X-COM 2

[Alva]

 

Disappointed.

Turn limitation en mass => dashing forward hoping not to be insta-killed; and no tactical approach.

Bad design when it was supposed to be a tactical game.

 

Another game you need mods for to turn off or increase that turn limit..........why are developers so lazy these days.

Are we just too tolerant as consumers or are there too many fanboys and paid review sites swooning that developers actually think they do good?

XCOM always was a Hardcore, small Fan based Round based tatic game. It was always hard and will always be. And I for myself do not want it any different. And if you actually think and keep all mechanics in mind you do not have a real problem with the difficulty (or at  least I do not have).

 

 

Don't try to make the game harder than it is. Enemy Unknown had a much more balanced approach to this mechanic.

Putting in the turn limit is not making the game harder, it's just enforcing you to rush much more thus making you rely on luck and not brains which is not "difficulty" ..... as said - its luck.

 

The issue here is that they've made the concealment mechanic, try to promote ambushing etc - and then they slap on a 8 turn limit where you have to spend 3-4 turns dashing towards the objective and a small group of enemies with 2-3 other groups of enemies a little further in for when you've turned off the objective that you rushed towards.

Or want you to save somebody/something and have that something positioned in the middle of an enemy  group from turn 1 so you still not can move tactically.

Save 6 out of 14 civilians and the make it so that for each single turn - at the other end of the map - have the civilians right next to the group of enemies so you have no way to save them .... that's lazy design, no way around it.

When 5-6 gets killed before you even get into their sphere of influence ..... then they could just as well not have been there.

Sorry, that's not a difficulty aspect either.

 

 

This game is not hard. It's not difficult.

It's a weighted random-number generator and turn limit that causes peoples "problems" because the AI is to say the least disappointing. And that's why it's lazy, because it's the easy way out.

I had hoped it would be better - but the tactical approach feels like a step down from Unknown where this mechanic was much more limited and that's a bad direction to go.

[pinky6225]

The turn limit itself does make sense but not with the amount of turns it gives for some of the missions, as each turn is meant to represent a slice of time in which you can move/shot but a battle where you only had time to shoot your gun 8 times isn't really a battle to my mind

 

The reason for it is fairly obvious though as on the previous turn based (and even on apoc which could be made real time) games the easiest tactic was to find a good spot, bunker down and wait for the baddies to come walking into your sights

[Player4595]

 

 

Disappointed.

Turn limitation en mass => dashing forward hoping not to be insta-killed; and no tactical approach.

Bad design when it was supposed to be a tactical game.

 

Another game you need mods for to turn off or increase that turn limit..........why are developers so lazy these days.

Are we just too tolerant as consumers or are there too many fanboys and paid review sites swooning that developers actually think they do good?

XCOM always was a Hardcore, small Fan based Round based tatic game. It was always hard and will always be. And I for myself do not want it any different. And if you actually think and keep all mechanics in mind you do not have a real problem with the difficulty (or at  least I do not have).

 

 

Don't try to make the game harder than it is. Enemy Unknown had a much more balanced approach to this mechanic.

Putting in the turn limit is not making the game harder, it's just enforcing you to rush much more thus making you rely on luck and not brains which is not "difficulty" ..... as said - its luck.

 

The issue here is that they've made the concealment mechanic, try to promote ambushing etc - and then they slap on a 8 turn limit where you have to spend 3-4 turns dashing towards the objective and a small group of enemies with 2-3 other groups of enemies a little further in for when you've turned off the objective that you rushed towards.

Or want you to save somebody/something and have that something positioned in the middle of an enemy  group from turn 1 so you still not can move tactically.

Save 6 out of 14 civilians and the make it so that for each single turn - at the other end of the map - have the civilians right next to the group of enemies so you have no way to save them .... that's lazy design, no way around it.

When 5-6 gets killed before you even get into their sphere of influence ..... then they could just as well not have been there.

Sorry, that's not a difficulty aspect either.

 

 

This game is not hard. It's not difficult.

It's a weighted random-number generator and turn limit that causes peoples "problems" because the AI is to say the least disappointing. And that's why it's lazy, because it's the easy way out.

I had hoped it would be better - but the tactical approach feels like a step down from Unknown where this mechanic was much more limited and that's a bad direction to go.

 

I do not want the Game to be Harder. It is acutally fine.

 

The Problem with the Civilians is in XCOM1 not diffrent. And only Logical as you move in AFTER the Aliens. so that they had Time to attack Postion and think how they want it to be. I for myself never hat a non beatable Mission. And I do not think that 5-6 hve to die before you even get there. You can actually get all ascept for 2-3 if you do it right.

 

The Game actually would be very Easy without the Time Limit. You just have to think nowadays what you want to move. And btw. I Lost only 2 Man in my Save right now. Lost no Mission and am 2 Ingame Month in. (around 5 Missions or so and have Aliens have MEC right now. So It is actually do able. You just have to think.

 

edit difficulty is set to normal and I did count in the 2 Dead´s from the intro. Even through they are forced.

[Omni]

When a Sectoid mind controlled one of my female soldiers, she said, "It's inside me!" Somebody make use of that audio in a future mod, because that's too good to pass up.

 

Also, the turn limit worried me at first, but it's not as bad as I feared. It's been annoying me some and makes Ironman Mode seem even more daunting, but I find it can be worked with. 8 turns is a LOT longer than it sounds, and some are more than 8 turns. (Some missions have no limit. Most missions only count the limit until you reach an objective, after which you can clean up for as long as you like.) However, if the turn limit bothers you, there are already mods to raise or remove it, so it's not a huge issue.

 

I'm finding this one slightly more difficult to get into than Enemy Unknown, but only slightly. Besides that, it's great. I highly recommend this game... if you like this kind of game, at least.

[Player4595]

When a Sectoid mind controlled one of my female soldiers, she said, "It's inside me!" 

It´s not any diffrent in the German version. Did not noticed it till now. That is seriously too good

[tlo_backup]

just completed the game.

Story: not only is the story horrible, its plain basic.
evil aliens need humans because they're so special(not really) that no knowledge in the universe can compare.
and the ending is as classically boring as it gets.
and then there's the "how does it fit with the previous game?"
it attempts to explain itself towards that 10 years have passed, and that in fact you LOST the first X-com game, and generally separate horrible reasons for everything they changed.

graphic/game size?: about 30 GB of data, the graphics is "alright" but considering its 30GB of raw data, they could have done more.

Base: a step down from the previous game ones more, they simplified the base leaving you with only about 12 slots to fiddle with, and there's really not much to play around with.

 

Missions: mostly similar to the previous game, there's a few changes here and there, with new maps.
Other: no androids or mechanized soldiers, and the Psi class is no longer level based, you have to "train" them in a lab.(because clearly Psi is not a thing you can hone and train with combat?)
you do get drones, but they're hardly worth mentioning.

all in all, its clear they simply remade the previous game but worse in every field.

so is there any positive?
its still challenging, that's cool i guess, but there's not the same pressure that you had in the previous game as you can push the doom event back almost indefinitely by completing an extra mission or two ones in a while.
was this game even made by the same creators?

[Player4595]

just completed the game.

 

 

it attempts to explain itself towards that 10 years have passed, and that in fact you LOST the first X-com game, and generally separate horrible reasons for everything they changed.

It´s 20 Years actually (2015 to 2035) And the Story of XCOM 1 wasn´t good too. And I think XCOM2 has the better story.

