Just finished pic related and... wow. Is this actually

>>389148230
Somehow this game turned out fucking fantastic. How did this even happen?

>>389149207
Put talent behind something and you get talent.
Normally nintendo would have put some interns on this but they lucked out and got someone competent on it.

>>389148230
It is pretty good, but it is more like a dumbed down x-com. It severely lacks in depth when compared to x-com.

>>389150250
To be fair X-com's "62% chance" to hit at point blank was pretty fucking stupid. Sometimes more is less.

>>389149207
Passion

Thinking about getting it. I need an offline game to play.
How's the replay ability?

>>389150250

> RNG is """depth""""

File: eyeroll.gif (992KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 500x281px

>It's a "nintendo hasn't released a playable game in 8 months so lets praise this ubisoft trash" episode

>>389150684
Splatoon was like less than 2 months ago but take a (you)

File: 1417417251395.jpg (20KB, 501x418px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 501x418px

>>389150684
>It's a "anon complaining about a game he hasn't played" episode

You're making this to easy.

>>389150375
Xcoms rng adds a wide variety of possibilities and forces the player to risk every shot, always have alternatives, and carefully calculate positioning and situations to raise the rng as high as possible.
It's simply more realistic than baby Rabbids 100% hit rate mode.

>>389150684
S A L T
A
L
T

>>389150629
Very high, you can use 3 characters out of the 8 available in each battle and they are all quite different among eachother

>>389151270
So is it just like Mario where there's just a pile of levels and you have to go back through when you're done?

>>389148230

I consider them similar but different. Like an Orange and a Tangerine.

>>389150640
Yes because it forces you to enter an encounter with multiple contingency plans.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but Mario has zero of the base management, troop management and response management layer of strategy that XCOM has.

>>389150250
Dumbed down modern XCOM or classic? If you mean modern, jesus christ, this game is retarded then.

Rabbid Peach is sexiest girl of the decade desu

>>389151128
It's entirely possible to flip three coins and all of them to turn up tails though anon. Xcom can be inherently aggravating for that very reason, almost everything is RNG, making it seem unfair at times. Especially when your starting off with rookies that just make Xcom as an organization feel like incompetent idiots.
Mario Rabbids gives you allot more control but still keeps you on your toes due to things like super effects, destructable cover, and even cover that can inflict these super effects. Not to mention it can get crazy on higher difficulties and encourages a more fast paced aggressive play style.

Basically I'm saying that Xcom and Rabbids are for two different people of the same genre, like preparing for every possible outcome like fucking Batman and enjoy rolling dice? Play Xcom. Do you like staying in control of what happens but still being challenged because the game expects you to be moving around all over the place? Play Rabbids.

>>389151610

You do have character configuration and equipment customization but not a base or any resources other than coins and skill points.

>>389151419
Kind of (?) you get a score at the end of each chapter (group of 1 to 3 levles) depending on how many characters you lost and how much time it took to complete them so you can improve on that, plus between each level there's an exploration component where you can find collectibles like artworks, music tracks etc. and you are likely to miss out on many of them in your first play

Honestly, the more aggressive enemies, mobile combat and far less RNG do make it a more engaging tactical RPG.

>>389148230
I consider it the XCOM game I wanted.

>>389150250
Missing at point blank is pretty retarded.

>>389151768
But I mean, your Marios don't die, they don't suffer battle fatigue, there's no concern about which units to send on which operation.

I honestly don't see how these games are even comparable. Other than a grid.

Not saying that either are better, they are so vastly different from each other in goal.

>>389148230
italians did it better

>>389151928
This.

>>389151610

forcing you to deal with shitty outcomes does not create strategic depth.

If anything it prevents you from following a larger plan by constantly throwing wrenches in the works.

Post the crying dev pic, it explains everything.

>>389152041
You know what that's extremely reasonable, most people would just say "this game doesn't have perma death, battle fatigue, or concern of operation thus it's shit".
But yeah like people have pointed out, it's comparing apples to oranges. Some people will like a slower paced game like Xcom and others will like a faster paced one like Mario.

File: 1501339711217.gif (240KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 320x320px

>>389152163
>forcing you to deal with shitty outcomes does not create strategic depth.

Does the game ever let you use more than 3 characters? Such a limit seems pretty restricting.

>>389152220
i know he was devastated over the leak, but it honestly turned out to work in their favor. the shock of the game's concept helped people come to terms with it faster so when we saw the real gameplay that would stand out mroe.

