New XCOM
 

Hey folks,

So today I decided to play the new XCOM game, after hearing how good it was. As a big fan of the original game, I was sceptical that it would live up to its predecessor, but based on the reviews and stuff from Rock Paper Shotgun I gave it a go.

Bearing in mind I've only played it a few hours (once on classic/ironman mode and once on normal), I have to say I've got very mixed feelings.

It looks pretty good, and I'm enjoying it, but there are various things which bug me about it. Some are minor annoyances, and others are more frustrating. This post is really about me venting about it, so don't expect too many positives! I'll try not to be too harsh though, because most people will probably love it.

So here we go:

The interface is a little awkward, you can see that it's designed with XBox controllers in mind. That said, it doesn't take too long to learn the keyboard shortcuts, and you can get used to it's little peculiarities.

It doesn't feel anywhere near as open as the original. The biggest problem with this is the arbitrary choices you have to make when selecting missions. Every so often, you'll have a "terror", "abduction" or other mission, and it will give you options of places where they are occurring. You choose the one which you go to, and the others you have to leave. There's no multiple skyrangers, no way of trying to please everyone. Each choice gives you different mission rewards, such as scientists, engineers, money and so on.

The squad size is severely limited. You begin only being able to take 4 soldiers on a mission, and the maximum is 6. Much like classic X-Com, it's easy for your soldiers to die (1-2 hits will do it), so as you can imagine losing 4 soldiers is relatively easy. The limits to the squad size are probably because of the small maps (although they're probably not that much different from the original, I would have preferred more soldiers and larger maps!).

For some reason, it seems Sectoids get a free move when you spot them. It makes it impossible to take advantage of them being out of cover. I found this an odd gameplay decision.

Your troops are very specialised (and you don't pick their specialisations!). The loadout is restricted too, and you have to choose between carrying a medikit or a grenade (for example). Considering that these are one-use, it makes it a little frustrating (although too many grenades would make it a bit easy I suppose).

Anyway, I've ranted enough, but I expect I'll have other things to bring up later. I get the feeling I'll enjoy Xenonauts much more when it's finally finished.

Hopefully someone will come along and be more positive about it though, I don't want to give too much of a bad impression.

Thanks a lot for your review. I haven't played it but your description sounds very disappointing. :-(

It's really not disappointing, I am enjoying it (and the massively difficult Classic+Iron Man combo).

It's just there are many design decisions which I don't like, things which distance it from the original game.

Xenonauts will be a more faithful "spiritual successor", but XCOM still has a lot going for it. I must have played it for several hours now, over the past day or so.

XCOM has been made with a modern, partially console, audience in mind. It was never going to be exactly the game I wanted, but no doubt it will satisfy many younger gamers who never played the original.

Well... The way you describe it I'm really disappointed.

Yet another game name destroyed because a company thought it would make more sells by stapling the name of an old game over it.

I've played it much more now, and I'm really getting the feel for it.

It's got quite a lot of charm to it, and it's very enjoyable. It just takes some getting used to.

There's a certain amount of what I can only describe as "story" elements, which I initially discounted as being an annoying diversion. However, as you play through the game the personalities of your staff (you get info from a chief scientist, engineer and command assistant) become more tolerable and the little cinematics more palatable.

I'm enjoying the tactical gameplay too, even if their choice of "move+shoot" rather than "time units" isn't quite to my taste. Essentially they've put these limitations in place for gameplay reasons, and generally they work out.

My attempts to play through it in "Classic" mode have failed though, and now I'm having a much better (and more enjoyable) time with the far easier "Normal" mode. I've always used "Ironman" option though, it makes the game a bit more tense when you can't just reload when a mission goes wrong.

I can see why reviewers heap praise on it, and it's certainly deserving of a certain amount of that. However, I wish they'd mentioned more prominently things like the awkward UI and forced mission choices.

Still glad I bought it though! Even if it means I haven't touched Dishonored yet.

Tried the demo and I... uh...
Sounds and looks good but that seem to be about it. I must say I hate this simplifying trend that is going on right now. Or is it really so that age of good, deep and perhaps even a bit complex games is over and never coming back? Is humanity heading towards idiocracy?

I hate this new 2-phase action style, so damn simple and restricting. Also if the globe view works like this, it just offers you some random missions and you can only select one where you send 4-6 soldiers from your pre-defined base and you can't manage your fighters and craft in any way like in old X-com... argh! In old version scale was massive and I had control of everything, it felt like I made some difference. New is like "blehh, whatever. lemme just hit the button so that I can get in to teh battel!". And same goes on during the battle, I just double-wham my guys somewhere and game decides for me when it's time to change soldier and end the round. I admit I almost started drooling but it was because my brain activity went critically low.

There is some aircraft management: you have a hangar on each continent which you can put 1-2 fighters in. (You start with 2 interceptors with Avalanche missiles, and can buy more of them and improve their weapons)

It lacks the multiple skyrangers and using interceptors to scout areas for bases and such.

It definitely is streamlined though, which generally means simplification. A lot of the design decisions work well, even if I would have preferred it to be much more like the original (but that's why I've got the original and pre-ordered Xenonauts!).

It handles global panic pretty well, and the choices you have to make all have specific rewards attached. There have been cases when I've played where I had to choose to aid a panicked nation (or lose them from the council), rather than getting the better reward from another nation.