[Vaelorian]

I don't usually rant, but the story of XCOM 2 deserves one. So let's give it a crack, shall we?

 

XCOM 1 had the potential for a great follow-up story. Consider the following:

 

-The aliens are willing to start their invasion with worthless sectoids rather than muton elites and sectopods; clearly they aren't trying to crush all resistance here, because they could've done that easily and moved on.

-They aren't even trying to nuke you from orbit. They clearly have the weaponry to do so, but they haven't even destroyed one military camp like that. Why? Because it's not their intention.

-They never seemed to do anything with the people they abducted; they just left them for you to find so you'll consider them a "big threat" and try your hardest.

-Their "terror attacks" only had like 16 guys present at any point. In a huge city. Clearly they weren't intended to massacre humanity.

-The entirety of the last mission is effectively the Ethereals explaining why they did what they did. Each world, each species, is an attempt at "ascension" - each of them failed. They pushed you so you'll succeed, and indeed in the last quest you have "Void Rift" and the Ethereals almost seem ecstatic when you use it.

 

A more mature story about the Aliens effectively giving up on earth and moving on, then you sparking up that hope and eventually ascending could've been crafted. It didn't have to be all violence all the time.

Hell, they could've crafted a narrative where peace with the aliens is possible. There could've been choice, moral dilemmas.

 

WARNING, spoilers related to XCOM2's story. Don't open the spoiler if you don't want to read them.

Though the story is absolute shite.

 

 

XCOM 2 took all that potential and very determinedly threw it into the dumpster; the elders - despite being thousands of years old - are suddenly affected by a disease that will kill them in twenty years. All of them. And the only way for them to survive is to use human gene data - because it's not like they could create artificial gene data with all their tech and psionics.

 

Meanwhile, every single alien in existence is improved by being combined with human gene data - sectoids get tougher (wait, in XCOM 1 they said "They were frail, which made them cruel, and ultimately worthless"? Wouldn't that solve the problem, making the new sectoids a success?).

Mutons get smarter and have a stronger will (again, this counters the problem mentioned in XCOM 1, making the new mutons a success) Etc.

 

Why all this? Because we needed noble resistance goodies against horrible alien baddies. Because humans need to be the "special snowflakes" who's gene material fixes all problems in existence.

 

 

And before you ask, yes, I did absolutely love XCOM 1, and the core gameplay in XCOM 2 is still good. I criticize it because I care.

[Kaz Aanh]

 

Don't try to make the game harder than it is. Enemy Unknown had a much more balanced approach to this mechanic.

Putting in the turn limit is not making the game harder, it's just enforcing you to rush much more thus making you rely on luck and not brains which is not "difficulty" ..... as said - its luck.

 

The issue here is that they've made the concealment mechanic, try to promote ambushing etc - and then they slap on a 8 turn limit where you have to spend 3-4 turns dashing towards the objective and a small group of enemies with 2-3 other groups of enemies a little further in for when you've turned off the objective that you rushed towards.

Or want you to save somebody/something and have that something positioned in the middle of an enemy  group from turn 1 so you still not can move tactically.

Save 6 out of 14 civilians and the make it so that for each single turn - at the other end of the map - have the civilians right next to the group of enemies so you have no way to save them .... that's lazy design, no way around it.

When 5-6 gets killed before you even get into their sphere of influence ..... then they could just as well not have been there.

Sorry, that's not a difficulty aspect either.

 

 

This game is not hard. It's not difficult.

It's a weighted random-number generator and turn limit that causes peoples "problems" because the AI is to say the least disappointing. And that's why it's lazy, because it's the easy way out.

I had hoped it would be better - but the tactical approach feels like a step down from Unknown where this mechanic was much more limited and that's a bad direction to go.

 

 

I am sorry but what? Do you even know what "tactical games" are? I am sorry to say that but XCOM1 had no real strategy, it wasn't really fleshed out. It had some core problems, like you had to waste 5 turns and move slowly tile by tile to not activate more than 1 pod which was boring and tedious.

 

Firaxis gave us so many tools to do that and people think that brainless shooting and overwatching is the way to play this game. XCOM and LW teached many bad habits in terms of the tactical gameplay, every one was using cheap tactics like stacking proximity mines or "overwatch 24/7 and bait with the scout". Yeah LongWar wasn't *amazing* , it was a huge clusterfuck of overdesigned things, where you had pods with 6 aliens with 20hp and tons of passives, you had to use min&max tactics like I have described above to finish this game. LW had few nice design ideas but gameplay that was *improved* was repetive and boring.

 

About turn limit. You are a rebels, hit&run, so it makes perfect sense for the guerilla ops. You go in ,do objective and get out asap. Do you think police would wait for you if you are going to raid the bank?

Get items like battle scanners or specialist scanning ability to scan part of the map so you will know where the alien patrols are and how to avoid them and get to the objective quick. You are not entitled to win every mission, though. If you feel overhelmed sometimes the best tactic is to evac early and abandon the mission or just rush to the objective and hope the aliens will miss. Or you could throw few mimic beacons/smoke grenades and run to the evac spot. You can even leave someone behind to distract aliens in hopes that aliens will focus on him. You can even equip someone with the smg/mobillity item boosts and scout ahead for your team. You can even snipe the VIP ass and evac if there is too dangerous.

 

Personally I always have some turns left , I never run out of turns. Sometimes I just evac at 1 because I want to finish off the aliens and get the loot I need.

 

There is plenty of room for tactics. People just need to be more creative, and before you start to talk about RNG there are ways to mimize that effect too.

 

About RNG, there are plenty of tools to minimalize random-effect , like weapon upgrades which will always do some damage even if you miss/items which improve aiming, skills like supressing/holo-targeting/officer skills, using ranger with phantom to quickly flank enemies to get better aiming bonus, flashbangs to make enemy miss if you need to reposition yourself if you are in the bad situation. There are also a specific ammo types which improve your aim , poison , emp-ammo, crit-ammos , pci mods where you can apply to yourself some aim bonuses. Not to mention grenades types like I mentioned above. There is a whole lot of the items to help you with that.

 

Not to mention stuff like using grenades to destroy enemy cover for better aiming chance, there are even a bait-grenades which switch aliens attention or high elevation bonuses.

 

If you rely on the RNG then ask yourself a question "what I did wrong to rely on that RNG to succeed?". You always need some backup plan and be prepared for everything. Even if you activate multiple pods or some random patrol just gets to you or you miss your shots. A proper tactician always has a plan B and C and thinks ahead.

 

About civilians , get ranger with phantom , equip him with the smg and with the mobillity boosts like spider suit and sneak past by advent attackers. You can easily rescuie almost everyone with this tactic. Just watch out for faceless, they always mimic the human look but they dont mimic the human behaviour , always stay in the same place. Thats why you have a battle scanner item, to reveal them. I never failed any of the retaliation missions, never. Even in the early game when my ranger wasn't experienced enough. And yes on those mission I get tons of chryssalids, double sectopods and many other craps. Its a freaking attack, do you think enemy will wait patiently until you rescue all the civilians? No the more slow you move more of them will die and its possible to rescue more than 6.

 

And AI isn't  bad, it actually quite smart. Always tries to outflank you and uses their abilities more often, and focuses on the dangerous targets. All of it comes from my play through on the commander difficulty. I am already post-plasma tech and im nearly finishing the game. Where I can say late game is quite easy stomping.

