🚀 go-pugleaf

Elmar Bijlsma <Elmarby@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<m0v2jv4grqr6gcvme0bf34aqd3hq8928ks@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:43:20 -0400, tomahalk
> <tomahalkrod@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
> >For me, I don't care if you go prone or not it's how the total package 
> >works together. That's what makes a good game from a bad game. There 
> >would be no point in making new games, if all that you needed was a new 
> >expansion set for the orig. X-Com. For some of you out there, that 
> >sounds like all your looking for.
> >
> 
> But taking the 10 year old concept of X-COM and simplifying the
> tactical combat gameplay further instead of adding to it? That's not
> something I'd like to see in a 'son of X-COM' game. Offcourse we don't
> know everything about it yet but I think it's a bad sign. But I'll
> probably buy it anyway. It has to receive really sucky reviews for me
> not to. :)

I agree that it's the "total package" that matters, but I also agree
it's a bad sign if we're not going to have a lot of tactical options. 
While the original X-Com was, and still is, great, I've been pretty
spoiled by Jagged Alliance 2 and all the things that engine allowed
you to do.  I guess my dream would be to see an X-Com game with the
JA2 tactical engine, or something similar.  Hey ... I can dream! :)