Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


XCOM Apocalypse style game?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
2 replies to this topic

#1 thesapper   Members   -  Reputation: 101

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:55 PM

Hello everyone, this is my first post. I am working on a X-COM Apocalypse style game.

 

Here is a quick overview:

The game is basically a mixture of Syndicate and Apocalypse in that there are a variety of corporations (which are either AI or human controlled, and you can do some basic customization right now on there perks+flaws to tailor the type of corp you want to be, or if you just want to randomly make on, think GalCiv II customization) that fight for control of a city (which for now takes place on Mars in the future...no real backstory yet).  I am working on making the city procedurally generated via seeds (this is the core concept of this game) with instances for tactical combat in buildings/streets. The essence of the game is that most things are generated rather than hand made, and this is a interesting intersection of game play which allows for many layers of algorithmic generation to take place, none of it requires huge resources since it is modular in nature. 

 

 

Currently I have randomly generating terrains, with city layers (ie types of buildings) and instances for interiors. I am working on generating some basic architecture for the buildings (using some variables/structures depending on the type of building) as well as creating interiors based on the overall geometry of the building (it will be destructible tile based environments).

 

My real question is more to do with gameplay, what are the pros/cons of X-COM Apocalypse? What would you have like to see? What needs to be removed? Is the idea of a more engaging dynamic city based tactical/strategy game worth playing?

 

 

 



Sponsor:

#2 All Names Taken   Members   -  Reputation: 416

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

My real question is more to do with gameplay, what are the pros/cons of X-COM Apocalypse? What would you have like to see? What needs to be removed? Is the idea of a more engaging dynamic city based tactical/strategy game worth playing?

 

What makes you base it from Apocalypse over earlier iterations of X-Com? The setting I see for one, are you planning on allowing the player to switch between real-time and turn-based? That itself provides a reasonable challenge I don't think even Apocalypse really overcame (wasn't as good as turn-based, nor quite as good as a real-time game). Turn-based provides a more thoughtful, methodical playstyle while real time may be more worthwhile if your looking for fast-paced action.

 

I lean more towards turn-based in this situation, but that is very much personal preference and you wouldn't be wrong to do it in real-time. Is corporation management going to play a part of the game? or will you act as 'Security Chief' and concentrate on combat?

 

Personally yes, it does sound worth playing, if alittle vague at this point.


Edited by All Names Taken, 21 December 2012 - 08:04 PM.


#3 j-locke   Members   -  Reputation: 811

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:47 AM

I also agree that the plan is a little vague at this point. There are a lot of layers to Apocalypse and a few more layers that they cut or only partially implemented due to time/funds. Getting something with so many small modules balanced will be no small feat... but that's no reason to stop trying!

I, personally, enjoyed Apocalypse more than Enemy Unknown. Its real-time offered an enjoyable mix of strategy and action. i agree with All Names Taken that trying to implement both as they did is probably making this undertaking start to get out of control.

 

Some things I would like to see in a game like that would be an Ironman mode where it autosaves to offer an option for not being able to save-reload repeatedly. In the actual gameplay, having to manage so many details of your base was a fun experience but I'm not sure how today's gaming audience would feel about that level of depth (like hiring individual engineers and scientists; deciding to send troops to psy training vs combat training). Having lots of subtle and not-so-subtle value-adds tied to the various city organizations is a great touch. Like how Gravball League contributed some very able troops which served as an incentive to stay on good terms with them. Like how Megapol and Marcel both supplied various weapons and armor so you wanted to stay on good terms with them so you could access their goods. Like how the taxi group ensured you got your troops, scientists, and engineers to your base quickly, but if you fell out of favor with them, you'd have to rely on the tube systems which were slower. Just so many little reasons to keep a given organization on your side but not reasons that meant you lost the game if they became hostile. Again, that won't be an easy thing to balance. But the payoff can be quite phenomenal when it all comes together.

 

I think if you get those finer points right, the fun factor will be there and people will be quite flexible on if you're presenting it as a city or the Earth or some inter-planet coalition or whatever else you might come up with.

 

I would definitely be interested in playing something along those lines. Have fun bringing that to fruition!

 

A link to some of the interesting aspects that were cut from Apocalypse (http://www.strategycore.co.uk/databank/games/x-com-apocalypse/concepts/).


Edited by j-locke, 22 December 2012 - 02:04 AM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS