GODSPEED

What I meant by that:

I think we slightly twisted the point of the original post. But the OP issue is a very valid one in my opinion. Also one of the major things that 'bugged' me while watching the previews of the game. Maybe this can be some form of comfort for OP?; This was also the original issue with JA Back in Action. After lots of requests, they later issued an update/patch that removed enemy visibility if your mercs didn't see them. While this didn't "fix" the full issue and core game, it was very helpful. I also don't think a game like JA should have enemies visible on the map, you should have to walk to them to see them.

Nice to meet a fellow Québecoise! I'm 50/50 French and English from Montréal; the way "Malice" speaks is like everyone around me who speaks English!! 🤣

Not trying to say you can't have your opinion, sorry if it came out that way; I can be a little kurt! All I'm trying to say is that the game is colourful as heck. The characters are cartoonish and colourful as heck. There is very little "drama" to the firefights. There seems to be an over-abundance of over-the-top one-liners trying to either sound bad-ass or trying to be funny (and do neither). So where will the game get it's "serious" tone from? I just thought a more serious or drab tone could have helped contrast the very light-hearted comical characters and the overall much lighter tone JA3 seems to have. Every character you meet seems to have to be flashy and over-the-top, your mercs have instagram profile photos. I'm just finding it a little too whimsical for my own taste.

Québecois, yes! Québecoise is for girls.. 😛 Good eye to catch that!

1.13 is JA2. 1.13 can be used to simply open up new resolutions, or access functions that were disabled by the devs, or to add new functions as well. Most functions in 1.13 that pre-date 2014 1.13 are all core features of the game. 1.13 simply "unlocked" our ability to enable/disable those functions and easily tweak the numbers. 1.13 isn't some revamp of the game you know. Sure, the more recent 1.13 offerings give options of things like zombies, food, etc.. but those are jsut additive features I also don't care about. Original JA2 1.00 - 1.12 have reinforcement features. Those are hidden in the system. When you reach a certain % of the game, the "queen" (Ai) sends re-inforcements to locations. But I know what you mean, you are talking about reinforcements during battles. Well, what I mean by the word reinforcement is in a very organic way. You will battle some enemies and within a few turns a few new enemies that started further away will have been alerted or called for backup. 1.13 even unlocked the ability for the player to call Militia as re-inforcement. That feature was already standard for enemies in sotck 1.00 - 1.12. When in a battle, some enemies would instead look like they are calling on a radio.. that is them calling reinforcements from further away on the map that weren't yet alerted.

What!?! That's exactly how the game seems (anyways, to what I've seen) to play out. All the combat sections I've seen in the gameplay videos seem to be small pods of enemies that don't react to one another. I might be mistaking on that, or maybe the way I saw the ones play it played it like that.. but it seemed to me to be by small "pods". Also, JA2 has Reinforcement mechanics! Enemies that are close enough to the sound will come and investigate and join in the battle, even if far away. Enemies in adjacent sectors will come to investigate after battle, or even within battle if it goes on long enough. Some of these more advanced options were disabled for the game to be easier. 1.13 simply "unlocked" those modes and let us enable them. The 1.13 .ini editor is a great example of everything in JA2 that were under the cover in the system, but the devs decided to not complete or disable for ease-of-play. I suggest you take a look at the reinforcement settings like:

Thanks for you comment Humphrey! 🤣 But yeah, this is a glaring issue with the game (JA3) in my opinion. From the gameplay I've seen so far, it seems to play out just like Xcom, in the sense that enemies get a deployment phase, even if you manage to get your first shot on target. Combat seems to be by very small section. Meaning, I don't think you will combat against enemies that will have reinforcements from further away. This is a balancing act and difficulty padding so that they don't need to create a "sandbox" world with re-inforcements to different locations like JA2 did. Not sure if this is what Haemimont wanted, or if this is what was forced on them so that the release is generally acceptable to most people who've played modern turn-based games. It is probably much easier to control things this way, also probably easier to control small scale confrontation on consoles as well.

???

This isn't about the choice being interesting or not. This is about, why are they telling us they have such deep respect for Jagged Alliance 2 and want to make a game to honour it.. but then turn their backs on what made JA2 special, and instead make a game that resembles others games more. No one here is saying the a game with these choices can't be good. But it's the same as if a company came in, bought the rights to the Ferrari licence, say they love what Ferrari is about. They really understand it and the passion behind it.. and then go ahead and produce a 4x4 offroader. There is not problem with a 4x4 Offroader. I love those... but they go against the expectations they themselves setup.

