download for a
demo unless it gets some great buzz!

Haven't tried it; the main complaint seems to be the handholding, but
these are the tutorial missions, duh! kotaku seemed to love the press build
http://kotaku.com/5945989/yes-x+com-enemy-unknown-is-really-good

rms

[Brunon Bluthgeld]

W dniu 2012-09-25 19:58, rms pisze:

Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people
that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a
bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's
ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes
sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from
your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you
command the whole operation.

Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product
will prove it wrong.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:02:03 +0200, Brunon Bluthgeld <brun...@o2.pl>
wrote:

I did play a couple of rounds of the demo, and pretty much decided I
won't be buying it, but then again I wasn't a big fan of the original,
so I figured my opinion is probably not worth a lot in this case; I'm
pretty sure this game is aimed at fans of the earlier games and has no
delusions of luring new players into the series.

Even if I was interested in the whole UFOs and aliens theme, a turn
based strategy game like this is probably not going to get much
attention from action gamers, at least not the way similar games did
in the mid 90s.

[Xocyll]

Brunon Bluthgeld <brun...@o2.pl> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?

>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product
>will prove it wrong.

I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
Not making that mistake again.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:35:47 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.

[BrunoN Bluthgeld]

W dniu 2012-09-26 14:29, Rin Stowleigh pisze:

>
> I did play a couple of rounds of the demo, and pretty much decided I
> won't be buying it, but then again I wasn't a big fan of the original,
> so I figured my opinion is probably not worth a lot in this case; I'm
> pretty sure this game is aimed at fans of the earlier games and has no
> delusions of luring new players into the series.
>

Okay, managed to download the demo and complete it.

I've played the first one a lot, this one seems to stray from the
formula a lot. Soldier stats limited to four numbers, soldiers
themselves limited to two actions per turn and yeah, team of four
soldiers is kinda tiny too. Plus missions in the demo are like go from A
to B and kill all the aliens inbetween. Fans of the earlier games may be
a bit grumpy here.

> Even if I was interested in the whole UFOs and aliens theme, a turn
> based strategy game like this is probably not going to get much
> attention from action gamers, at least not the way similar games did
> in the mid 90s.

Yeah, it isn't a shooter - but it's fairly fast paced turn-based game,
and it's flashy, with lots of cinematic bits.

Well if it turns out to be a stinker there's always Xenonauts, which is
almost done - looks pretty cool and seems to be faithful to the original
mechanics.

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails

I would not be surprised in the slightest.

It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]

Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".

Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
best thing on TV"?

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:40:56 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

Could be, at least with regard to games. PC gamers that have been
around since the beginning adopted the hobby at a time when an input
device like the mouse, if working at all, was not something to be
taken for granted. Just getting a game running sometimes was a
victory in itself and added to the fun. Thus, old school gamers
probably are fewer and farther between, but more likely to be
techincally/mechanically inclined than the newer crop of console-fed
gamers.

The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay.
I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
between talent and mainstream popularity. I don't see that as much
with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
by the gameplay.

[Rin Stowleigh]

I think the cinematic enactments of events are kind of a novelty
that's prone to wear off. I'm not saying it doesn't add something to
a turn based game to watch the move play out in 3D, I just see it as
something that adds a perception of action to a game which is not an
action game at all. It's kind of like comparing Civ5 to the original
Civilization.. Do the flashy graphics and animation really make the
game more fun? Not really, IMO. Don't get me wrong, it's the right
thing to do given the state of graphic technology available to these
games today, I just think that the nifty animations will become
tiresome to a player after the first few hours of gameplay, such that
they'd rather just tap out of them using ESC or whatever and get on
with the game.

[Xocyll]

I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
running it left me with _less_ memory available.

I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)

>The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
>thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay.
>I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
>seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
>there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
>frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
>fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
>between talent and mainstream popularity.

Yeah, young doesn't have to mean clueless or tasteless (or talentless
when it comes to making music.)
One of my current favorite bands is Cherri Bomb - an all-girl band, the
youngest member of whom just started high school, and I think the eldest
may have a driver's license by now. These girls have more talent than a
hundred Britneys or Justins but you never hear them on the radio, since
they play rock, not teen oriented pop. I don't do Much Music/MTV
anymore since they don't really play music anymore.

Old Fogy Voice on: Why I remember when Music Video stations actually
played Music Videos all day long. No game shows, no reality shows, no
other absurd crap, just music.

>I don't see that as much
>with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
>my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
>not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
>it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
>something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
>by the gameplay.

Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.

It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
with games that were so much more.
DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
gun" shooter.

It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
memories though.

How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?

Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
invoke.

It's why, I think, a lot of the indy remakes fail - they have all the
limited graphics and limited gameplay of the original, but none of the
associated memories.
So that gauntlet homage is quite like the original, but different enough
that those memories of playing Gauntlet in the arcade with friends just
don't get linked and the game is just, meh.

Speaking of memories and games - I played Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
all the time when playing Ultima Underworld.
I can't ever hear any song on that album without also instantly
remembering bits of the game. Instant mental picture.
Inextricably linked.

Funny how memory works.

[Mike S.]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:35 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>running it left me with _less_ memory available.

Memmaker in DOS 6.

Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
more. :-P

>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)

I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.

[Tim O]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:35 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>
>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>with games that were so much more.
>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>gun" shooter.
>
>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>memories though.
>
>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>
>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>invoke.

Not so sure about these comments... Every phone, pad and console
includes successful apps to play old games, and its not a new thing.
Midway and Atari packages keep showing back up with each new
generation of hardware. It can't be the same crew of old birds buying
them over and over.

I think there is an appeal to the simplicity of the core older games,
Centipede, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Tempest, Roboton... They are
initially simple, yet diverse and usually deeper than initially meets
the eye.

Atari 2600 stuff is a tougher sell than the faithful arcade ports and
consoles from the NES era on, but I think there are still plenty of
younger people that embrace it.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:35 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

There was a time when I thought that the memories old games invoked
were the only thing that made them great. However, with the massive
amount of arcade ROMs available, I will occasionally stumble on some
obscure game I never played before, and instantly recognize what's
great about it. A lot of it lies in simplicity of design, and a
tighter focus on gameplay than "everything else".

