I'll never understand those psychotic about immersion.
How about we create a meta game for Occulus Rift. It's an FPS game where you play a guy looking at a monitor.

Super immersive! Just like actually doing it! Never mind those horrible games that aren't immersive like Tetris or Zelda or Civilization or XCOM! It's got to be a FPS!

Jerykk wrote on May 12, 2013, 06:45:

Overon wrote on May 11, 2013, 23:03:
Help me understand the cover shooter. Help me. Right now in real life combat zones, things like walls provide little protection against ballistic weapons. Yet in games like Mass Effect where they accelerate projectiles to super high speeds, stone, brick, and concrete stops them in their tracks. How can the futuristic weapons be so inferior to today's weapons when it comes to ballistic cover. Same goes for these cover shooters like this new Xcom game. To me this contradiction is so glaring that it makes it really difficult to play these games because I just keep thinking "this is stupid" constantly.

There are cover shooters with destructible cover or projectiles that can go through cover. Inversion or Binary Domain, for example. However, you act like invincible cover is limited to third-person shooters. It isn't. Most first-person shooters have invincible cover too. If you don't like unrealistically durable cover, you must not like Half-Life, Duke Nukem, Doom, Wolfenstein, NOLF, System Shock, Bioshock, Far Cry, Crysis, Quake, UT, etc. By that token, you must think Red Faction is the greatest shooter ever made because most of the cover in that series is destructible.

Good points. You are right, my position is not logically consistent.

This is looking great. Mind you, I thought the game they showed in 2011 also looked great.

I agree the option of being able to switch to first person (whether a constant thing or even only when 'aiming') would be a great addition. But I can also understand why they might not do that.

Overon wrote on May 11, 2013, 23:03:
Help me understand the cover shooter. Help me. Right now in real life combat zones, things like walls provide little protection against ballistic weapons. Yet in games like Mass Effect where they accelerate projectiles to super high speeds, stone, brick, and concrete stops them in their tracks. How can the futuristic weapons be so inferior to today's weapons when it comes to ballistic cover. Same goes for these cover shooters like this new Xcom game. To me this contradiction is so glaring that it makes it really difficult to play these games because I just keep thinking "this is stupid" constantly.

There are cover shooters with destructible cover or projectiles that can go through cover. Inversion or Binary Domain, for example. However, you act like invincible cover is limited to third-person shooters. It isn't. Most first-person shooters have invincible cover too. If you don't like unrealistically durable cover, you must not like Half-Life, Duke Nukem, Doom, Wolfenstein, NOLF, System Shock, Bioshock, Far Cry, Crysis, Quake, UT, etc. By that token, you must think Red Faction is the greatest shooter ever made because most of the cover in that series is destructible.

Fletch wrote on May 11, 2013, 17:38:
Third-person... {sigh}.

Does every fucking new game HAVE to get consolized into this shit perspective/genre? And whatever the reasons or rationalizations used by these fucktards to justify turning a FPS into yet another cookie-cutter, cover-systemized, immersion-destroying, controller-limited, over-the-shoulder "action" game for luddites doesn't explain the fact that a FPS X-Com game was completely uninteresting in the first place. As a third-person, it's just console kiddie pablum unworthy of a second glance, even at bargain bin/holiday sale prices.

But hey... some of you might like it.

You act like third-person is inherently console-centric or something. It isn't. Max Payne 1 and 2? Designed for PC. MDK? Designed for PC. Sacrifice? Designed for PC. Deathtrap Dungeon? Designed for PC. Die By the Sword? Designed for PC. Giants? Designed for the PC. Alice? Designed for the PC. Omikron? Designed for the PC. Messiah? Designed for the PC. The Witcher? Designed for the PC. Severance? Designed for PC. Hitman? Designed for PC. Alone in the Dark? Designed for PC.

I could go on and on but I hope you get the point. In a game that emphasizes situational awareness and squad management, using third-person makes sense as it gives you a broader view of your surroundings and allows you to form strategies while in the safety of cover. If The Bureau were trying to be a realistic tactical shooter, ala the original R6, then first-person would be better but third-person makes perfect sense for the kind of game they're making.

Anyway, this looks better than what they showed in 2011.

This comment was edited on May 12, 2013, 06:57.

Loosing first person view really bites the big one but if they implemented it as a option when you go to aim, zoom into first person view it might have been less painful ,also don't really like the way they trying to tell X-Com's story, which for me is rather important.

Fletch wrote on May 11, 2013, 17:38:
Third-person... {sigh}.

Does every fucking new game HAVE to get consolized into this shit perspective/genre? And whatever the reasons or rationalizations used by these fucktards to justify turning a FPS into yet another cookie-cutter, cover-systemized, immersion-destroying, controller-limited, over-the-shoulder "action" game for luddites doesn't explain the fact that a FPS X-Com game was completely uninteresting in the first place. As a third-person, it's just console kiddie pablum unworthy of a second glance, even at bargain bin/holiday sale prices.

But hey... some of you might like it.

I agree, that third-person totally removes the immersion part for me. I play First person games because it makes me feel like I'm there, and the user becomes the player, while with third person you're just playing another gamey duck and cover shooter game. But for some games, like Max Payne, it just works. Just keep it to one perspective guys. Switching between perspectives constantly just takes me out of the experience.

what that started out as... how in the hell did they think that was in the least bit xcom??? it looks like they basically scrapped it and started over, which i don't mind, but you can totally tell they saw the success of the Enemy Unknown and tried to shoehorn a bunch of stuff from that game into this one. carter's alien gun, pretty sure i saw a couple mutons, and the sectoids are almost exact copies. i actually liked what i saw, but i get the strong feeling this will play as a derivative xcom meets mass effect type combo.

Help me understand the cover shooter. Help me. Right now in real life combat zones, things like walls provide little protection against ballistic weapons. Yet in games like Mass Effect where they accelerate projectiles to super high speeds, stone, brick, and concrete stops them in their tracks. How can the futuristic weapons be so inferior to today's weapons when it comes to ballistic cover. Same goes for these cover shooters like this new Xcom game. To me this contradiction is so glaring that it makes it really difficult to play these games because I just keep thinking "this is stupid" constantly.

"Continue here to read the full story."

???

I'm not sure what there is to "read" after I click the link.

???

mag wrote on May 11, 2013, 20:30:
Bwuh?

I get that look a lot.

Fletch wrote on May 11, 2013, 17:38:
Third-person... {sigh}.

Does every fucking new game HAVE to get consolized into this shit perspective/genre? And whatever the reasons or rationalizations used by these fucktards to justify turning a FPS into yet another cookie-cutter, cover-systemized, immersion-destroying, controller-limited, over-the-shoulder "action" game for luddites doesn't explain the fact that a FPS X-Com game was completely uninteresting in the first place. As a third-person, it's just console kiddie pablum unworthy of a second glance, even at bargain bin/holiday sale prices.

But hey... some of you might like it.

Bwuh?

Yeah! Chest-high walls!


Though, I mean, it makes sense in X-COM, at least the new X-COM.

Full spectrum warrior tactics with xcoms RPG elements.


IM IN!

Third-person... {sigh}.

Does every fucking new game HAVE to get consolized into this shit perspective/genre? And whatever the reasons or rationalizations used by these fucktards to justify turning a FPS into yet another cookie-cutter, cover-systemized, immersion-destroying, controller-limited, over-the-shoulder "action" game for luddites doesn't explain the fact that a FPS X-Com game was completely uninteresting in the first place. As a third-person, it's just console kiddie pablum unworthy of a second glance, even at bargain bin/holiday sale prices.

But hey... some of you might like it.

This looks much improved over what was shown years ago.