That ^ Jagged Alliance 1 & 2 were about FREEDOM to approach a situation as prepared, as unprepared, as serious or as half-hearted as YOU wanted. Walking with an overloaded merc carrying an LMG, some explosives, a tool kit and a G3 in hand is MY choice. I pay the consequences of such a choice with his stamina, movement speed and exhaustion. Still, it remains MY CHOICE. The modern take on X-com, is good in it's own way. It was oriented to be more of a difficult turn-based puzzle game. I've got nothing against that... until this is what JA3 becomes. Jagged Alliance 2 = FREEDOM in a 'sandbox' world. X-Com = Tightly controlled environment to control the difficulty level.

While I really like the first idea. I don't think I should be SOLD something that I feel should have been part of the game to start with. If they went with more unrealistic approach at the weapons damage, I'm guessing their entire system is based on that damage model. This is EXTREMELY similar to JA Back in Action. That game has had very few mods to fix things, because too much is hard-coded into the layers of calculations, they took a radically different approach at weapons, types and damage. I fear this is the same here. Too much is tied into the balancing of the weapons damage to make it feasible to "fix" later on. Keep in mind, JA3 seems to be locked into very tiny combat sections. Compare that to JA2 where you could technically start combat on one section of the map and even end combat on the other end, without ever even going into Real-Time mode. JA3 seems to be balanced to play like modern xcoms, where you will encounter a small group, and there is no help from further away enemies. Once you defeat the enemies in a tiny section, that is all. Outfits are nice. I hope this won't become something monetized. Here, want a nice cargo vest, of flak jacket look on your merc. $5 please. No thank you!

Context. That was at the moment of releasing the pre-order. Naturally, it was hit with a wave of purchases! You cannot even find the game within the top sellers anymore... I scrolled down 100's of titles lower, it cannot even be found. CTRL-F won't even give a result in the entire list of top sellers on the steam page. There was a spike in sales at the moment the pre-order came live. Then it died. I would suspect MOST games go through that. A game that sells well, will see that number stay high for a long time. Eventhough I've hated Baldur's Gate 3 so far, it is still among the top sellers, even after being in early access for years now. THAT is a high seller.

I'm more of a die-hard. I would much rather a new scenario/story than a simple Remaster. But there is a line that is drawn for myself. Some of the things that were unique to JA2 (interrupts, roleplaying stats and the way they merge seamlessly into all actions taken by mercs), seem to have been replaced or removed in favour of a more modern twist on Turn-Based gameplay. For myself, Interrupts were a core of JA 2, removing it was just one among many signs that they were heading in their own direction. Same thing Back in Action did. It also had its share of defenders and those who wanted to keep the core intact. No one listened.. and that game is far from feeling like a Jagged Alliance game. I guess, I was hoping for Jagged Alliance 3; new graphics engine, new scenario, new landscape. Not a re-imagining or reboot. Not a twist on the Jagged Alliance franchise, not new mechanics (JA2 was already unique enough among it's peers, why scrap that uniqueness?). So far, JA3 looks like a more polished version of a mix between Jagged Alliance Flashback and Jagged Alliance Rage! Not really the direction I was hoping for. But hey! Who knows, I might be pleasantly surprised. I'm just not holding my breath. With all that said... I would rather a remaster of JA2 1.12 than another failed attempt at reviving a series that doesn't even ring a bell for anyone within the new generation that this game seems to be aimed at.

I've been on this forum since nearly day 1 of its inception. I voiced many of these concerns very early on. I was met with mostly arguing that x-com was a great game and it was okay to follow it's path. I personally don't understand the point of making Jagged Alliance 3 and then changing it's core mechanics. Removal of the RPG stats and how they functioned in unique things like Interrupts. Now... ...we have Overwatch. Perks. Weapon perks even. I don't care how much they wave around the idea that Ian Currie worked with them.. nowadays, it's common to have popular figures show up just to attract customers. I put no faith in such marketing.

I won't hold my breath. Who knows, they might surprise me! I used to play GTA 1 & 2 in high school. I would setup a network in computer class and play with a couple friends. I've played every GTA since (I skipped the cartoon ones 3, Vice City), the storyline in GTA IV is good quality classic movie-style storytelling (the Godfather-type of storytelling). Very touching story, down to earth, characters that you actually get attached to. Among the better stories in video game format. GTA V was okay. Didn't really like the characters that much.. but it's a fun open world to fool around in.