In other words, those games were typically created by a single
developer or much smaller teams with a much smaller scope, which makes
it easier to quickly scrap some design element if its not working, and
try something else. When a large, multi-million dollar production is
underway, usually by the time same is realized, the investment in the
current path (and the number of people involved) make it too difficult
to just say "screw that, scrap it and start over".

Those games didn't have to worry about performance across varying
systems from different manufacturers. They had such limited resources
(memory and processing power), that when you're moving lo-fi sprites
around it really comes down to whether you have latency-free response
to the joystick or you don't. This was another fact that let them
focus on very well-honed experience.

And perhaps most importantly, these games were by-design intended to
draw the player into the game within the first thirty to sixty seconds
of play, and had motivation to want more. Thus, it made sense to make
replayability a top design goal, since ongoing quarter-munching was
the measure of success. Contrast that with today's games, where a
console game is usually judged by how many hours of gameplay it
provides before you've "finished" it. Good games were never truly
finishable -- perhaps that's what I like about multiplayer games.

Also, how many games these days draw the player in within the first
thirty to sixty seconds? You can't get past the marketing and
branding logos and crap in that amount of time. Hell, in the XCom
demo, it wants you to agonize through a good 20 minutes or so of
handholding tutorial before you have proven yourself worthy of being
able to start actually playing the game. I've never really been a fan
of games that have tutorial required to play them. I like games
simple to learn, but difficult to master. Games where the depth of
tactics are there, but the depth is not visible unless you're looking
for it.

[Xocyll]

Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the

porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:35 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>
>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>
>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>more. :-P

One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
stuff was bloated.

>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>
>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.

The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
well.
No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:58:17 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

The best part about jumpers was that every now and then you worked
without documentation, and it became like the old board game
Mastermind : "Let's see, I've tried these combinations and it wouldn't
work, so it must be......"

:)

[Xocyll]

Tim O <timo56...@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of

the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:35 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>>
>>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>>with games that were so much more.
>>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>>gun" shooter.
>>
>>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>>memories though.
>>
>>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>>
>>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>>invoke.
>
>Not so sure about these comments... Every phone, pad and console
>includes successful apps to play old games, and its not a new thing.
>Midway and Atari packages keep showing back up with each new
>generation of hardware. It can't be the same crew of old birds buying
>them over and over.

You never know.
Arcade games are one thing - the old console games with their horrible
blocky graphics are another - and half of those were knock offs of
arcade games anyway.

>I think there is an appeal to the simplicity of the core older games,
>Centipede, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Tempest, Roboton... They are
>initially simple, yet diverse and usually deeper than initially meets
>the eye.
>
>Atari 2600 stuff is a tougher sell than the faithful arcade ports and
>consoles from the NES era on, but I think there are still plenty of
>younger people that embrace it.

I have my doubts but it probably wouldn't look too bad displayed on a 2"
by 3" phone screen. and if it's cheap or free...

[Mike S.]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:58:17 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>stuff was bloated.

Holy crap Xocyll I remember doing *exactly* that to get Ultima 7
running. IIRC, that smaller mouse driver was enough to get that damn
game going so I know you aren't kidding about Microsoft bloat!

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails

Heh, I never worked without documentation.
I build my own computers and I bought individual parts not packages
specifically so I got documentation for each and every part.

Most PC stuff was pretty good about labeling on the parts themselves
too, although I did have to pull some parts to see the labels when
working on other systems.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:33:50 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

Ah, I see you've never had the joy of either working on a technically
challenged friend's PC, or going to a discount parts store in a pinch
to buy a drive where all you got for the money was a drive handed to
you in a static-free sleeve, with no accompanying documents.

Lucky dude :)

[Xocyll]

Well within the hardware limitations of the time they had to be simple
in design and execution - complexity just wasn't possible in a lot of
cases.

>In other words, those games were typically created by a single
>developer or much smaller teams with a much smaller scope, which makes
>it easier to quickly scrap some design element if its not working, and
>try something else. When a large, multi-million dollar production is
>underway, usually by the time same is realized, the investment in the
>current path (and the number of people involved) make it too difficult
>to just say "screw that, scrap it and start over".
>
>Those games didn't have to worry about performance across varying
>systems from different manufacturers. They had such limited resources
>(memory and processing power), that when you're moving lo-fi sprites
>around it really comes down to whether you have latency-free response
>to the joystick or you don't. This was another fact that let them
>focus on very well-honed experience.
>
>And perhaps most importantly, these games were by-design intended to
>draw the player into the game within the first thirty to sixty seconds
>of play, and had motivation to want more. Thus, it made sense to make
>replayability a top design goal, since ongoing quarter-munching was
>the measure of success. Contrast that with today's games, where a
>console game is usually judged by how many hours of gameplay it
>provides before you've "finished" it. Good games were never truly
>finishable -- perhaps that's what I like about multiplayer games.

I'd disagree with that last statement. It was possible to finish some
good games. BUT, the really good games you could finish and still want
to play so you'd start another.

>Also, how many games these days draw the player in within the first
>thirty to sixty seconds? You can't get past the marketing and
>branding logos and crap in that amount of time. Hell, in the XCom
>demo, it wants you to agonize through a good 20 minutes or so of
>handholding tutorial before you have proven yourself worthy of being
>able to start actually playing the game. I've never really been a fan
>of games that have tutorial required to play them. I like games
>simple to learn, but difficult to master. Games where the depth of
>tactics are there, but the depth is not visible unless you're looking
>for it.

It's that "modern audience" again.
No manual + lazy shit audience = forced tutorial or else said lazy shit
audience start badmouthing the game all over the internet as too hard,
too complicated, blah, blah, blah.

Even if games still came with big, in depth manuals those lazy fucks
wouldn't read them anyway, so everyone has to be taught how to play.
Even if it's so simple a 5 year old with Downs syndrome would pick it up
instantly, there's a WebTV subscriber who needs a tutorial.


I *hate* this shit. I hate lots of logos at the start of a game.
I hate unskippable intros every time you start a new character (I'm
Looking at YOU, Borderlands(1 and 2.))
I hate the whole "we're introducing stuff slowly (again borderlands -
you appear and have to wait while claptrap rambles on before he gives
you your HUD and then more rambling before you can actually do
anything.)

Half-Life's train ride was the first one of these I can remember, but at
least there you had changing scenery AND it gave you lots of clues you
remembered on your climb back out.