>>389152268
This, it's basically the same combat system but in two different styles of game with different objectives. Trying to argue which one is "better" is silly cause they're aimed at different audiences.

>>389152315
Co-op gives each player 2 units for a total of 4

>>389152041
>But I mean, your Marios don't die, they don't suffer battle fatigue, there's no concern about which units to send on which operation.
You do retain damage after certain fights, so its necessary at times to shuffle lineups. Especially at the beginning when there's less healing.

You also need to weigh skillsets against situations because certain abilities will help you overcome some very specific scenarios.

>>389152163
Banking your plan on the off chance that every shot hits is a very poor strategy. You need contingencies in case of worst case scenarios

And yes sometimes RNG ruins an entire turn. But if you played correctly that doesn't mean you lose outright. If that were true all these Ironman Impossible runs would ACTUALLY be impossible.

>>389152421
Lad that's exactly what I mean't when I said "apples and oranges".

>>389152163
>Adaptation isn't strategy

>>389151928
Yeah, the enemies are pretty relentless in this game. If you don't pick them of quickly they'll just swarm your ass and make you humble.

>>389152439
That just makes the game sound like a rudimentary turn based RPG on a grid than anything strategic.
Neptunia works the same way.

>>389152528
To be fair in Rabbids you also need backup plans depending on if certain super effects end up inflicting your characters, with the worse inarguably being fire because it makes a character sprint out of cover like a maniac and start running all over the place. You need to prepare for that outcome, especially on higher difficulties thus creating room for contingency plans.

>>389151928
>I need constant stimulation and easy mechanics to enjoy a game: The Post

>>389152620
>That just makes the game sound like a rudimentary turn based RPG on a grid than anything strategic.
It varies honestly. Some fights are straight up power battles. Others are more strategy and require strong emphasis on movement, positions, and overall efficiency. While the challenges are straight up puzzles.

Game's strong point is how its mixes things up so that there's no bread and butter approach.

>>389152163
>forcing you to deal with shitty outcomes does not create strategic depth.
Not that anon but yes it does. If all went according to keikaku the game would be predicable and boring. In a strategic game you need to be on your toes till the battle is finished because unexpected things can happen. I lost 2h of game play because one effect box bounced rabbid peach into the clutches of the enemy. They killed her and she was unable to heal Toad, resulting in my failure. It's the unpredictability that makes strategy games exiting. But too much unpredictability isn't good either. If you have a 99% chance of hitting something and you miss completely, that's just bullshit.

>>389148230
That's what happens when you create a game based around actually being fun and strategic beyond "YOUR 99% SHOTS ALWAYS MISS DAS XCOM BABY GIT GUD XDDDD".

File: 1504383017549.jpg (42KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x363px

>>389153041
>I craft strawmen so I can easily win arguments: The Post

>>389149207
Nintendo shilling and bonus points for being a Nintendo game.

>>389153203
What strawman? Less RNG makes the game easier because there's less need for contingencies or plans to mitigate RNG variance.

More aggressive enemies means a faster game, but most likely at the cost of the strategic depth that something like XCOM has.

You're just afraid to admit you're a casual and want to play XCOM without needing to learn nuance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH-cpqE-efw

>>389153451
>but most likely at the cost of the strategic depth that something like XCOM has.
You would think so until you do something like baiting a bunch of the heavy melee units into killing each other so that you can reach the goal. Or using the mobility options to play keep away at low health.

Game offers a lot that you can do and its not a simple better/worse situation.

>XCOM for brainlets and lack of that amazing atmosphere it had
No wonder Nintecucks like it.

>>389153451
Except that's kinda bullshit, because if you have 99% chance of hitting why wouldn't you fire? Would you really go 'but I can 1% miss, even through it's impossible to do something to stop that?'

>>389154776
That's an over simplification and unlikely scenario

It's more like "I have an 80% chance to hit, but if I miss there's a serious chance my soldier dies. So I can either take the shot now, or maybe I can go for a flank for a better shot, or perhaps I can save a turn one of my soldiers in case the first once misses"

Not to mention there's also damage variance even if you hit the shot. 99% chance to hit with 4-6 damage means that you might need to plan for someone else to finish it off.

RNG forces you to have better planning for every possible scenario.

>>389154729
>XCOM 2
>amazing atmosphere
I would have agreed with you if you said EW, but XCOM 2's atmosphere is crap.