I myself am a gun owner. This kind of "out-of-context" crap is not only insulting to gun owners but also shows a lack of understanding context. That girl doesn't own any gun. If that girl were to consume alcohol, her development would be hindered. Physically AND mentally! I'm in Canada, where sports shooting and hunting are things. So what you're saying is, if I want my "daughter" to be able to shoot targets for fun, she should also consume alcohol and drugs?? Shooting a gun doesn't make you a killer. Actually quite the opposite.. that girl will develop a respect and most likely be the opposite of a person who would be dangerous. I sincerely wished people who were ignorant of fireams owning, laws & regulations would stop posting crap they don't understand. 1. Guns are a sporting equipment; it is even in the winter Olympics and sports across the world. Wake up! Same as archery. That is what that girl is practising. 2. Guns are "uncommon". Compared to alcohol that can physically disable a person who will then drive, or might make some real stupid mistakes.. alcohol can get in EVERYONE hands quite easily, guns, even in the most liberal states are way harder to acquire. How many teens try to get into shooting clubs vs. teens that try to get into bar and clubs. Teens do not know their own limits, do not know how their bodies react... imagine if all the teens could easily get in a drink.. then walk back out and drive!? Common! Stop and THINK! I don't even understand the comparison between alcohol and guns honestly.

Grand Theft Auto, through it's style of freedom, has always had shock value for the 'thing's you could do. Was the game made so you could beat a prostitute after 'having' her in your car? Probably not, but the freedom of killing anyone, punching anyone, driving over anyone... and the freedom and reality of having prostitutes means there is a freedom of action. This alone has made the rounds in the news, made Rockstar have to fight back from being censored, banned, etc... But Rockstar Games have the backing of money, being a huge studio that self-publishes, etc.. Haemimont Games have to walk a tight rope, as they must then answer to THQ as well. Jagged Alliance 2 was release in a time and place (I'm from Montreal as well, the sense of humour in the game was a very acceptable thing back then) where a very sharp, dark and "hot" political commentary, racist jokes and such, was ok. Now, it is not. Again... people throw a fit because Ivan is in the game. Imagine politically incorrect stuff nowadays? Haemimont Games would be shut down by the snowflakes drowning screams.

I'm not American, but I still don't understand what you mean by that. No one is "allowed" to kill in the USA. If you're a soldier, you're a soldier, like in ANY country. That would not give you a licence to kill, other than if you we're called to go on a battlefield.

I'm going to be "that" negative person in the room. 'Cause, unfortunately, that is how I'm feeling about JA3 at the moment. The game feels way more like Wasteland 3 / new xcom clone than like Jagged Alliance. Enemies dropping their guns and being blown back by a stun grenade? I don't expect to see that, as I can't recall many modern games that did that. Everything is simply "damage" and "status effect". Meaning, you can't use the bodies ragdoll/physics to your advantage. In JA, throwing a well-placed grenade/stun in the middle of a few enemies was not only to damage them, but to reduce the amount of movement, shots and firepower the enemy would be able to throw at you on their turn. 7,62mm High Calibre (and Brigade E5) did this very well also. A grenade was an absolute nightmare, as the stamina drain and the fact you'd often be under shock, or even blind, weapon on the floor... meant you had a useless merc. THAT is the true killer. Having to waste time from another merc to apply morphine to the shocked merc was a realy dangerous thing. These fine details in battles are memorable moments and thigns that have kept me coming back to 7,62mm and JA2. Very dynamic and plenty of detail.

The problem with 18+ content, is it can quickly go overboard and not really feel part of the game. JA2 had it well balanced; finding a porno magazine here and there (not so often to become ridiculous) and the twisted movie names Brenda says she's watched. 😆 JA3, hopefully, deals with it's mature subject matter in a decent way. Putting in too much 18+ content will just feel campy and cheesy. I would hope they didn't shy away from some stereotypes and cultural commentary; prostitution and STD's should be touched on. But, I have my own thoughts that a modern game won't use much "politically incorrect" commentary or content. People already throw fits just for seeing Ivan.. so the world would fall apart and cry with too much content here. "It has to stay light and colourful."