I can kill the logos, I can kill the intro movie, but I can't kill that
laggy rambling intro sequence since it's in-game.

Movie killing:
Wherever you put Steam/SteamApps/Common/Borderlands 2/WillowGame/Movies/
2k_logo.bik, Gearbox_logo.bik, NVidia.bik, Attract.bik, MegaIntro.bik
I just add an _ to the end of the .bik and they no longer play.

Caveat: I play in offline mode - I don't know if steam will "fix" this
method and force those movies upon you again.

Having finished the game once I may just go back and kill every
"Introducing Character (zed/scooter/etc)" movies as well - I really hate
the disruption in gameplay as they freeze everything to show a dumb
movie, but I guess the "modern audience" like lots of cutscene crap.

Me, I like to _play_ games, not watch them and this heavy
cutscene/interactive movie crap just pisses me off.

[Xocyll]

No I did mention that in the last paragraph - having to pull out parts
to see the on-part labels. Every HD/Floppy/CD/DVD drive I've ever
bought had the jumper settings printed right on the drive - and most of
those were bought OEM and came with nothing more than a driver disk (if
that.)

Documentation printed right on the device is still documentation - you
just generally can't read it while the device is in use.

Of course that's buying from an actual computer parts store not a
"discount parts store" so maybe your experience is different in that
regard. None of my parts "fell off the back of the truck" as the saying
goes or were illegally imported and have the on-part labels in another
language since they were meant for another country.

Hell these days, as long as you have internet access and a part number
you can find documentation of one form or another.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:43:48 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

Between the mid-late 80's and early 90's, I installed countless drives
and miscellaneous hardware (SCSI, sound, scanner, musical hardware
related cards) that had no jumper setting labeling available on the
parts themselves or the mobo. Some of them did, but a good percentage
of the time they did not.

>Of course that's buying from an actual computer parts store not a
>"discount parts store" so maybe your experience is different in that
>regard.

That typically makes a big difference. For example if you walk into a
big box retailer and buy a Seagate drive off the shelf, it's
guaranteed to have a diagram / manual.

It's just that back then, we didn't have big box computer parts stores
in the USA at least. Assuming you were the one purchasing for your
own system (not always the case in the scenarios I described above,
where the purchasing might have already taken place and documentation
discarded long before I got my hands on it), you basically had these
choices:

1. Order from a mail order place listed in Computer Shopper or other
mag at a decent price (too slow if you needed the part right then)
2. Walk into a "bigname" retailer (somewhere like Computerland,
Radioshack, or some place in a shopping mall) and pay way more than
you should.
3. Wait for a computer show to come to the area (probably every
weekend if you lived in a big city)
4. Go to one of the smaller local discount specialty stores (folks
that didn't live smaller towns probably did not even have these back
then) that offered prices that were somewhat competitive with mail
order (maybe a little higher). These places often bought in bulk, so
for example if you bought a hard drive, and wanted the best gear for
the best price, you were probably limited to an OEM part that was
designed for system builders rather than John Q. Public to purchase
from a retail shelf.

>None of my parts "fell off the back of the truck" as the saying
>goes or were illegally imported and have the on-part labels in another
>language since they were meant for another country.

See OEM bulk scenario above. While I was known to occasionally use
that cliche in order to get a few bucks off (i.e. "hey this sleeve has
a small scratch, can I at least get ten bucks off in case it fell off
a truck?"), the truth was there was nothing wrong with the parts, they
simply came in a box of a few dozen drives, likely with one set of
documentation for the whole lot, because the assumption was that they
would typically go to a VAR / retail system builder who was looking
for the lowest price possible, and didn't need a color-printed box and
manual for each drive.

>Hell these days, as long as you have internet access and a part number
>you can find documentation of one form or another.

Yes, access to the web and being able to get at old documentation via
.pdf direct from the manufacturer or whatever really changed things
alot. Back then, when you had something requiring a diagram, your
best bet was to scour BBS systems with your dial up modem (there was
no search engine that aggregated across all of them), or maybe
Compuserve or Prodigy if those were your thing.

I remember one time modifying a mobile police scanner to pick up
locked out frequency ranges using an ASCII diagram I stumbled across
on a BBS by chance, so that it would pick up cell phone conversations
(tricky board soldering involved in that case). :) It worked a champ
when I was done though, and I ended up selling that scanner for about
2x what I paid for it.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:04:20 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

I should probably clarify... by "never finishable", I'm really
referring to a concept that's a little more abstract than it should
be.

Some games do have clear end point in sight, yet some aspect of the
game motivates the player to keep playing beyond that point.

For example, one of my all time faves -- Far Cry 2 mutliplayer. A
fantastic map editor meant there was an endless supply of multiplayer
environments to play in. Another example .. recent Elder Scrolls
titles -- the modding community contributions mean you're never really
done even if all quests in the games were completed (and I doubt
anyone really does that). Another example on the turn based strategy
side, Civilization... Even if you set the scenario up the same, you
wind up with a different game every time.

It can be even more vague than that. Take the classic, Donkey Kong
for example. There is a finite stopping point -- the game will puke
when it hits a certain progress point. Yet, guys have made entire
second careers out of getting the highest achievable score before that
ceiling is hit, thus it becomes an "endless cycle", albiet perhaps not
in the way intended.

Some multiplayer games are like this -- you can play the same round on
the same map and game mode a thousand times with the same group of
folks, but you'd never have the exact same experience twice.

Contrast that with another popular (not in this newsgroup, but
elsewhere) series: Call of Duty. The single player campaigns
couldn't be a shinier example of a game with a finite end. It's an
example of a game where, you can go back and play it again but the
overall experience wouldn't be much different. They offset this by
adding multiplayer, which is where the real fanbase is for those
games, and in that sense it could be said it is a "never finishable".

Not sure if I'm explaining myself very well here... it's an attempt to
describe what I consider the hallmark of a great game. Maybe a simple
chess board is one of the best examples, if we allow board game
examples in. Easy to learn the rules, but insanely deep
strategically, and never the same game twice.

[Xocyll]

I've never bought computer hardware from a big box retailer.
Well, I bought a mouse and a monitor from Best Buy in the past, but no
internal stuff.

>It's just that back then, we didn't have big box computer parts stores
>in the USA at least. Assuming you were the one purchasing for your
>own system (not always the case in the scenarios I described above,
>where the purchasing might have already taken place and documentation
>discarded long before I got my hands on it), you basically had these
>choices:
>
>1. Order from a mail order place listed in Computer Shopper or other
>mag at a decent price (too slow if you needed the part right then)

I don't do mail order.

>2. Walk into a "bigname" retailer (somewhere like Computerland,
>Radioshack, or some place in a shopping mall) and pay way more than
>you should.

Don't do Chain stores either.

>3. Wait for a computer show to come to the area (probably every
>weekend if you lived in a big city)

I remember one computer show coming to this town.

>4. Go to one of the smaller local discount specialty stores (folks
>that didn't live smaller towns probably did not even have these back
>then) that offered prices that were somewhat competitive with mail
>order (maybe a little higher). These places often bought in bulk, so
>for example if you bought a hard drive, and wanted the best gear for
>the best price, you were probably limited to an OEM part that was
>designed for system builders rather than John Q. Public to purchase
>from a retail shelf.

I live in a town of ~120k (since they absorbed the townships) the city
itself was ~60k.
I bought all my computer stuff from a small local computer store (owned
by Chinese immigrants as it happens.)
They have since expanded and have something like 28 stores these days
all over the region.

They sell both boxed "Retail" stuff and OEM stuff (since they also build
and sell systems.)

>>None of my parts "fell off the back of the truck" as the saying
>>goes or were illegally imported and have the on-part labels in another
>>language since they were meant for another country.
>
>See OEM bulk scenario above. While I was known to occasionally use
>that cliche in order to get a few bucks off (i.e. "hey this sleeve has
>a small scratch, can I at least get ten bucks off in case it fell off
>a truck?"), the truth was there was nothing wrong with the parts, they
>simply came in a box of a few dozen drives, likely with one set of
>documentation for the whole lot, because the assumption was that they
>would typically go to a VAR / retail system builder who was looking
>for the lowest price possible, and didn't need a color-printed box and
>manual for each drive.

That's most of what I bought - since it tended to be 15-20% cheaper than
actual retail boxed stuff for the same quality.
It all had basic documentation of one sort or another though - maybe the
local computer store was just more conscientious about making sure docs
existed in some form - less headache for them since they used the OEM
parts too for the systems they built (and repair jobs and upgrades they
did.)


Of all the stuff I've bought, the only things that were retail boxed
were CPUs, video cards, sound cards and modems - everything else was
OEM. Well ok when I started using the Logitech MX-310 mouse I bought
those retail since they were never available OEM - but until that time
it was pretty much always cheap generic OEM mice.

>>Hell these days, as long as you have internet access and a part number
>>you can find documentation of one form or another.
>
>Yes, access to the web and being able to get at old documentation via
>.pdf direct from the manufacturer or whatever really changed things
>alot. Back then, when you had something requiring a diagram, your
>best bet was to scour BBS systems with your dial up modem (there was
>no search engine that aggregated across all of them), or maybe
>Compuserve or Prodigy if those were your thing.

Nah never did the big pay services, just local BBSs.

>I remember one time modifying a mobile police scanner to pick up
>locked out frequency ranges using an ASCII diagram I stumbled across
>on a BBS by chance, so that it would pick up cell phone conversations
>(tricky board soldering involved in that case). :) It worked a champ
>when I was done though, and I ended up selling that scanner for about
>2x what I paid for it.

And dodging a bullet had you been caught with it - or was that still
legal back then?

[Xocyll]

A lot of arcade games had that too - you just never got tired of playing
them, even the ones that definitely had a finish point - the journey is
the fun, not the destination.

>For example, one of my all time faves -- Far Cry 2 mutliplayer. A
>fantastic map editor meant there was an endless supply of multiplayer
>environments to play in. Another example .. recent Elder Scrolls
>titles -- the modding community contributions mean you're never really
>done even if all quests in the games were completed (and I doubt
>anyone really does that). Another example on the turn based strategy
>side, Civilization... Even if you set the scenario up the same, you
>wind up with a different game every time.

I haven't actually played Skyrim yet, but I take your point.
I played Morrowind through several times, Arena through at least a dozen
times and Daggerfall I have no idea how many times.
Probably the best example of this would be City of Heroes (and while it
is an MMO I really play it as a single player game - other players are
just scenery and people to chat with - I don't team anymore.)
There have been lots of new additions over the years, but I've done some
of those missions dozens of times with dozens of different characters
over the 8 years it's been around and made I have no idea how many
characters - well over 100 anyway.
Diablo and Diablo2 could count as well - finish the game with one
character, make a new character and start all over again.

>Not sure if I'm explaining myself very well here... it's an attempt to
>describe what I consider the hallmark of a great game. Maybe a simple
>chess board is one of the best examples, if we allow board game
>examples in. Easy to learn the rules, but insanely deep
>strategically, and never the same game twice.

It's one of the reasons the Elder Scrolls games are so popular - very
deep, very flexible and a good modding community - you can play them for
years if you want - unlike so many other 20 hours max and you've seen
and done everything and don't really want to repeat again in less than 6
months, if ever.

I'm currently on my second pass through Borderlands2 on my Commando and
will probably run through with the Siren and Assassin characters too.
The quests are the same, but the play is different enough with the
different skills the different chars have.

As an aside - I miss manuals. I didn't realize until just after killing
the first big boss on the Ice Flow (just before you leave the glacier on
the boat) that those "badass points" I'd been earning were actually used
for something - upgrading skills.
So I killed baddie and then noticed this and sat and spent 213 or so
points on skill upgrades. (Might have been over 250, I forget exactly.)
Life probably would have been a lot easier had I known about this before
as I would had there been an actual manual I would have read before
starting.
Yeah, claptrap probably said something about it, but he yammers on so
much about nothing in particular you end up tuning him out most of the
time.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:37:02 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

It's been a long time, but I seem to recall the FCC did not allow
manufacturers to ship scanners with the unlocked frequencies, but
there was nothing to prevent them from telingl the consumer how to
unlock the scanners themselves. Some of the desktop units were
intentionally designed to be dead-easy to open up and modify (like
moving a couple of jumpers), and some of them included instructions on
how to modify it. The specific scanner I mentioned above was a
hand-held unit, so the electronics were packed in pretty tight and it
was not really designed to be easy to modify, thus the obscure ASCII
diagram.