 

XCOM2 is definitely worth the money, and calling it a *disappointment* is a huge insult. If you are unable to play more strategically and use creativity in order to beat the game because lets just say it "you are not best in the tactical games" . People can't simply adapt to the xcom2 new guerilla missions, and XCOM2 is a whole better than XCOM1. When they released EW addon to the XCOM1 it had seekers, exalts and meld canister, many of these missions were timed as well because people were complaining about *tedious* mechanics. Everyone loved it and praised it , but now that XCOM2 had these "waah not fair crappy design".

 

Alternatively you can change the difficulty or alter the .ini settings to your liking but personally I like to complete the game just like the developers intended it to be. I am already 40+hours into the game so if anyone takes seriously a person who thinks that sectoids are OP I can assure you they have no idea how to play these games. Sectoids are the most useless aliens in the game and after the first encounter you get the best item to counter them and boost early game.

 

For me 9/10 , because there are huge performance problems and in-game weird bugs that happens from time to time. but it will most likely be fixed in the next patch.

 

@forget to add

Have you seen the SDK tools? Holy shit so much content , stuff and easy access. And there are even OFFICIAL tutorials and documentations about certain files types and how-to. Puts bethesda into the real shame.

[Player4595]

Finaly someone who shares my opinion! Thanks man.

 

[Vaelorian]

 

XCOM2 is definitely worth the money, and calling it a *disappointment* is a huge insult.

 

 

Now hold on just one moment. That is a massively over-zealous statement based on your view of the technical side of things alone.

 

While I'll agree with you that XCOM 2 is quite a good game strategically (though it could be better - more on that later) whether or not it is worth the money, and is or is not a "disappointment" is entirely up to each individual to decide for him or her self.

 

I, for one, feel it is a big disappointment. Not because of the technical side of things (though those loading times are arse), but because the story was so underwhelming and shite.

Is it worth the money? Well, in my opinion, it isn't - because I finished my first campaign in not even two days and have no desire to boot the damn thing up again after that ending. Meanwhile, I played through XCOM 1 twice in a row, and still didn't feel burned out.

 

As far as the strategic side of things, let's just say that it still has some of the "XCOM flu"; I've seen aliens run to one square, only to return to the square they originated from the next move (wasting their turn), Chrysalids that would do nothing but run away the entire game, until I finally cornered and killed them (that took a while, especially on the gateway map), Sectoids with one or two health points left run into low or otherwise easily flankable cover only to reanimate a zombie (where Mindspin or straight up shooting would be the far superior choice), advent stun lancers with one or two health points left running up to a bladestorm ranger only to get smacked down, etc.

So while it is mostly competent, it could still be better. Complaints about this kind of thing are perfectly valid, though fixing them will only make the game "more difficult", and none of those things were why I felt "disappointed" in the slightest.

 

I am saying this as a guy who's played the original XCOM for over a hundred hours. I'm saying this as a guy who did his first campaign on ironman and didn't fail a single mission, nor lose a single soldier. I'm saying this as a massive XCOM and strategy game fan.

[Kaz Aanh]

 

Now hold on just one moment. That is a massively over-zealous statement based on your view of the technical side of things alone.

 

While I'll agree with you that XCOM 2 is quite a good game strategically (though it could be better - more on that later) whether or not it is worth the money, and is or is not a "disappointment" is entirely up to each individual to decide for him or her self.

 

I, for one, feel it is a big disappointment. Not because of the technical side of things (though those loading times are arse), but because the story was so underwhelming and shite.

Is it worth the money? Well, in my opinion, it isn't - because I finished my first campaign in not even two days and have no desire to boot the damn thing up again after that ending. Meanwhile, I played through XCOM 1 twice in a row, and still didn't feel burned out.

 

As far as the strategic side of things, let's just say that it still has some of the "XCOM flu"; I've seen aliens run to one square, only to return to the square they originated from the next move (wasting their turn), Chrysalids that would do nothing but run away the entire game, until I finally cornered and killed them (that took a while, especially on the gateway map), Sectoids with one or two health points left run into low or otherwise easily flankable cover only to reanimate a zombie (where Mindspin or straight up shooting would be the far superior choice), advent stun lancers with one or two health points left running up to a bladestorm ranger only to get smacked down, etc.

So while it is mostly competent, it could still be better. Complaints about this kind of thing are perfectly valid, though fixing them will only make the game "more difficult", and none of those things were why I felt "disappointed" in the slightest.

 

I am saying this as a guy who's played the original XCOM for over a hundred hours. I'm saying this as a guy who did his first campaign on ironman and didn't fail a single mission, nor lose a single soldier. I'm saying this as a massive XCOM and strategy game fan.

 

 

Well if you find XCOM2 disappointing, where it basically redesigned entire game mechanics, added a lot of new stuff and tactical options. And its not "impressive" then I have no idea what for you is "not disappointing". Compared to the Fallout4 which was a rehash of the old formula with few new gimmicks added. If they remade XCOM1 entirely everyone would complain about "rehashing the game"

 

The enemy AI scales with the difficulty, on the higher diffs they behave different, they are more aggressive, focus on the proper targets and use abilities very often. But sectoids are still stupid, they preffer to mindfreak>risezombie>use plasma attacks for some reason and they put themselves in the open locations just to flank you.

 

And yeah how could aliens know that my ranger has a bladestorm? Hm? Its an abillity made to counter them since they run brainlessy forward and since ranger is always in front its obvious they will focus on him. Even Shen says that they are pumped up with the meds so high that they don't care anymore.

 

Everything is new , feels fresh, you don't feel like its the same game? I don't think I would enjoy playing the same formula that xcom1 had ( which xcom1 was pretty boring until EW addon came up). Tactical games in the xcom1 lol, just hiding behind cover and overwatching 24/7 was fun at all, especially on the harder difficulties, where min&maxing was very important. You didn't played to enjoy but to maximize your efficiency with your squad with the top meta strategies.

 

Xcom2 is more flexible about it, plenty of room to play with various tactics. Huge improvement imo, the only limitation is the player creativity.

 

Now try to play ironmen on commander/legendary and cry your man tears as you get raped in the pooper by ayyliens, where not every mission can be won and people will die a lot. With the new evac system you can even abandon missions if something goes wrong, you don't need to kill all aliens, you don't need to capture vip because you can kill him. The game offers a lot of choices, not to mention the random map generator which adds a lot of surprises to the game. Even small stuff like blowing the hole in the wall to escape or blowing the roof to let the enemies fall down.

 

I don't hate XCOM1 because I loved this game , and played the hell out of it but XCOM2 is just better designed and borrows a lot of stuff from the Long War mod. Thanks god it does not borrow 25 hp sectoids in stacks of 6~

 

The only problem i have encountered with the XCOM2 was the enemy distribution , its kinda weird or maybe I just did a story in the wrong turn. It was quite devastating for my soldiers with the ballistic weapons to encounter muton centurions on my third supply raid. Not to mention stacks of enemies like 3x archons and sectopods when i just had mag weps. And I did not met chrysssalids, berserkers until the late game with my post-plasma tech.

[Vaelorian]

 

 

Now hold on just one moment. That is a massively over-zealous statement based on your view of the technical side of things alone.

 

While I'll agree with you that XCOM 2 is quite a good game strategically (though it could be better - more on that later) whether or not it is worth the money, and is or is not a "disappointment" is entirely up to each individual to decide for him or her self.