>>389150375
That meme image is captured during idle animations of an enemy behind full cover, there is no way to get 62 percent chance to hit point blank without cover in between or stacking debuffs

>>389155317
Strongly disagree

>>389155439
I dunno, man, something about XCOM 2's atmosphere is lacking to me. I guess I just really loved Enemy Unknown/Within's more horror focused mood.

>>389155127
Yes and it can also completely botch and fuck up your run anon.

>>389150375
>To be fair X-com's "62% chance" to hit at point blank was pretty fucking stupid.
I guess it's a good thing it never had that then.

>>389152404
Jesus imagine if there was no leak and it was revealed during the E3 week, console wars fags wouldn't leave the game alone

>>389153451
>Less RNG makes the game easier because there's less need for contingencies or plans to mitigate RNG variance.
Games that rely too much on RNG are trash, there is no skill involved you are just playing Russian roulette with the game and hoping you get good rolls, its less about skill and more about try and error

>>389150375
>Flanking
>Full Cover
>Weapon Range

X-Com requires at the very least some semblance of strategy required.

>>389155631
Dude what a fuckign shit arguemnet. I'm not even the guy you are talking to but he clearly lays out how you are supposed to think in a game like Xcom. No it should never completely botch your run because you should think (which he just explained to you) "This is an 80 percent chance to hit but if it does miss I will fail this mission, therefore I need a different plan". You don't bank on chance with no back up idiot. One RNG roll should never fuck your run because you should never be bad enough to bank an entire run on one RNG roll. You are essentially arguing in your earlier post "85-99 percent should equal 100 percent" No you dip shit, 90 percent chance to hit means 90 percent chance to hit. If your attitude is the stupid one you posted before (ie. "Well 90 is BASICALLY 100 so I SHOULD hit, let me bank my best soldiers life on it") you are just being a moron and discounting a statistically unlikely occurrence that just because it is unlikely. Then when it happens you go "What the fuck it was unliekly" as if someone lied to you. You were told it was 99, not 100 so don't bank your best soldier on it.. You're just shit at handling decision making my man, always assuming statistically unlikely things have 0 chance of happening when you are told that's not the case.

>>389156172
Except if you're any good XCOM is not overly RNG dependent.

File: mah nigga.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>389156241
Thank you anon. Someone else understands.

>>389148230
The game play is frustrating due to it's turn-based nature and if you do not enjoy these type of RPG games nor have the patience for interrupted strategic fighting, then this game is neither for you or me. While the cinematic cuts are fun and colorful, UBISoft messed up what could have been a great third person shooting game in the Mario Bros universe with the chaotic Rabbids by adding their strategy antics and old final fantasy fighting style. My advise, don't spend your money on this full priced item. Buy used or wait until the prices have dropped... So not worth it and very disappointing!

>>389156509
Please stop posting on /v/, you don't belong here.

>>389148230
It's another blunder from Kiketendo
>>389149207
Haha nice try Davide Soliani

>>389156695
Kys

>>389148230
based Nintendo saves a genre once again.
can they do ANYTHING wrong?

>>389154729
of all the things to attack you go for the atmosphere? the game has a ton of atmosphere.

XCom fans aren't playing this game and people playing this game aren't XCom fans. go back to your general.

>>389148230
If this were just a Rabbids game for PC I wonder it would be this talked about.

>>389156509
This reads like an Amazon review

>>389157341
It wouldn't. Its a Rabbids game. A fucking Rabbids game. Rabbids. Let that sink in for a moment and you'll see this situation for what it truly is.

>>389157421
It's also Xcom-lite though. And considering Xcom is too hard for the average player, this would be right up thier alley. Mario or not I think it would've gotten decent scores.

>>389156329
I get that Xcom is largely about reducing the ways in which bad rolls fuck you up, but let's not pretend that its RNG is in any way a skill tester. RNG exists to increase variance, so that a game doesn't feel repetitive. Frankly, I think it's the laziest way to increase variance, but I've enjoyed plenty of games with RNG so it's not inherently bad. Still, if Rabbids has managed to make a game that's still challenging and fun, but with less RNG, I'm a lot more interested in that.

>>389156215
>List three things that Rabbids has but phrase it like they're exclusive to X-Com

>>389152274
>>389152560
>>389153085

> oh noes all of my guys missed and my favourite soldier got killed
> STRATEGY

In reality you fags just savescum