But anyway, from a legal point of view it wasn't really anything that
would get you in trouble just doing the modifications, selling them in
an individual used sale, or listening in. I'm pretty sure the actual
act of listening in probably didn't sit well with eavesdropping laws,
but I never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it. It wasn't too
long after that time period that cell phones and even cordless phones
started scrambling their signals for that very reason.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:28:40 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:19:43 +0200, BrunoN Bluthgeld
><brun...@removethispart.o2.pl> wrote:

>>Yeah, it isn't a shooter - but it's fairly fast paced turn-based game,
>>and it's flashy, with lots of cinematic bits.
>>
>>Well if it turns out to be a stinker there's always Xenonauts, which is
>>almost done - looks pretty cool and seems to be faithful to the original
>>mechanics.
>
>I think the cinematic enactments of events are kind of a novelty
>that's prone to wear off. I'm not saying it doesn't add something to
>a turn based game to watch the move play out in 3D, I just see it as
>something that adds a perception of action to a game which is not an
>action game at all.

I'm going to quote a bit from an article that seems to capture my
thoughts -- not to dissuade interested future purchasers, but just
because it supports my previous point.

"The most interesting thing about this trailer is that the underlying
design is basically no different from the technology that powered
dozens of low-budget, crappy full-motion video (FMV) games back in the
early days of CD-ROMs and laserdiscs"

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/10/2ks-interactive-xcom-trailer-and-future-of-youtube-games/

Despite that, the author of the article seems to have formed a
favorable opinion of the game from simply having watched a video:

"The trailer might not let you dive into the nitty-gritty details of
squad management and upgrades like the demo currently available on
Steam, but it does a good job of establishing the high-level strategy
basics for the real game without requiring a massive download and
installation".

Massive download and installation huh? Poor guy...he must have a
really shitty connection. I'll never be able to take him seriously
again after that one. What a real inconvenience it must be to a
professional video game reviewer to be expected to actual load a demo
before reviewing it.

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

Did it not occur to you that:
A. He's specifically talking about their playable trailer, not their
demo.
and
B. Some of the READERS might be interested in said playable trailer as
opposed to a multi-gig demo since THEY have a low bandwidth connection -
or a metered connection that charges heavily beyond certain bandwidth
use or both?
and don't forget
C. He reviews what he's told to review by his editor in chief.


Just because you live in a big city with ultra fast, dirt cheap,
uncapped broadband doesn't mean the whole world is living there with
you.
There's still big chunks of the USA that have no broadband available at
all - ever occur to you that the playable trailer might be intended for
them?

5.8 Gigabytes is still a huge download for a *demo* on broadband, much
less slow DSL or god forbid, the dialup large tracts of the world are
still stuck with.
Lots of fast broadband ALSO has fairly low caps in place (unless you buy
their expensive ultra package - IE 40Gig/month before they start
charging an extra $1 -$1.5 per gig) so blowing 6 gigs on a demo for a
game that's being released very soon is something lots of people will be
unwilling to do especially if this playable trailer gives them enough of
a feel for the game to make a decision to buy or not.

Wasn't someone just mentioning in this group in the last couple days
that downloading the Black Mesa upgrade thing was going to take him the
best part of a WEEK?

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:10:28 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

That was my whole point, did you not read my post? He reviewed the
trailer and not the game.

>B. Some of the READERS might be interested in said playable trailer as
>opposed to a multi-gig demo since THEY have a low bandwidth connection -
>or a metered connection that charges heavily beyond certain bandwidth
>use or both?

Since video is very bandwidth intensive, it seems to me they would be
mostly breaking up the pain of downloading into short bursts that must
be attended rather than something that could be downloaded while they
sleep. But yes I do understand some folks have crap bandwidth and
different strokes for different folks and all that -- so, whatchoo
talkin bout willis? :)

>C. He reviews what he's told to review by his editor in chief.

Not true, according to the help wanted ads Ars Technica has put out in
the past, where they want writers to bring subjects they are
passionate about to the table.

>
>Just because you live in a big city with ultra fast, dirt cheap,
>uncapped broadband doesn't mean the whole world is living there with
>you.
>There's still big chunks of the USA that have no broadband available at
>all - ever occur to you that the playable trailer might be intended for
>them?
>5.8 Gigabytes is still a huge download for a *demo* on broadband, much
>less slow DSL or god forbid, the dialup large tracts of the world are
>still stuck with.
>Lots of fast broadband ALSO has fairly low caps in place (unless you buy
>their expensive ultra package - IE 40Gig/month before they start
>charging an extra $1 -$1.5 per gig) so blowing 6 gigs on a demo for a
>game that's being released very soon is something lots of people will be
>unwilling to do especially if this playable trailer gives them enough of
>a feel for the game to make a decision to buy or not.

That much I fully understand. I wasn't ranting on folks with lousy
bandiwdth situations, I was ranting on the presentation by the author.

[Xocyll]

Except he has also reviewed the actual game as you would know had you
looked at the site a little closer.

THIS REVIEW was about the trailer, PREVIOUS reviews have been about the
actual game and gameplay.

>>B. Some of the READERS might be interested in said playable trailer as
>>opposed to a multi-gig demo since THEY have a low bandwidth connection -
>>or a metered connection that charges heavily beyond certain bandwidth
>>use or both?
>
>Since video is very bandwidth intensive, it seems to me they would be
>mostly breaking up the pain of downloading into short bursts that must
>be attended rather than something that could be downloaded while they
>sleep. But yes I do understand some folks have crap bandwidth and
>different strokes for different folks and all that -- so, whatchoo
>talkin bout willis? :)

A 20 minute video isn't going to be large.
It isn't going to be 1/100th the size of the demo.
It's not even particularly high res.

It's not breaking up the pain of downloading, it's a download that's
several orders of magnitude smaller than the demo.

>>C. He reviews what he's told to review by his editor in chief.
>
>Not true, according to the help wanted ads Ars Technica has put out in
>the past, where they want writers to bring subjects they are
>passionate about to the table.

That doesn't mean the chief editor doesn't give them assignments, he
just gives the assignments to the people most suited for them, the
people most knowledgeable and passionate about that topic.

>>Just because you live in a big city with ultra fast, dirt cheap,
>>uncapped broadband doesn't mean the whole world is living there with
>>you.
>>There's still big chunks of the USA that have no broadband available at
>>all - ever occur to you that the playable trailer might be intended for
>>them?
>>5.8 Gigabytes is still a huge download for a *demo* on broadband, much
>>less slow DSL or god forbid, the dialup large tracts of the world are
>>still stuck with.
>>Lots of fast broadband ALSO has fairly low caps in place (unless you buy
>>their expensive ultra package - IE 40Gig/month before they start
>>charging an extra $1 -$1.5 per gig) so blowing 6 gigs on a demo for a
>>game that's being released very soon is something lots of people will be
>>unwilling to do especially if this playable trailer gives them enough of
>>a feel for the game to make a decision to buy or not.
>
>That much I fully understand. I wasn't ranting on folks with lousy
>bandiwdth situations, I was ranting on the presentation by the author.

Except that you made unwarranted assumptions that he has crap bandwidth
and that he was cheaping out and reviewing the trailer _instead_ of the
game.

You are mistaken.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:21:23 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

Of course I did, I read that site regularly. I don't mean he never
reviewed the game, I mean the article I posted is reviewing a trailer
instead of the game and presenting it as an acceptable replacement for
judging the game via a proper demo. Add to that the fact that he even
described old low budget FMV games as "crappy", then compares the
trailer to that.

>THIS REVIEW was about the trailer, PREVIOUS reviews have been about the
>actual game and gameplay.

It's a sad state of affairs when we start getting reviews of game
TRAILERS. I'm not sure why that's hard for you to understand.

>>>B. Some of the READERS might be interested in said playable trailer as
>>>opposed to a multi-gig demo since THEY have a low bandwidth connection -
>>>or a metered connection that charges heavily beyond certain bandwidth
>>>use or both?
>>
>>Since video is very bandwidth intensive, it seems to me they would be
>>mostly breaking up the pain of downloading into short bursts that must
>>be attended rather than something that could be downloaded while they
>>sleep. But yes I do understand some folks have crap bandwidth and
>>different strokes for different folks and all that -- so, whatchoo
>>talkin bout willis? :)
>
>A 20 minute video isn't going to be large.
>It isn't going to be 1/100th the size of the demo.
>It's not even particularly high res.
>
>It's not breaking up the pain of downloading, it's a download that's
>several orders of magnitude smaller than the demo.

Which, aside from bandwidth caps (which are generally still an issue
with video viewing), one of them can be done in your sleep and the
other can't.... then... .well okay... lol

>
>>>C. He reviews what he's told to review by his editor in chief.
>>
>>Not true, according to the help wanted ads Ars Technica has put out in
>>the past, where they want writers to bring subjects they are
>>passionate about to the table.
>
>That doesn't mean the chief editor doesn't give them assignments, he
>just gives the assignments to the people most suited for them, the
>people most knowledgeable and passionate about that topic.

You apparently don't read Ars much.

>>>Just because you live in a big city with ultra fast, dirt cheap,
>>>uncapped broadband doesn't mean the whole world is living there with
>>>you.
>>>There's still big chunks of the USA that have no broadband available at
>>>all - ever occur to you that the playable trailer might be intended for
>>>them?
>>>5.8 Gigabytes is still a huge download for a *demo* on broadband, much
>>>less slow DSL or god forbid, the dialup large tracts of the world are
>>>still stuck with.
>>>Lots of fast broadband ALSO has fairly low caps in place (unless you buy
>>>their expensive ultra package - IE 40Gig/month before they start
>>>charging an extra $1 -$1.5 per gig) so blowing 6 gigs on a demo for a
>>>game that's being released very soon is something lots of people will be
>>>unwilling to do especially if this playable trailer gives them enough of
>>>a feel for the game to make a decision to buy or not.
>>
>>That much I fully understand. I wasn't ranting on folks with lousy
>>bandiwdth situations, I was ranting on the presentation by the author.
>
>Except that you made unwarranted assumptions that he has crap bandwidth
>and that he was cheaping out and reviewing the trailer _instead_ of the
>game.
>
>You are mistaken.

Nope. You've made assumptions about what my assumptions might have
been, and failed to do so accurately.

[Xocyll]

It gives you a taste of the gameplay and is suitable for low bandwidth
people.

>>THIS REVIEW was about the trailer, PREVIOUS reviews have been about the
>>actual game and gameplay.
>
>It's a sad state of affairs when we start getting reviews of game
>TRAILERS. I'm not sure why that's hard for you to understand.

Cause it's a "playable" trailer, not a just sit and watch passively one.

>>>>B. Some of the READERS might be interested in said playable trailer as
>>>>opposed to a multi-gig demo since THEY have a low bandwidth connection -
>>>>or a metered connection that charges heavily beyond certain bandwidth
>>>>use or both?
>>>
>>>Since video is very bandwidth intensive, it seems to me they would be
>>>mostly breaking up the pain of downloading into short bursts that must
>>>be attended rather than something that could be downloaded while they
>>>sleep. But yes I do understand some folks have crap bandwidth and
>>>different strokes for different folks and all that -- so, whatchoo
>>>talkin bout willis? :)
>>
>>A 20 minute video isn't going to be large.
>>It isn't going to be 1/100th the size of the demo.
>>It's not even particularly high res.
>>
>>It's not breaking up the pain of downloading, it's a download that's
>>several orders of magnitude smaller than the demo.
>
>Which, aside from bandwidth caps (which are generally still an issue
>with video viewing), one of them can be done in your sleep and the
>other can't.... then... .well okay... lol

Uh yeah, you can snag a 50 meg trailer (if that big) over dialup.

You're not going to get that 6 Gig demo while you sleep unless you're
in a coma.

>>>>C. He reviews what he's told to review by his editor in chief.
>>>
>>>Not true, according to the help wanted ads Ars Technica has put out in
>>>the past, where they want writers to bring subjects they are
>>>passionate about to the table.
>>
>>That doesn't mean the chief editor doesn't give them assignments, he
>>just gives the assignments to the people most suited for them, the
>>people most knowledgeable and passionate about that topic.
>
>You apparently don't read Ars much.

No I don't, but that's how most magazine type publications operate.
Otherwise you end up with 7 guys all going to the gaming convention and
no one reviewing the not-so-popular software or hardware.

>>>>Just because you live in a big city with ultra fast, dirt cheap,
>>>>uncapped broadband doesn't mean the whole world is living there with
>>>>you.
>>>>There's still big chunks of the USA that have no broadband available at
>>>>all - ever occur to you that the playable trailer might be intended for
>>>>them?
>>>>5.8 Gigabytes is still a huge download for a *demo* on broadband, much
>>>>less slow DSL or god forbid, the dialup large tracts of the world are
>>>>still stuck with.
>>>>Lots of fast broadband ALSO has fairly low caps in place (unless you buy
>>>>their expensive ultra package - IE 40Gig/month before they start
>>>>charging an extra $1 -$1.5 per gig) so blowing 6 gigs on a demo for a
>>>>game that's being released very soon is something lots of people will be
>>>>unwilling to do especially if this playable trailer gives them enough of
>>>>a feel for the game to make a decision to buy or not.
>>>
>>>That much I fully understand. I wasn't ranting on folks with lousy
>>>bandiwdth situations, I was ranting on the presentation by the author.
>>
>>Except that you made unwarranted assumptions that he has crap bandwidth
>>and that he was cheaping out and reviewing the trailer _instead_ of the
>>game.
>>
>>You are mistaken.
>
>Nope. You've made assumptions about what my assumptions might have
>been, and failed to do so accurately.

Nope you made your assumptions pretty clear.

[Toby Newman]

On 2012-09-24, rms <rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/24/unhidden-movement-xcom-demo-is-go/

I'm a bit confused because I thought the upcoming xcom game was about
1950s america and black goo, but this looks more like a battle isle
game. What am I getting it mixed up with?

--
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:27:32 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-09-24, rms <rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/24/unhidden-movement-xcom-demo-is-go/
>
>I'm a bit confused because I thought the upcoming xcom game was about
>1950s america and black goo, but this looks more like a battle isle
>game. What am I getting it mixed up with?

There are two X-Com games in development:

There is X-Com : Enemy Unknown, which is a turn-based strategy game
(and what is shown in the new trailer). It is being developed by
Firaxis. It is due to be released this October
http://www.xcom.com/enemyunknown/

There is also a game called just "XCom" which is a first-person
shooter (or possibly third-person) set in the '50s. This game is being
developed by 2K Marin. It is due some time in 2013.
http://www.xcom.com/xcom/

Everyone is talking about the former game. While there are some
interesting concepts in the latter, its gameplay still looks very
generic and does not feel true to the XCom legacy. There was not much
excitement about the latter title; in fact, it felt very much that
Enemy Unknown was developed in reaction to that disappointment (e.g.,
"here, let's show 2KMarin what a 'real' XCom game looks like!")

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:10:49 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

Speak for yourself, or at least on behalf of the bandwidth-gimped... I
downloaded Secret World (18GB) and let it update (a few more gigs)
something like half an hour.

[Anssi Saari]

Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> writes:

> On 2012-09-24, rms <rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/24/unhidden-movement-xcom-demo-is-go/
>
> I'm a bit confused because I thought the upcoming xcom game was about
> 1950s america and black goo, but this looks more like a battle isle
> game. What am I getting it mixed up with?

There are two XCOM games coming out. What's out now is XCOM: Enemy
Unknown by Firaxis, more akin to the original with turn based combat and
such.

The 1950s and black goo is called just XCOM and developed by 2K Marin
has been delayed to whenever. There was pictures and speculation posted
about it at Kotaku a few days ago, saying it may be now squad based
third person instead of first person. No confirmation though.

[Xocyll]

Sheesh.

Are you so friggen dense you can't figure out that the second line ALSO
is talking about dialup?


Would you also like to explain how bandwidth caps "also apply to video
viewing" to anywhere near the extent of demo downloads.

Video watching on the average capped bandwidth connection these days is
not an issue unless you do nothing else all day - most videos aren't
that big.

That demo is over *100* TIMES the size of the video.

So Mr. Low bandwidth cap can watch what, 110, 120 videos for the same
bandwidth cost as that demo.
He can "play" that interactive trailer until he's done every single
possible combination and still not have used 1/90th as much bandwidth as
downloading the demo use up.

Here's some real numbers
Cogeco Cable's (they're the local cable co. here) "Express 4 package"
their cheapest/lowest "high speed" package.
Up to 4Mbps, 15Gb per month cap.
$15.95/month promotional 12 month rate.

Additional usage fee for Internet usage is $1.50/additional GB, up to
$50 per month.

6 GB demo uses up 40% of the monthly cap.
50 MB video uses up 1/300th (0.3%) of the monthly cap

Sorry but no, unless you only watch ultra-high quality video they just
are not a concern for even the lowest bandwidth capped connections and
people who buy those cheapest price/lowest cap connections and worry
about their cap don't watch video in ultra-high definition in the first
place.

It's orders of magnitude different in bandwidth cost compared to stuff
like the X-com demo.


Your homework for tonight: calculate how long that download and update
of Secret World would take that Dairy Farmer in Montana on 33.6k dialup.
(I'm being nice and assuming he could get as high as 33.6k, but hey, you
could calculate it for 9.6k too - the local lines might be very old and
not support anything more.)
I know that back when dialup was the standard New York State's telecom
people wouldn't guarantee the lines could handle more than 9600 baud -
it could still be that bad in the hinterlands.

Not going to manage that download while he sleeps, unless you count
hibernating for the winter "sleeping".

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:51:38 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>

No, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt of not being retarded
enough to think that I use dialup, or that your command of the english
language was poor enough that you wouldn't understand your reference
to me in pronoun usage outweighed your mention of dialup on a 3:1
ratio.

Did you mean ME when you said "you're" or did you really mean "folks
with dialup".

Because anyone who has read even a few of my posts over the last few
years knows I don't use dialup, so I don't think you're stupid enough
to have meant both.

[Xocyll]

There's two lines that both have a YOU in them.

->Uh yeah, you can snag a 50 meg trailer (if that big) over dialup.

->You're not going to get that 6 Gig demo while you sleep unless you're
in a coma.

How did you manage to assume that the first line didn't apply to YOU
specifically but the second one did?