That's pretty funny alright.. I've got nothing to prove, nor does it even matter for the subject. Anyone who's spent even a very little amount of time working/looking at artwork, photography, cinematography and actually cares about such detail knows exactly what I'm talking about. Can't even believe anyone is arguing with this.... Jeez! Common!! It's like you guys are just looking to tell me the sky is red when it clearly is blue! JA2 had a very mute colour palette, very earthy colours. The only bright places would have been places like Balime & Meduna. NPC's are all friggin' down the pits. Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout 1 & 2 have an extremely similar tone. It's grim, it's bland. It was a choice. Again, I don't care how many photos you show me, a photo that someone took with their phone from a battefield isn't the same thing as a movie, a video game or a book. A tone is set, a feeling is given, to provide a feeling for the context and what the story should make you feel. Jagged Alliance 2 contrasted very much with a game like X-Com Apocalypse. Jagged Alliance 2 - [b]Mute Colour Palette[/b] Fallout - [b]Mute Colour Palette[/b] 7,62mm - High Calibre - [b]Mute Colour Palette[/b] X-Com Apocalypse - [b]Vibrant Palette[/b] I mean common guys!! Arguing crap like that almost feels childish. Jagged Alliance 2 was always known for having a very bland and mute colour palette. It's a choice that was made because of the content and the tone that they wanted to portray. News is news. News is not an entertainment medium. It isn't out to tell a story or provide an emotion. News is there to provide a very straightforward account, nothing more, nothing less. A photo is NOT a game. I mean, common!! That wasn't even an argument. You're offering a REAL life image in comparison of a game that uses small cartoonish characters?? That's EXACTLY why the art direction is extremely important! Jagged Alliance 2 had very mute colours. The landscape was bland. The contrast and lightheartedness came from the humour in the mercs, the humour in the situations, like coming across Brenda. Elliot. Flowers. The funny one-liners your mercs could come up with every now and then. THAT was the contrast for the mute and bland landscape. Colours that, without those tidbits of humour, would eventually make you feel on the down instead. What happens when you break that fragile balance, is that you've got a game that is vibrant, lacking any serious tone and 'feeling' to the "landscape", on top of that you'll get plenty of one-liners and humour. Where is the contrast? THAT contrast is EXTREMELY important when telling a story. I almost feel like I'm explaining this to someone who hasn't played many video games or watched many movies before.

Why the F do we want vibrant colours? What is this a box of unicorns or some crap like that? When's the last time you watched a movie that dealt with the theme of war that had a vibrant and colourful colour palette? There is a reason muted tones are best for this style of game. They provide a very subconscious way of feeding subtle information to your brain, affecting your mood and the tone of the story. The last thing I want is to play a game about mercenaries and war, and then get the feeling I'm playing DOTA 2. I never once played Jagged Alliance 2 and felt "oh my, this is drab".. because THAT is the point. War, killing and such should be grim, bleak and pretty depressing.

A demo doesn't need to be released YEARS ahead of time. Some demos are always available, even years after the games release. What did the streamers play? The tutorial starting section, no? So why not release that as a demo. The content is all there.. just cut off any more parts of the game than the starting island. I would MUCH rather try it for myself than waste my time watching someone else play it. Or waste my time downloading a big game then rush to play a section so I can stay within the refund period. Yes, it is the editors choice. So what is the harm from the OP to ask for one? Has the OP been insulting? Has he said the game will suck? No! He simply stated a demo would be great. Provided a few important pointers to WHY demos are a great option. 1. REGARDLESS if you have a $15000 or $300 PC, optimization CAN greatly affect ANY computer. Anyone who's been gaming for any amount of time, who goes into other games than your extremely popular titles (big AAA titles with HUGE budgets and engines that have been optimized very well) will know this and have lived this. 2. GOG Refund isn't a guarantee, they can deny it. I've been denied Steam refunds in the past. 2 hours can be too short to really get into it. Sometimes just getting the settings right and doing the tutorial part can have you at the 2 hours mark and past the refund point. Sometimes you encounter a "bug" or incompatibility, that just getting around to getting the game up and running is long enough that your refund timeframe is just about 2 hours and you haven't even tried the game that much. These are common things in PC gaming (unfortunately). 3. Watching a game online isn't the same as playing a game. Again, this should be pretty standard knowledge. Maybe you or others like watching others play games, others don't. It breaks some of the "surprise" and fun of getting into it yourself. A demo provides a nice way to experience it yourself, see how it runs, see if it's optimized from the start. Avoids having to hog the refund options, avoids unnecessary bad reviews if you don't like it, etc... I honestly can't see the harm in asking for a demo; so what if the devs have already decided there wouldn't be one!? You can't get what you don't ask for... and asking is free.

If you've been in PC gaming for any length of time, you'd know this is somewhat unreliable. Optimization is not a spec. One needs to TEST it on his own machine first to see how it runs. I've had games WAY above recommended specs that run like crap.. and I've had PC's with games that we're close to Minimum run very well. Just seeing those specs above, if recommended specs are this high for a "xcom-style" game... optimization will be down the drain.