XCOM 3 - Everything We Want To See

Silver

Spaceman
Staff Member
Joined
February 13, 2014
Messages
9,312
Location
New Zealand
GameWatcher wrote about everything they want to see from XCOM 3.

XCOM 3 - New Enemy Types

This should be a given, frankly - but we're not just referring to more enemy types, which XCOM 2 gladly provided. We mean a complete overhaul of enemies, as the old set are getting rather predictable now. Basing XCOM 3 around Terror From The Deep would help a lot with this. We want to be surprised by opponents again, and give the design team a challenge - the soldiers in XCOM 2 were just boring, and the roided-up Sectoids were no fun anymore. Completely new enemies please!

[...]
More information.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
9,312
Location
New Zealand
Would be interesting if they introduced some divergent stories for... the aliens. They're written as black & white evil characters at the moment. Why are they intent on colonization?
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,978
Location
Florida, USA
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,184
Location
Spudlandia
Honestly, maybe it's time for the series to take a break. There's a LOT of games like this coming out now. Let the new IPs have some air for a few years. See what ideas they come up with. Then improve on them in XCOM 3.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
While I can agree with some of the points there was really nothing worth of notice in that article. And the last one about missing a point blank 95% shot just shows that you're really not "getting" what the turn based system is meant to represent. Even though the opponent is standing still on screen you still have to grasp the concept that in "reality" everyone is moving around, and then those kind of misses aren't as unfathomable anymore.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,216
Location
Sweden
Honestly, maybe it's time for the series to take a break. There's a LOT of games like this coming out now. Let the new IPs have some air for a few years. See what ideas they come up with. Then improve on them in XCOM 3.

Naw, XCOM has so much replayability I could never get sick of sequels unless they become obvious cash grabs (*looks at you, Tropico*)

What I would like to see is more along the lines of the original XCOM remake pitch back in 2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1QnIfsSKYA

More suspense, more cinematic, more mature content-- but with all the same deep strategy we've seen through XCOM 2.

Terror From the Deep doesn't interest me at all.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
1,748
Location
San Juan Islands, WA
While I can agree with some of the points there was really nothing worth of notice in that article. And the last one about missing a point blank 95% shot just shows that you're really not "getting" what the turn based system is meant to represent. Even though the opponent is standing still on screen you still have to grasp the concept that in "reality" everyone is moving around, and then those kind of misses aren't as unfathomable anymore.

I find high percentages tend to confuse some people, too. If you say 95% chance to hit, they interpret that as "virtually certain". If you say 1 in 20 times you'll miss, they understand that'll come up quite often.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I find high percentages tend to confuse some people, too. If you say 95% chance to hit, they interpret that as "virtually certain". If you say 1 in 20 times you'll miss, they understand that'll come up quite often.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,026
Location
France
GameWatcher wrote about everything they want to see from XCOM 3.
I want to see full game released, no DLC and no stupid "random encounter bosses".
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I find high percentages tend to confuse some people, too. If you say 95% chance to hit, they interpret that as "virtually certain". If you say 1 in 20 times you'll miss, they understand that'll come up quite often.

Sure, sure, people are getting confused. By the constant noise made by those who claim knowledge. Quasi certainty though has meaning.

One in 20 twenty times of what, such a conformist mindset.

Actions or things can not be substituted. People are pushing for that everywhere.
Yet it makes no sense.

In a game, the action that must succeed is the one the player is considering, not a hypothetical one that would come later. It does not balance out. Actions are not equivalent.

Beside, and first, 95 pc hit chances does not mean 1 out of 20. 20 consecutive rolls could give three or four misses as none.

While I can agree with some of the points there was really nothing worth of notice in that article. And the last one about missing a point blank 95% shot just shows that you're really not "getting" what the turn based system is meant to represent. Even though the opponent is standing still on screen you still have to grasp the concept that in "reality" everyone is moving around, and then those kind of misses aren't as unfathomable anymore.

Sure, sure. Reversion in blame.

That is a limitation in the used model, not the opposite.

UgoIgo percentage based models barely support representation of sure shots, 100 pc hits are not welcome. The 5 95 pc bracket is a cheap way to introduce uncertainty.

In combat situations, a point blank shot is missed for causes that are not included in the UgoIgo modelization stuff.

Trained killers do not miss their target in the conditions depicted by UgoIgo vid products.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
More XCOM would be cool. I absolutely love the XCOM games and would definitely buy another squeal. However, they do have their weak points. I'd personally like to see the base management side of things improved, to provide a bit more rounded game. I also would love to see either better writing, or maybe just less of it, as what there is can be cringe worthy a times.
 
Sure, sure, people are getting confused. By the constant noise made by those who claim knowledge. Quasi certainty though has meaning.

One in 20 twenty times of what, such a conformist mindset.

Actions or things can not be substituted. People are pushing for that everywhere.
Yet it makes no sense.

In a game, the action that must succeed is the one the player is considering, not a hypothetical one that would come later. It does not balance out. Actions are not equivalent.

Beside, and first, 95 pc hit chances does not mean 1 out of 20. 20 consecutive rolls could give three or four misses as none.

I didn’t say that the percentage (5 in 100) and 1 in 20 are “the same”. They self-evidently are not. If we were talking about a statistical sample (which this is not), the difference would be significant. But when we are talking about probability (which we are) 5% and 1 in 20 are two ways of expressing EXACTLY the same thing.

One doesn’t have to “conform” to the rules of mathematics and reality, of course, but they are what they are.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
One doesn’t have to “conform” to the rules of mathematics and reality, of course, but they are what they are.
Like gravity : it's still only a theory but one that people who jump off a bridge can verify easily :devilish:


As an aside : strange time when some people don't want to believe in science and express it using the last scientific marvel (the internet).
I spent a lot of time on Reddit debating with anti-vaxxer or flat-earther and none of them never had polio. I wonder why.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,026
Location
France
The difficulty with Chien, is that not only does he have his own higher versions of science and philosophy, but also his own superior version of English, which our conformist minds struggle to comprehend. He has explained this before, when fools have dared to suggest that what he's saying doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I didn’t say that the percentage (5 in 100) and 1 in 20 are “the same”. They self-evidently are not. If we were talking about a statistical sample (which this is not), the difference would be significant. But when we are talking about probability (which we are) 5% and 1 in 20 are two ways of expressing EXACTLY the same thing.

One doesn’t have to “conform” to the rules of mathematics and reality, of course, but they are what they are.

Not mathematics rules but mathematics representations.

So
If you say 95% chance to hit, they interpret that as "virtually certain". If you say 1 in 20 times you'll miss, they understand that'll come up quite often.
From this, of course, it must be understood that people do not understand that they have 5 pc to miss (quasi certainty to miss) and when 1 out of 20 expresses exactly the same thing as 5 pc, it does not express a quasi certainty to miss.


Beside, a point was one in 20 what.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Don't know what the hell you're on about, Chien, and I find the effort to decipher your babble is not typically justified. We do have another French-speaker here, though, and he has mastered both English and Earth-logic. Perhaps you could explain it to him, and he could attempt to translate?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Don't know what the hell you're on about, Chien, and I find the effort to decipher your babble is not typically justified. We do have another French-speaker here, though, and he has mastered both English and Earth-logic. Perhaps you could explain it to him, and he could attempt to translate?

Despite the name, I don't think he's from France. Based on what little I've understood from his posts I'm placing him as being from China or somewhere nearby.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
Back
Top Bottom