Hint: Neither of them means you specifically, it's a generic you
addressing your point that one activity could be done while sleeping but
the other one couldn't but completely missing the point that one
download is 100 times the size of the other.


Oh and I ran the numbers (your homework)
That 18 GB download would take 49 *days* over 33.6k dialup and 173 days
over 9600 baud. Except of course the chances of an ISP actually
keeping you connected for that period of time (or the originating
website continuing a download for that time) are essentially
non-existent.

So that Xcom Demo would be 1/3rd of that: 16.5 days over 33.6 and 57.8
days over 9600.

That 50 meg trailer on the other hand is only 11 hours over 9600 baud -
no problem there if they *really* wanted it.


You see the point of the "playable trailer" now? You see why the guy
"reviewed" said trailer in addition to his game reviews?
Low bandwidth people can actually experience something of the game via
the trailer when the Demo is far too large for their connection/caps to
deal with.

The trailer did it's job - small enough to stream without lag, shows
enough gameplay to peak my interest. I'll likely buy the game when it's
released on physical media.

A generic "sit and watch" trailer wouldn't have been nearly as engaging.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:21:58 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Oh and I ran the numbers (your homework)

Do you really think being so condescending/arrogant as to presume to
assign someone homework in a discussion is a good way to entice them
to continue the discussion?

[Xocyll]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

What's the matter Rin, you don't like it when other people behave like
you do?

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:58:16 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:21:58 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Oh and I ran the numbers (your homework)
>>
>>Do you really think being so condescending/arrogant as to presume to
>>assign someone homework in a discussion is a good way to entice them
>>to continue the discussion?
>
>What's the matter Rin, you don't like it when other people behave like
>you do?

I'd love to see more of that, it's rare around here though.

[John Lewis]

Very interesting indeed that Firaxis and Marin are both subsidiaries
of Take Two Interactive ("2K games"), current owners of the Xcom IP .
Parallel developments of Strategy and Action games in the Xcom
universe?

John Lewis

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 04:51:34 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:

Capitalizing a valuable IP with multiple products that cater to
different types of gamers; XCom for the "twitch" crowd and "Enemy
Unknown" for the grognards. Its a risky move since they are doubling
their investment on an IP that may not be worth as much as they hope
it is, but on the other hand may just "grow the brand". The XCom name
will then have a much wider audience which can be used to leverage
even more profits with other games or be sold off to some other
publisher at a better price than for which Take Two purchased it.
Simple business expediency.

Despite appearances, Enemy Unknown has been in development for years
(it just *looks* like it was started as a reaction to the poor
response to XCom). My guess is that the strategy game will be a
moderate success that will appeal to the nostalgic and grognards but
not expand the audience particularly, and XCom-the-FPS will sell well
enough to break it even it won't be too well regarded, marginally
tarnishing the XCom name. Thus, while they probably won't lose any
money on the deal the whole thing will be a wash for 2K.

The real question is if Take Two, based on the not-so-stellar
responses people are having to XCom-the-FPS, will cancel the shooter
before release, judging it better to swallow the development costs
rather than lower the value of the IP with a crappy game.

[Xocyll]

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the

entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

Well the original IP got "diluted" the same way.

Or had you forgotten X-Com Enforcer?

[noman]

On 10/5/2012 6:29 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>
> The real question is if Take Two, based on the not-so-stellar
> responses people are having to XCom-the-FPS, will cancel the shooter
> before release, judging it better to swallow the development costs
> rather than lower the value of the IP with a crappy game.

The FPS XCOM's original scope was interesting on its own. It wasn't a
sequential romp through single player missions. It still had a base,
where you'd find out about things needing investigation around the
world, for which you'd send forth teams of up to three to four squad
members. Some of those missions would be all about retrieving clues and
retreating against unbeatable enemies, only to go back to base and
research the clues and alien technology, so that the missions can be
attempted later. I might be wrong, but I think the squad members would
gain experience and carry that through the missions.

I don't know, how much of that original design is still there in the game.
--
Noman

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:35:38 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

No, nor XCom Interceptor. Both of which were poor games that soured
the brand's name in the eyes of consumers. Its not surprising that
since XCom Enforcer was released in 2001, we haven't seen a new XCom
game in the past 11 years.

Modern gaming software publishers look at IPs more than just a source
of (hopefully) profitable games, but as a value all unto themselves.
They can be traded to other developers as a reward or lure ("Sign up
with TakeTwo and you get to make the next XCom game!") or sold off
when money gets tight ("Oh no, we don't have enough cash to pay the
developers; see if EA will buy the XCom license - for which we
currently aren't developing games - from us so we can finish our next
blockbuster and financially get back on our feet!").

If a slew of bad games made consumers wary of purchasing anything from
that IP, this reduces the value of the IP. That's not to say other
publishers won't purchase it, but not for as much as they would a
proven brand.

Its a difficult and often delicate calculation to make. Will the
profit XCom-the-FPS bring in balance out the development costs and the
potential risk to the value of the IP? If it does, publish! If it
doesn't, the publisher may just cancel the title entirely.

That's why publishers often cancel games that have been in development
for years. For instance, we saw similar calculations made with
Starcraft Ghost, and Command & Conquer Tiberium. They write off the
development costs in favor of protecting their investment in the IP.

Sometimes they guess wrong, of course. Sega routinely does this with
Sonic games, and LucasArts seems to be purposely doing this with Star
Wars ;-)

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:28:36 -0700, noman <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:

The concept is interesting. Its the interface that is the problem; it
is not well suited for an FPS. Furthermore, the shift in game-styles
and setting between the original XComs and the new FPS is fairly
large, and too many people it seemed as if the license was being
applied simply to attract consumers. Gamers have had too many bad
experiences with new publishers slapping old brands on bad games in
the hopes they would buy the product based on name alone.

Whether this is the case with XCom-the-FPS is up to debate (although
its tortured development does seem to hint at this) but gamers are
understandably wary.

XCom-the-FPS might actually be a great game. As you said, the core
concept is sound. The developers may have been better off, however,
either going with an entirely new IP or otherwise scaling back the
scope of their changes to the IP (e.g., keep the original setting but
make it an FPS/strategy/adventure, or use the new 1950s setting but in
an isometric strategy like the original). That might make it more
palatable to potential customers.