TorinReborn

[quote who="Sinperium" reply="103" id="3283611"]@TorinReborn If the game takes off and gets a gazillion members they might do it...but try starting up a business sometime (I have dome several) where you project increasing spending into an unending future with no idea of what you actual profits will be. It isn't wise or practical. Like I said...everything you want is in Squadron 42--which you are getting essentially for free with Star Citizen. An

[quote who="boshimi336" reply="101" id="3283413"]P2W is NOT what this game is. The very definition of P2W is paying for an in-game item that no one else can have (such as a unique ship) that affects game balance such as combat for an example. Star Citizen does not have any of this. You can earn everything in Star Citizen IN GAME WITHOUT PAYING any $$$. People are complaining about 'users getting things first' and I think

[quote who="Sinperium" reply="100" id="3283353"]So what we need is an eternal multiplayer game that you pay for once up front and NEVER buy anything for again. That will be $2,000 please. If you want ongoing development and maintenance, expandable server capacity and regular driver and OS upgrades you have to pay for it. I can't buy an exclusive "Sword of Gondor" that no one else can ever have. I just have to work longer for the biggest swords.

The starting ship will probably be a small difference and will not affect balance as much, but the other part about buying ingame currency with $ is the problem here. As you will buy all ships and upgrades with ingame currency it will be a really bad system to allow some people faster access to better stuff just because they payed more. That makes is P2W.

BTW, what is this insurance people are talking about? Can anyone explain what it will mean in the game in more detail?

It is P2W. If some players can spend real money to gain ingame benefits then it is P2W. No way around it. Game does not need to be free 2 play to be p2w. Actually the game not being f2p but having p2w features makes it even worse in my eyes (as in more greedy).

How better are these beginning ships going to be? If noticeable better then this crowdfunding was P2W system. I know backers should get something extra (ignoring they get the full game for less money), but that should be in stuff that does not provide ingame benefits in a PvP MMO.

What you call an overwatch lock bug is actually AI that know if it does not overwatch you will move your units next to the alien and shoot him in the head. This usually only happens when you are in high cover and got overwatch on him. He does not want to shoot as his hit chance is too low and he does not want to move as you got overwatch. So he only got overwatch left to prevent you from moving towards him. He cannot account for other units moving to flank.

[quote who="uberlicker" reply="77" id="3280634"] Quoting TorinReborn, reply 76 Of course it works but is not good enough. We had better in the past and I don't see why I should settle for anything less. Fine, don't settle for anything less, that's entirely your prerogative. Understand that other people disagree with your assessment and can enjoy the NG for what it does give. Personally I don't think 'we' had bet

I have finished Ironman Classic two times and played another two to end game before I got bored. Of course it works but is not good enough. We had better in the past and I don't see why I should settle for anything less. I lose 3x more time trying to target with grenades and rockets then I should. I heard on consoles these problems are less and only mouse users get to experience them. The alternative is not worse. You are l

The controls are not based around mouse, that says it all. What platform has no mouse? Consoles. UFO1 for its time had OK UI. Would I want xcom to have that UI? No. But I don't want these streamlined also. I want to be able to click with a mouse and everything works normally. I want unit icons that I can click on and not need stupid tab. I want to be able to click on a unit and that it works 100%. I don't want bugs with mouse targeting where I cannot click to move my guys into

The graphics are not the problem with Xcom. The graphics and details outside and inside the combat are good and nice. The whole control system was made for consoles and then ported to PC with just little modifications. Then many design decisions were made around the idea of making it as simple as possible, also something more standard for consoles then PC.

