<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: X-COM Remake: It Might Not Suck.</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/x-com-remake-it-might-not-suck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/x-com-remake-it-might-not-suck/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/x-com-remake-it-might-not-suck/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-6</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The thing is I really don&#039;t think a straight UI overhaul would even work. There&#039;s actually a lot wrong with X-COM; it&#039;s an amazing game but it&#039;s not like it&#039;s this Renaissance masterpiece that brooks no improvement, especially with the advances in technology making new gameplay mechanics available that weren&#039;t possible back when a developer&#039;s major concern was making sure their program was small enough to fit on a few floppy disks. I think the best thing to do is to accept that whatever they make will be somewhat diminished compared to the original because they are going to introduce some bad ideas when they update the game for the 2010s. That&#039;s probably inevitable. However, that doesn&#039;t preclude them making a flawed-but-worthwhile iteration of the series. I&#039;ll happily take an Apocalypse over an Aftershock any day.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing is I really don&#8217;t think a straight UI overhaul would even work. There&#8217;s actually a lot wrong with X-COM; it&#8217;s an amazing game but it&#8217;s not like it&#8217;s this Renaissance masterpiece that brooks no improvement, especially with the advances in technology making new gameplay mechanics available that weren&#8217;t possible back when a developer&#8217;s major concern was making sure their program was small enough to fit on a few floppy disks. I think the best thing to do is to accept that whatever they make will be somewhat diminished compared to the original because they are going to introduce some bad ideas when they update the game for the 2010s. That&#8217;s probably inevitable. However, that doesn&#8217;t preclude them making a flawed-but-worthwhile iteration of the series. I&#8217;ll happily take an Apocalypse over an Aftershock any day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/x-com-remake-it-might-not-suck/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So my concern is, the new Colonization shows that Firaxis aren&#039;t very good at updating an IP while retaining its charm. I can&#039;t say I blame them - as a major publisher they can&#039;t just do a straight UI-overhaul, but adding and subtracting mechanics risks disturbing the ecosystem.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So my concern is, the new Colonization shows that Firaxis aren&#8217;t very good at updating an IP while retaining its charm. I can&#8217;t say I blame them &#8211; as a major publisher they can&#8217;t just do a straight UI-overhaul, but adding and subtracting mechanics risks disturbing the ecosystem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