 

I, for one, feel it is a big disappointment. Not because of the technical side of things (though those loading times are arse), but because the story was so underwhelming and shite.

Is it worth the money? Well, in my opinion, it isn't - because I finished my first campaign in not even two days and have no desire to boot the damn thing up again after that ending. Meanwhile, I played through XCOM 1 twice in a row, and still didn't feel burned out.

 

As far as the strategic side of things, let's just say that it still has some of the "XCOM flu"; I've seen aliens run to one square, only to return to the square they originated from the next move (wasting their turn), Chrysalids that would do nothing but run away the entire game, until I finally cornered and killed them (that took a while, especially on the gateway map), Sectoids with one or two health points left run into low or otherwise easily flankable cover only to reanimate a zombie (where Mindspin or straight up shooting would be the far superior choice), advent stun lancers with one or two health points left running up to a bladestorm ranger only to get smacked down, etc.

So while it is mostly competent, it could still be better. Complaints about this kind of thing are perfectly valid, though fixing them will only make the game "more difficult", and none of those things were why I felt "disappointed" in the slightest.

 

I am saying this as a guy who's played the original XCOM for over a hundred hours. I'm saying this as a guy who did his first campaign on ironman and didn't fail a single mission, nor lose a single soldier. I'm saying this as a massive XCOM and strategy game fan.

 

 

Well if you find XCOM2 disappointing, where it basically redesigned entire game mechanics, added a lot of new stuff and tactical options. And its not "impressive" then I have no idea what for you is "not disappointing". Compared to the Fallout4 which was a rehash of the old formula with few new gimmicks added. If they remade XCOM1 entirely everyone would complain about "rehashing the game"

 

The enemy AI scales with the difficulty, on the higher diffs they behave different, they are more aggressive, focus on the proper targets and use abilities very often. But sectoids are still stupid, they preffer to mindfreak>risezombie>use plasma attacks for some reason and they put themselves in the open locations just to flank you.

 

And yeah how could aliens know that my ranger has a bladestorm? Hm? Its an abillity made to counter them since they run brainlessy forward and since ranger is always in front its obvious they will focus on him. Even Shen says that they are pumped up with the meds so high that they don't care anymore.

 

Everything is new , feels fresh, you don't feel like its the same game? I don't think I would enjoy playing the same formula that xcom1 had ( which xcom1 was pretty boring until EW addon came up). Tactical games in the xcom1 lol, just hiding behind cover and overwatching 24/7 was fun at all, especially on the harder difficulties, where min&maxing was very important. You didn't played to enjoy but to maximize your efficiency with your squad with the top meta strategies.

 

Xcom2 is more flexible about it, plenty of room to play with various tactics. Huge improvement imo, the only limitation is the player creativity.

 

Now try to play ironmen on commander/legendary and cry your man tears as you get raped in the pooper by ayyliens, where not every mission can be won and people will die a lot. With the new evac system you can even abandon missions if something goes wrong, you don't need to kill all aliens, you don't need to capture vip because you can kill him. The game offers a lot of choices, not to mention the random map generator which adds a lot of surprises to the game. Even small stuff like blowing the hole in the wall to escape or blowing the roof to let the enemies fall down.

 

I don't hate XCOM1 because I loved this game , and played the hell out of it but XCOM2 is just better designed and borrows a lot of stuff from the Long War mod. Thanks god it does not borrow 25 hp sectoids in stacks of 6~

 

The only problem i have encountered with the XCOM2 was the enemy distribution , its kinda weird or maybe I just did a story in the wrong turn. It was quite devastating for my soldiers with the ballistic weapons to encounter muton centurions on my third supply raid. Not to mention stacks of enemies like 3x archons and sectopods when i just had mag weps. And I did not met chrysssalids, berserkers until the late game with my post-plasma tech.

 

 

Let me try to address your points one by one:

 

1. I find XCOM 2 disappointing because it's story could've been (and quite probably was) written by a focus group who's only target audience was teenage boys, with no comprehension of complexity. There is not a single original idea there. There are no twists. There is no moral ambiguity. It's objectively worse than XCOM 1's story.

 

2. If the AI scales with difficulty, I don't want to know what it's like at lower difficulty levels; I played on legendary and it was awful.

I don't know what else you want me to say.

 

3. Aliens can know your ranger has Bladestorm if one of their friends already died to it. On that very mission. On that very turn. Less than five seconds ago.

Step one, bait your ranger (and do give it defense protocol). Step two, deal damage to all the stun lancers so that the ranger will kill them on hit. Step three, watch them all rush up like lambs to the slaughter. Repeat.

 

4. Not everything is fresh; the same style missions were done before in XCOM 1. The guns behave pretty much the same. The classes advance the same ways. Yes, some things were added and others were mixed, but they just don't feel like the deciding factors. Not with the officer training school giving out free top-tier skills to any random johnny that ranks up (which isn't a positive in my book).

 

5. XCOM 2 is more flexible, right up until your sniper gets rapid fire or your specialists start getting untouchable or whatnot. Then it becomes mindless.

That's pretty much what allowed me to get through the game without a single loss or casualty, by the way; I rushed the training school and got untouchable on my specialist on my first mission after it. A guaranteed dodge is incredibly valuable on an offensive specialist, especially in the early missions where there's three or four pods at a time, and you can usually deal with most of them.

 

6. Yeah, I did. You are kind of insulting on this point to me personally when I haven't made any remarks about you. I have no desire to make any "clever" or "witty" remarks that would further derail this. So, please, try to keep this discussion civil.

The game has power-creep on power-creep. A lucky dice roll can make that "oh-so-hard legendary ironman run" into a walk in the park; "Oh, you got that superior scope on mission two? Well let's just ramp your hit chances up to 90% then!" etc.

 

7. XCOM 1 was not superior in gameplay terms. Just story. Allow me to repeat: I am not disappointed in the technical side of XCOM 2. I am greatly disappointed by it's terrible story.

 

8. You were probably doing things out of sequence. Or were not exploiting the 50% off current research hacking bonuses (which make getting to plasma trivial as far as research time goes). Or you just didn't get that bonus. Whatever.

Here's a tip in case you never tried: always check the hacking bonus you can get. Chances are it's bad, but checking and canceling doesn't consume a move. So just do that over and over until you find one that's good, then risk it. Otherwise let them all go.

[Majplum]

Frankly i would only say one thing, and i respect anyone point of view on it . but we speak about video games and i would ask only one question : since when did you bought a game (not an point&click game) that hasn't a "déjà vu" feeling, a story that's not so surprising, which is not coherent. As far as i recall, all aliens invasion's game have the same "story" or lack of story, from the amstrad games to the new generations game. not one surprises me (not even the so called X-com the original) think of it, with all their powers, advanced technology, goal, etc... yep the "humanity" find the way to fight back and win.... how surprising, but without that, there will be no games.

 

So please don't scream "it's a scandal" about the story of an action videogame (even outlast or amnesia is not for me a action game but more of an adventure game). that not the main purpose of the game. and the problem is the same if you look at the cinema industrie. it's been a while that someone invented something really new in term of story.

 

I didn't played my hundred hours on X-com 1 for the story, and frankly i find the back story of X-com 2 more develloped, distilled little by little as you went through the game and not in only 3 missions and 3 researchs in the x-com 1 but everyone has his opinion. and i'm already to more than 24 h of playing time with x-com 2 but it's not for the story, it's for the game mechanisms, the pleasure to complete all i can in it. and to kill bad aliens.  

Yes it's not the game of the year, but is better for me than fallout 4 in fun time playing it and worth the price (especially for only 30€)

[pinky6225]

Out of curiosity when did the story line become important in a tactical/strat game? If we were talking about an adventure game okay but....

 

Personally found XCOM2 to be very samey to XCOM1 with pretty much the same (although renamed) weapons and armor

 

Biggest annoyance i've seen so far is the constant stating that i lost in XCOM1

[Kaz Aanh]

Nah it wasn't aimed at you, I should include it in the quotation mark or in the 3rd person. If you know what I mean.

 

Story in xcom1 wasn't really that fantastic. I could see the plot from the start of the game, well it was even rehashed from the older x-coms. EXALT story was a huge letdown, especially the latest assault on the base. And story is not always a primary objectives in these kind of game, its just here to fill the gameplay.

 

Dunno how about you but I quite enjoy research annotations, chit-talks, event/item descriptions and those short cinematic sequences. They all add something to the story, its just the storytelling in games like this is different than in the normal RPG games. If you want a story, don't skip random text boxes.

There is even a environmental-storytelling, xcom1 used a lot of it since all maps were hand-craft. But its not issue in the xcom2 too. Especially on the objective maps.

 

But judging from what you wrote I suppose you are typical min&max type of guy,  I play to enjoy, it hack fails be it, if mind control misses be it. If alien can miss attack its nice but if you miss the attack its not nice. If enemy lancer 1shots you its not fun but when your ranger does that its fun. If someone dies I don't reload 5 times just to save him.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity when did the story line become important in a tactical/strat game? If we were talking about an adventure game okay but....

 

Personally found XCOM2 to be very samey to XCOM1 with pretty much the same (although renamed) weapons and armor

 

Biggest annoyance i've seen so far is the constant stating that i lost in XCOM1

Its because most of the players have failed to complete the game on the ironman and lost the game in the first month. Actually its pretty smart, its all the players fault that we get XCOM2. Instead of rehashing the game formula again, we get something unique. And I can pretty much expect that "Terror from the deep" will be the next expansion or standalone game.

 

If I recall correctly only around 20% of people finished the game on the ironman.

[Content Consumer]

Turn limitation en mass => dashing forward hoping not to be insta-killed; and no tactical approach.

Bad design when it was supposed to be a tactical game.

 

Another game you need mods for to turn off or increase that turn limit..........why are developers so lazy these days.

Are we just too tolerant as consumers or are there too many fanboys and paid review sites swooning that developers actually think they do good?

I agree, it sort of limits what you might call a tactical approach. While it is turn-based, and does allow for "careful planning" of your future moves, the time limit (either direct in the form of "x turns until mission automatic failure" or indirect in the form of "aliens are shooting civilians or important object, kill them all before it dies") works in direct competition with that. I can't say it's particularly harmed my enjoyment of the game, but it is a bit of an irritant. My favorite missions are those without any sort of time limit.

As for why the developers did it, I'd say it's an effective and easy way to ramp up tension a bit. Enemy Within added the containers of Meld with a self-destruct timer, which forced players to change up their tactics, becoming more aggressive, and I feel that the dev team liked it so much they went just a little overboard with the concept in this game.

 

 

I've found it to have the opposite feel.  The turn limit in some missions requires more strategy and forethought since I need to think up the right moves to counter specific enemies without ruining things, if I just rushed straight ahead I could have my squad ambushed and killed outright. 

 

Most of the turn limits end after you've completed the main objective anyway letting you go ahead and kill the rest of the enemies.  The new mechanics are pretty fun either way, I think my only complaints the way you have to rely on RNG a bit too much with your initial base location and what penalties you get from dark events. 

 

Different strokes for different folks. A lack of time limit allows you to be, essentially, lazy - that is, you can take your sweet time setting up the perfect ambush, or threading your way through aliens or detecting civilians in concealment so you get to a better position. An externally imposed time limit does force you to use tactics that are less than ideal. Yes, I'd rather set up an ambush where an enemy squad walks into a reveal and I get what amounts to a free turn, but I'm running out of time so I'll just set up right here and toss a grenade and hope it all works out. It adds a sense of frustration to the game, which is fun as hell if you're into that, and completely disengaging if you're not. Like all games, it depends on what you're looking for.

Nobody wants a game without any challenge, but the desired amount of challenge varies from person to person.

The RNG also defines what continent bonuses are what and where, which can actually have a huge impact on the game - first game, I got some really good bonuses. Second game, it seems like everything is dealing with making the Black Market more profitable, which just sucks. For me.

 

Don't try to make the game harder than it is. Enemy Unknown had a much more balanced approach to this mechanic.

Putting in the turn limit is not making the game harder, it's just enforcing you to rush much more thus making you rely on luck and not brains which is not "difficulty" ..... as said - its luck.

 

The issue here is that they've made the concealment mechanic, try to promote ambushing etc - and then they slap on a 8 turn limit where you have to spend 3-4 turns dashing towards the objective and a small group of enemies with 2-3 other groups of enemies a little further in for when you've turned off the objective that you rushed towards.

Or want you to save somebody/something and have that something positioned in the middle of an enemy  group from turn 1 so you still not can move tactically.

Save 6 out of 14 civilians and the make it so that for each single turn - at the other end of the map - have the civilians right next to the group of enemies so you have no way to save them .... that's lazy design, no way around it.

When 5-6 gets killed before you even get into their sphere of influence ..... then they could just as well not have been there.

Sorry, that's not a difficulty aspect either.

 

 

This game is not hard. It's not difficult.

It's a weighted random-number generator and turn limit that causes peoples "problems" because the AI is to say the least disappointing. And that's why it's lazy, because it's the easy way out.

I had hoped it would be better - but the tactical approach feels like a step down from Unknown where this mechanic was much more limited and that's a bad direction to go.

 

At the risk of making a semantics-based argument, I have to agree with your assessment. Much of the game's new mechanics are inspired in conception, but lazy in execution. Or rather, maybe I shouldn't be saying lazy necessarily, but perhaps... untested? Unbalanced? An 8-turn time limit for some may be exactly enough time to get to the objective, and reaching it on the last turn gives a feeling of accomplishment, whereas to another player it ends up being an exercise in irritation and panic. Unfortunately, there's no real way for developers to plan for all play styles. Remove the time limit, and those people who find the game challenging but satisfying with a time limit will find it "too easy" instead.

At any rate, I agree that the game is not objectively difficult, but it is subjectively difficult. You use the phrase "too hard" or "too easy" when what you mean is "isn't fun for me" and you use the phrase "just right" when you mean "is fun for me."

On a personal level, I do completely disagree with one point, though - saying the AI is disappointing? Again, subjectively, for me, it's great. There aren't many games where I can turn to the computer and say "shit, that was a smart move, compy. Fuck you for doing that."

 

The turn limit itself does make sense but not with the amount of turns it gives for some of the missions, as each turn is meant to represent a slice of time in which you can move/shot but a battle where you only had time to shoot your gun 8 times isn't really a battle to my mind

 

The reason for it is fairly obvious though as on the previous turn based (and even on apoc which could be made real time) games the easiest tactic was to find a good spot, bunker down and wait for the baddies to come walking into your sights

Totally. While the turn limit adds a sense of urgency to many missions, it also forces you to go hey-diddle-diddle, straight up the middle a lot of the time too. Eight turns to move three blocks isn't too much, but when you have to fight your way forward it becomes a serious problem. You end up deliberately sacrificing troops just to get the VIP to the extraction point (or whatever the mission is). I think that may also have been deliberate - what with the soldier customization, memorial, death lines, and the (relative) cheapness of hiring new recruits, I think the developers wanted a great many soldiers to die in the game, as an easy way to increase investment for many players. Potentially losing a soldier you've been carefully cultivating for several hours adds a frisson to the game. Again, it all depends on the player - some might find it enjoyable, and say either consciously or subconsciously "I'll do better next time," while others may find it far too morally damaging.

 

When a Sectoid mind controlled one of my female soldiers, she said, "It's inside me!" Somebody make use of that audio in a future mod, because that's too good to pass up.

 

Also, the turn limit worried me at first, but it's not as bad as I feared. It's been annoying me some and makes Ironman Mode seem even more daunting, but I find it can be worked with. 8 turns is a LOT longer than it sounds, and some are more than 8 turns. (Some missions have no limit. Most missions only count the limit until you reach an objective, after which you can clean up for as long as you like.) However, if the turn limit bothers you, there are already mods to raise or remove it, so it's not a huge issue.

 

I'm finding this one slightly more difficult to get into than Enemy Unknown, but only slightly. Besides that, it's great. I highly recommend this game... if you like this kind of game, at least.

Yeah, it's not as bad as I'd thought too. It's still not ideal, though.

As for mods... "modders will fix it" is a terrible thing to say, and I generally get quite irritated when someone brings that up as a way to excuse a shoddy game or mechanic. In this case, however, I do feel that the developers fully intended the game to be massively altered in such a way. At least, I don't get the sense that the developers were too rushed and implemented a quick-and-dirty scheme to get the game onto store shelves before the release date, in the expectation that modders would "fix" their problems - instead, I get the impression that the game was put out exactly as the developers wanted, and modding tools (or even just .ini modifications) were released so people could fine-tune the experience.

 

just completed the game.

 

*snip*

 

I don't find the story horrible. Tropy and basic, yes; expected, and unoriginal, but not horrible. One line in particular struck me though:

evil aliens need humans because they're so special(not really) that no knowledge in the universe can compare.

Yes. Completely yes. I believe it is deeply arrogant, the attitude that humans are somehow unique or special in this universe. Whether you're of the opinion that "humans are so special, so wonderful, aliens will look upon us and see opportunity or awe" or if you believe "humans are so special, so terrible, aliens will look upon us and see threat or animalistic behavior," either way you're thinking that humans are for some reason so very special that the universe contains nothing like us. But that's an argument for another place.

Re base building: It's pretty much oversimplified, I agree. In the last one (not talking about the original X-Com here), players got to the point where they'd perfected base builds, and the only difference was where you'd put your power supply, based almost entirely on where steam vents were located. The devs wanted to stop that, so they gave us... fewer choices? Really? Once you build one of each structure, you're pretty close to your limit. Facility placement is much less important, with the only difference being your workshop should be more or less centrally located, and power supply should be on an exposed coil. Beyond that, there's really not much point to the base building mechanic at all.

Re doom tracker: I dunno, I think it's pretty similar to the last game. You can keep the late game in a sort of stasis - keep pushing back the doom tracker as it ramps up, training up your soldiers, but refuse to advance the story after a certain point. Just like in the last game, you could just keep shooting down and raiding UFOs, without actually advancing the story. There's never anything actually pushing you to complete it in either game, except maybe in this game early on, you have to build up a communications network which takes a lot of time and energy.

 

I don't usually rant, but the story of XCOM 2 deserves one. So let's give it a crack, shall we?

 

Allow me to make a point-by-point response:

 

-The aliens are willing to start their invasion with worthless sectoids rather than muton elites and sectopods; clearly they aren't trying to crush all resistance here, because they could've done that easily and moved on.

Yes. The explanation in XCOM 2 for why they did this is a little contrived, and in fact also somewhat self-contradicting, but something tells me they wanted it to be that way. I dunno...

-They aren't even trying to nuke you from orbit. They clearly have the weaponry to do so, but they haven't even destroyed one military camp like that. Why? Because it's not their intention.

Yep.

-They never seemed to do anything with the people they abducted; they just left them for you to find so you'll consider them a "big threat" and try your hardest.

Yep.

-Their "terror attacks" only had like 16 guys present at any point. In a huge city. Clearly they weren't intended to massacre humanity.

Well, I think that's more a limitation of the game itself than anything else. Sure, you can build a whole city and populate it with civilians, aliens, gun-toting cops, etcetera. and have XCOM respond with dozens of soldiers, clearing the place block-by-block (which would have been totally awesome, btw), but only if you're willing to pay your artists and level designers a whole shit-ton of overtime. Not even XCOM Apocalypse went that far.

-The entirety of the last mission is effectively the Ethereals explaining why they did what they did. Each world, each species, is an attempt at "ascension" - each of them failed. They pushed you so you'll succeed, and indeed in the last quest you have "Void Rift" and the Ethereals almost seem ecstatic when you use it.

And yet that doesn't actually contradict anything they say in the next game. Or rather, it does, but the etherials lie so much it's hard to tell what's truth and what's just another attempt at psychological manipulation. I keep coming back to two things:

1. When you shoot an etherial at the end of XCOM, you get a line that's something like "this is not your path." It seems to me to be the aliens getting desperate enough to start telling the truth, either deliberately or accidentally.

2. When reaching the end of the last mission in XCOM 2, you get lines that amount to the same thing, for much the same reason.

At least, that's how it appears to me when I look back at it. I got the sense that the etherials were desperately afraid of something (and not [redacted, see spoiler] or something stupid like that), and were trying to use humans as a shield against that whatever it was.

I imagine that any DLC will probably expand on this - I definitely got a TFTD vibe at the end of the game.

 

But yeah, the part about the

muscular degeneration

was pretty stupid in my opinion. An unnecessary contrivance.

 

 I criticize it because I care.

I wholly support and endorse this statement.

 

 

Out of curiosity when did the story line become important in a tactical/strat game? If we were talking about an adventure game okay but....

 

Personally found XCOM2 to be very samey to XCOM1 with pretty much the same (although renamed) weapons and armor

 

Biggest annoyance i've seen so far is the constant stating that i lost in XCOM1

When did the story become important?

When they added the story to the game.

You can't just dismiss a major part of the game just because you care more about some other major part. Sure, if you find the story an unnecessary encumbrance and you only play for the strategic and tactical parts, you still have to acknowledge that the story is important, because it binds everything together. Otherwise, what's the point?

That's me honestly asking, there. Can you completely divorce yourself from the story of a game, concentrating on just the mechanics? I've never actually tried... interesting experiment.

 

 

 

My biggest problem with the game is the mid-late game slog. Just like in the last game, there reaches a point where you really don't research anything new, and you just spend your time flying around, putting out fires, leveling up your soldiers before you head out on the last few story missions.

Actually, my problem with this isn't the slog, so much - I spent a lot of time in Long War doing just that - it's the rushed nature of the thing.

It seems like every time you start to scan somewhere, a supply raid mission pops up. You go solve it, and instantly the resistance was so impressed with your efforts they send you the location of some other mission. Before you can really get to the other mission, the new month pops up, and you've got to get to the supply drop or the game will keep pestering you with notifications. Halfway through scanning the supply drop, a retaliation mission will pop, and you've got to take care of that now, and once that's done you're facing a guerrilla op or new facility. Once done with that, back to the supply drop, then onto your main base to get rid of that notification, then the black market, then back to what you were doing before, which was... what was it again? I forget...

You end up with a half dozen things on your to-do list, each one has to be done right now. Far from adding a lot of mutually-exclusive content, which I think is what the intent was, it simply adds an air of irritation as you play musical chairs with the Avenger and hot potato with scanning. When you finally finish them all up, you've got maybe a week of reprieve where you can go make new contacts or establish a radio relay or scan for intel at your base, before the whole thing starts up again.

[pinky6225]

 

Out of curiosity when did the story line become important in a tactical/strat game? If we were talking about an adventure game okay but....

 

Personally found XCOM2 to be very samey to XCOM1 with pretty much the same (although renamed) weapons and armor

 

Biggest annoyance i've seen so far is the constant stating that i lost in XCOM1

When did the story become important?

When they added the story to the game.

You can't just dismiss a major part of the game just because you care more about some other major part. Sure, if you find the story an unnecessary encumbrance and you only play for the strategic and tactical parts, you still have to acknowledge that the story is important, because it binds everything together. Otherwise, what's the point?

That's me honestly asking, there. Can you completely divorce yourself from the story of a game, concentrating on just the mechanics? I've never actually tried... interesting experiment.

 

 

Yes take master of orion 2 which is a very good game which people still compare new games to even though it had a sequel and it is ye old, played that so many times its silly with each race and the story elements were neglibible

 

Take x-com apocaplyse again amazing game that i still compare new x-com games to and had atmost a very basic aliens attacking from another dimension story

 

I won't include the multiplayer aspect but space marine again a very good third person shooter with melee and while it does have a story once you've played the campaign once you know the story yet i've re-done that multiple times

 

That's three examples without me thinking very deeply about it

 

The only real issue i have with the x-com 2 story is the retconning of x-com 1 and i would say it is very much on par with x-com 1 and at the time i assumed the story line was there to make up for the dumbing down of the other parts the x-com franchise had become known for

[Content Consumer]

 

Yes take master of orion 2 which is a very good game which people still compare new games to even though it had a sequel and it is ye old, played that so many times its silly with each race and the story elements were neglibible

 

Take x-com apocaplyse again amazing game that i still compare new x-com games to and had atmost a very basic aliens attacking from another dimension story

 

I won't include the multiplayer aspect but space marine again a very good third person shooter with melee and while it does have a story once you've played the campaign once you know the story yet i've re-done that multiple times

 

That's three examples without me thinking very deeply about it

 

The only real issue i have with the x-com 2 story is the retconning of x-com 1 and i would say it is very much on par with x-com 1 and at the time i assumed the story line was there to make up for the dumbing down of the other parts the x-com franchise had become known for

 

 

Interesting... I've played Master of Orion 2 to death. 1 too. Never played 3... and I never had any problem with ignoring the story in MOO2, because it didn't seem like there really was one at all. Much like the original Doom, I guess... you're presented with a game, and they didn't actually add in much of a story at all. So it's easy to ignore if it isn't there.

 

The story was a little more in-depth in Apocalypse, I guess, but same deal... not much to it, easy to ignore.

 

Never played space marine. Didn't know there was a game with that name. EDIT: Derp, you're talking about doom, right? I'm an idiot...   

 

Perhaps "story" is the wrong word I'm using? Or something... I dunno. Let me think about that for a bit...

 

 

 

Okay, I think maybe I should be differentiating between the narrative and the background. The background to XCOM 2 is basically the story of XCOM 1, taking the tack that the player lost that game. The story of XCOM 2 is intertwined with said background, but easier to accept when it presents something illogical, or an apparent dichotomy. The background is an established fact, while the story is something that unfolds and changes as we play. We're fine with the story changing, but not the background. The retconning is basically altering the background, not the narrative... yet I still think that nothing has been really altered in the background, though - assuming that you won XCOM, and taking the aliens' words into account, you must believe that the aliens never lie when the speak to you in either game in order to see any major differences. But then again, I guess it's all in what you're looking at.

I can nitpick ad nauseam, pointing out individual words, phrases, or tones of voice that support or contradict this or that point, but it's rather irrelevant, because anyone can do the same thing to make a completely different argument.

[Omni]

I didn't find the story too terrible, though it could have been more interesting. I do feel the story of XCOM: Enemy Unknown was more coherent. The story in XCOM:EU was actually well enough thought out to surprise me a bit. I was expecting the story of XCOM:EU to be an excuse for the content, but found it actually interesting. Not like it hasn't been done before, but I still liked it.

 

The following will contain extensive spoilers for XCOM:EU and XCOM 2.

 

I do feel the story of XCOM:EU - that the aliens are intentionally holding back and baiting you to improve - is a lot more believable than the story in XCOM 2 which implies they are actually trying, though they may still be pulling strings and leading you some. Actually, after XCOM:EU points out that they would crush you if they tried, it makes XCOM 2 seem even more awkward.

 

Perhaps the weirdest part of the XCOM 2 story in my opinion is the significance of the Commander and humanity in general, though this has been mentioned before. What's so special about humanity? In XCOM:EU they're testing you to see if you are special, so beating the game is proving you/humans are. That works alright. But in XCOM 2 you supposedly lost the first war, yet they still stick human DNA in everything? Near the end they say that you didn't actually "fail" even though you think you did, but it comes across as awfully insincere. Seemed more like they were trying to lie their way out of a corner rather than actually meaning it. I feel XCOM 2 is built on the idea that we're not really what they were hoping we would be and it makes their obsession with us rather confusing. (Also, as mentioned before, wouldn't the new improved Sectoids be what they were looking for? Perhaps a Sectoid/Human hybrid has the best of both?)

 

What bothers me the most might be the muscular degeneration the Elders are supposedly dealing with, which makes little sense when first presented and is never really explained. The story would make just as much sense if you left that part out. I hope they explain that in a sequel, DLC or expansion. Maybe it's just to explain why they're so oddly absent and prevented from directly affecting things, but then it seems more like an excuse.

 

Overall, I like what they've done. A more interesting story would have been nice, but it works well enough. Didn't impress me, but didn't really disappoint me either. XCOM:EU does still have a better story, though.

 

 

But regardless of how the stories were, I liked both games and I look forward to future work in their XCOM reboot series.

[Kaz Aanh]

I didn't find the story too terrible, though it could have been more interesting. I do feel the story of XCOM: Enemy Unknown was more coherent. The story in XCOM:EU was actually well enough thought out to surprise me a bit. I was expecting the story of XCOM:EU to be an excuse for the content, but found it actually interesting. Not like it hasn't been done before, but I still liked it.

 

The following will contain extensive spoilers for XCOM:EU and XCOM 2.

 

I do feel the story of XCOM:EU - that the aliens are intentionally holding back and baiting you to improve - is a lot more believable than the story in XCOM 2 which implies they are actually trying, though they may still be pulling strings and leading you some. Actually, after XCOM:EU points out that they would crush you if they tried, it makes XCOM 2 seem even more awkward.

 

Perhaps the weirdest part of the XCOM 2 story in my opinion is the significance of the Commander and humanity in general, though this has been mentioned before. What's so special about humanity? In XCOM:EU they're testing you to see if you are special, so beating the game is proving you/humans are. That works alright. But in XCOM 2 you supposedly lost the first war, yet they still stick human DNA in everything? Near the end they say that you didn't actually "fail" even though you think you did, but it comes across as awfully insincere. Seemed more like they were trying to lie their way out of a corner rather than actually meaning it. I feel XCOM 2 is built on the idea that we're not really what they were hoping we would be and it makes their obsession with us rather confusing. (Also, as mentioned before, wouldn't the new improved Sectoids be what they were looking for? Perhaps a Sectoid/Human hybrid has the best of both?)

 

What bothers me the most might be the muscular degeneration the Elders are supposedly dealing with, which makes little sense when first presented and is never really explained. The story would make just as much sense if you left that part out. I hope they explain that in a sequel, DLC or expansion. Maybe it's just to explain why they're so oddly absent and prevented from directly affecting things, but then it seems more like an excuse.

 

Overall, I like what they've done. A more interesting story would have been nice, but it works well enough. Didn't impress me, but didn't really disappoint me either. XCOM:EU does still have a better story, though.

 

 

But regardless of how the stories were, I liked both games and I look forward to future work in their XCOM reboot series.

 

Its still not explained why in the XCOM2 commander was capture by the aliens, some tactical training or something. Maybe.

 

But at this point they could get any other human as the blueprint. Why would they want to capture the commander instead of killing him? He was nothing special, he lost in the first game.

 

Now some heavy spoiler, if you haven't played xcom the bureau dont open

 

 

 

In the Epilogue, the same tune from "XCOM: Enemy Unknown OST" is played when they reveal Asaru's location is unknown, hinting the speculation that Asaru (the player) has taken the host of XCOM's future Commander, to help fend off future invaders and possibly become Earth's hidden defender. It is unknown how this occurs; willingly or unknowingly.

 

Asaru is the main protagonist of the game and he/she/it is the etheral. So for me it makes more sense that commander from the xcom1 is controlled by the Etheral and it explains why he is so fantastic tactical commander and why he was a priority rescue in the xcom2.

 

Asaru wanted to protect the earth, because he treats this planet as his home. Enemy aliens wanted to capture him to create Mosaic.

 

Mosaic is the name given to a vast communication network that allows Origin(main antagonist with enslaved etheral) to assert dominion over his entire empire. Most likely aliens used commander to boost/improve their own psy-network.

 

It was  huge plot-twist because you thought you were playing as the William Carter, but nope he was just the host for the asaru.

 

 

 

So it would explain why Commander is so highly wanted by the aliens, to create a ultimate psy-network. All advents are seen to behave like slaves without questioning. There are even small events in the game where you can interrogate alien left-overs ( sectoids, alien-human hybrid ). So it at least shows that they were capable of speaking for themselves. That means they were rejected/removed from the psy-network?

 

Same goes for the Tygan and his chip, once you remove it you are free.

[windpl]

 

 

Its still not explained why in the XCOM2 commander was capture by the aliens, some tactical training or something. Maybe.

 

But at this point they could get any other human as the blueprint. Why would they want to capture the commander instead of killing him? He was nothing special, he lost in the first game.

 

Now some heavy spoiler, if you haven't played xcom the bureau dont open

 

 

 

In the Epilogue, the same tune from "XCOM: Enemy Unknown OST" is played when they reveal Asaru's location is unknown, hinting the speculation that Asaru (the player) has taken the host of XCOM's future Commander, to help fend off future invaders and possibly become Earth's hidden defender. It is unknown how this occurs; willingly or unknowingly.

 

Asaru is the main protagonist of the game and he/she/it is the etheral. So for me it makes more sense that commander from the xcom1 is controlled by the Etheral and it explains why he is so fantastic tactical commander and why he was a priority rescue in the xcom2.

 

Asaru wanted to protect the earth, because he treats this planet as his home. Enemy aliens wanted to capture him to create Mosaic.

 

Mosaic is the name given to a vast communication network that allows Origin(main antagonist with enslaved etheral) to assert dominion over his entire empire. Most likely aliens used commander to boost/improve their own psy-network.

 

It was  huge plot-twist because you thought you were playing as the William Carter, but nope he was just the host for the asaru.

 

 

 

So it would explain why Commander is so highly wanted by the aliens, to create a ultimate psy-network. All advents are seen to behave like slaves without questioning. There are even small events in the game where you can interrogate alien left-overs ( sectoids, alien-human hybrid ). So it at least shows that they were capable of speaking for themselves. That means they were rejected/removed from the psy-network?

 

Same goes for the Tygan and his chip, once you remove it you are free.

 

 

lol thats makes me want to actually play bureau more than 5 min now.

As for X2, only I can say. Very pleasant experience, I'm not even bothered much about story, in fact I even like it. In xc1(new one) it was a bit forced, but here it blends with progression. But still I would prefer lack of story missions, and more open engagement.

[bjornk]

Don't have the game yet, but I've already thought about a mod idea while watching gameplay videos and writing here to remind myself what it was as if/when I get the game I might make it myself...

 

Idea:

 

Train militia in sectors that joined the resistance (a la JA2).

 

Details:

 

You basically make a one time investment in order to receive additional militia units to control on the battlefield if the mission takes place in a sector with trained militia. The militia have lower stats than regular rookies and they might join your team as a rookie if they get promoted on the battlefield and survive the mission.

 

• You need to leave one of your soldiers (at least a sergeant or higher rank) as a trainer in a specific sector for 1 month to train the militia. You will not be able to use the trainer in any missions during this time.
   
• The number of militia that may get added to your team is random, but it varies between 1 to trainer's rank minus one, which is the maximum number, but it also depends on the amount of supplies you spare for them. If 1 militia unit costs 'x' amount of supplies, the total cost to train militia in a sector will vary between x and x times trainer's rank 'r' minus one (x and x*(r-1)). 'x' needs to be lower than the price of recruiting one rookie, obviously.
   
• Skills of the militia will obviously be lower than the trainer, but will also depend on the rank of the trainer. The better the trainer the better the skills.
   
• Additional balancing is obviously required. A cool-down might be added, or if all militia die on the battlefield you may need to train more.
   
• This may be used as a skill, if you pick it up for one of your higher rank soldiers. In other words, if you want militia support (you may not want it in every mission), you choose a soldier with this skill for the mission.
   
• Militia will probably have a pistol only, or a shotgun/SMG and nothing else.

 

I hope there isn't a hard limit on the number of controllable units on the battlefield...

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

I completed the game on the normal difficulty.

Now I am completing it again on the max difficulty settings (including the "you cannot save" option.)

 

The game is really well done.

Good graphics (also if you cannot go  on max settings on an i7 4GHz, GTX 980 Ti 8GB 16GBRam, all SSD disks.)

Adequate story. It is a strategy game, do not expect a wonderful story. The one proposed is enough for the type of game.

 

After completing it on max difficulty, I will decide if doing mods for it or not. (I don't like too much Unreal Engine.)

[bjornk]

The game seems playable, but it's pretty buggy at this state. Units seeing/shooting through walls, animations played out of order or not played at all, disappearing loot, frequent lag... Overall, it doesn't play smoothly at all. Been watching three different LPs and all three of them have had similar issues and the game plays pretty similarly in terms of performance, despite the different hardware setup. It definitely needs a major patch. It's a fairly complex game and with modding support, it's probably one of the very very few recent games that are worth buying. As far as tactical gameplay goes, it's "meh", but still better than nothing I suppose.