@Uberlicker: 1. You don't have to be on a dev team to understand basic concepts. 2. Well lazy was probably too strong a word and I didn't only mean the programers but the whole team including their management. They decided it was too much work to do it properly so they came up with this bastard solution. 3. It is a kind of console port. The game was developed for consoles at the same time as for PC and they made one game, not two. And the game alway

[quote who="uberlicker" reply="65" id="3276569"]I dislike the cut scenes, but the 'move to cover' mechanic is fine. If they didn't have it the combat would be way way too easy. Also realize that the aliens have the same spotting distance as your troops. If they had better range, ala the OG, the combat would be very very punishing I fear. But there are mods which do exactly that I think [/quote] Actually there are two reasons w

I actually don't like MMOs or games like minecraft for the same reason. You spend so much time building something (castles, characters, guilds) and it has no real meaning. I rather plays SP games that have a good story. It is like watching a good movie or reading a good book but feels like you are changing the plot as the story goes.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="20" id="3272412"]Should almost do a poll on this: Would you be willing to give up player designed units to have a greater visual variety in the races? Basically, the limitation is that each body type / skeleton requires its own set of clothing, armor, etc. [/quote] I would, if there were enough premade units to make all factions different. MoM had this and AoW had it, both are better games. But this not a question for

@Cauldyth: Original Xcom is still better then anything that came after and original MoM is as well. I didn't play Everquest so cannot say anything about it. I would also put Fallout to your list. First RPG to combine nice graphics and good UI with ultimate free roaming rpg experience. I have yet to experience a game that comes close. Wasteland 2 has a chance to do that, we will have to wait and see.

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="19" id="3270030"]Also, consider how different things are after FE's release than they were at WoMs release. Massive difference. The forums back then were exploding with legitimate complaints, vile rants, asking for refunds, and it didn't go away for months. What do we have with FE, a pretty general recognition that the game is good, a few minor bugs here and there being reported, and some balance ideas being batted arou

I just hope someone does a Middle Earth mod or D&D mod. Personally I find factions and lore uninteresting. Also not nearly different enough

Isn't Porcipinee the one that starts with that item that lets you cast buffs on her and they cost no upkeep? If that is true then I found it easy to play with her. Early game you buff her like crazy, give her some weapons and armor and fight in melee. Once she becomes a competent spellcaster you switch to high initiative and fireball with her familiar casting haste on her. You also get to use that wolf summon from early on and get to summon elementals later. If you get lucky

[quote who="Emperor_Nero" reply="30" id="3263874"]XCOM was fun for a couple of hours and then it got boring. It was more like a choose your own adventure book than a good strategy game. You got to do X and Y by choice, but you had to do Z eventually. The tactical battles were just the game grueling thing over and over and it broke up the action with so many little cut scenes that the game just felt disjointed. It wasn't a bad game, but it isn't something I would enjoy doing over again

[quote who="Fistalis" reply="7" id="3263630"] Quoting Heavenfall, reply 2I really don't get this review... poor early game? That's the best bit! And shallow tactical battles - again - this is how the game was designed to keep the focus on strategy. Well the early game is where your whole play through can be dashed due to bad luck, so i can see that. Although the author alludes to this his conclusion that you have to explore but many times are punished for doing so is p

[quote who="The_Biz" reply="25" id="3263605"] Quoting Mmrnmhrm, reply 14What he wants in his games seems to be every trend I am disliking in modern gaming. The shift towards tight, focused pieces of entertainment consumption. if I was a professional game reviewer and was forced to play new games instead of whatever I'm finding fun, I'd want the same thing But honestly, that's exactly what RPS and its readers value the most. If you can't see why

[quote who="Mmrnmhrm" reply="14" id="3263402"]The comment about Warlock sums it up. If you are looking for a game you consume in a few weeks, FE isn't for you. Which game do you think people will still be playing in a year? Warlock or FE? It's a shame that reviewers are rewarding games like XCOM, which come and in 20 to 30 hours of play but are critical of games that have a lot of pieces available. If you play as one faction, some pieces of the world aren&#

[quote who="MattSan" reply="10" id="3261739"]Please, for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT nerf Juggernauts. They are fine as they are. Slow, powerful, very thematic. Other factions should get a boost rather than Juggernauts getting nerfed. Also, high initiative horse archers kick their butts. Edit: Yithril also don't get ranged units. The SINGLE biggest drawback to playing them. So the Juggernaut i