The tactical battles are quite good in a very different way, and Tom Chick nailed it in his review: they're very much like a board-game. The restrictions annoy me, but I can see why they are there (from a gameplay perspective, again it's all about the game forcing you to make choices).

Tom Chick review: http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/201...ears-to-write/

I bought the game recently, and managed to put a few hours on it the last few days. Overall, it's not a bad game, but to be honest didn't manage to catch my attention for long. The tactical combat is good, behind the seemingly simplistic design there is an OK mechanics, which allow for interesting battles, and a bit of strategy thinking. The base/research on the other hand has been ridiculously simplified, and personally, I would describe it as a minigame with flashy graphics.

All in all, it's a simple game, with lots of movies. Personally, the lack of depth is a deterrent, and does not impress me. So, if you are looking for a in-depth strategy games in the line of previous XCOM's, I wouldn't recommend.

I have read the Tom Chick review. His dialogue with his past self is clever and amusing, but I have to disagree with his conclusions. He pretty much says that games today are oversimplified pieces, and that we should be happy to have this scenario (wtf?).

On the 'streamline' nonsense that plagues modern gaming, I was 10 years old when I first played UFO Defense, and only got attached to it because the complex mechanics amazed me, and I think that's what games should have.

On subject of XCOM and "dumping down" (Or Streamlining, whatever. Both are very elitist terms) http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/xcom-enemy-...1226388p1.html

Sorry, that's arrogant, you are saying my perception that the game is simpler is incorrect, because you read an article about a similar subject? Like I said the game does well with it's simple mechanics, but, as the article you linked stated very clear: it's easier to get it right with less complexity (naturally). However, it doesn't mean it appeals to me personally, I have never been a fan of simplistic time-killers.

There are many examples of complex games who were completely broken due to poor cohesion, it's true, but there are many masterpieces which managed to tie the complexity properly, and turned out to be great games.

So, yes, there is such a thing as "dumbing down". You may think that's elitism (or insert your favourite -ism here), but it will not stop it from being a real thing.

That article is such a great example of the reason why we don't get good strategy games anymore: those who make the games and those who review them simply don't know what a good strategy game is anymore.

Simpler is dumber. Strategy games are exactly the opposite. How come those two points don't mesh well? I wonder?

Sure. That's exactly the same thing but said differently. Way to make a point... :suspicious:

Ugh. I should have known better and not to participate in this discussion. Nothing but old gamers complaining about new things.

Just make a valid point and I'll agree with you. There is, however, a reason why I stopped purchasing PC Gamers: all their brilliant strategy reviewers left a long time ago.

Along with common sense in regard to anything else than action, RTS or FPS games too.

Played the game at all EoF? I have and am really liking it, a few things bug me like the aliens getting a free move when you first spot them though that is only an issue when they move into my field of view then get an extra move on top of their finished turn. But the game is fun, a lot of fun and it feels good when you manage to defeat a hard map and take little damage.

Not to mention it gets harder and harder as you go on, Abduction site choices lead to the player needing to think about both reward, difficulty and panic levels. Do you go for the mission that hooks you up some more money, but let a country max panic and possibly leave the X-Com program? Or do you take that harder mission and hope you get out of it with your unit intact? Then you will start running into harder units and upgraded units, thought that sectoid was getting easy well know they will be mind screwing you every turn and taking over units.

Sure it isn't the first game all over again, but that isn't a bad thing some of the stuff removed has made the game better. Not to mention the first game isn't the perfect game it has its faults as well and wouldn't sell well in today's market even amongst people loyal to the franchise. I know I will sink a lot more hours into this game then I ever did in the old one.

No, and I don't plan to. From what I heard so far, I expect this game to be like Xcom3. Meaning not related to Xcom at all but a decent game by itself. (I hope)

I'm not willing to waste money on such a premise. I'm either going to wait until I find it in a rebate bin or if I can try it for free somewhere. I don't see either happening soon, nobody I know want to try this game either.

I think it could've done with a lot less focus on the largely unnecessary story which definitely makes the game feel less dynamic than the original, and some of the gameplay has been streamlined to the point that it's lost any depth it had. Inventory management for example is a very dull affair now with little to no room for experimentation.

Despite that I definitely like the game a lot, and it does really evoke an XCOM vibe for me :D

I've seen a few copies of the new Xcom at my local WallMart the other day. Somehow I didn't think it would get around so much as a hard copy.

When I looked at the cover art and the resume, one thing which struck me quite fast is that there is no actual screenshot or even a real description of what the real game is like. The only relevant observation you can find is XCOM labeled quite big on the box and a story which strangely sound like a copy of the story of the original.

To be frank, would I have not known better (and that my computer would be able to run the game, but that's a completely different story) I would have been quite tempted to purchase the game only to see if it is any good. Since I know better though, it is obvious that the game only have the hype which is remotely related to the original.

And that's exactly the kind of hypocrisy which I denounce when I say that some new developers (actually most of them now) make new games under the old franchise names. Because they actually make way, way more sales with a mediocre (when compared to the original you actually love) game this way.

Firaxis is hardly new developers. Anyway, the new X-Com is just that. A new X-Com. It's not "Enemy Unknown remade with slightly better graphics for 2012 using the same sourcecode as a decade ago". Demographics have changed, and even though I know I'm not going to get this game, because it's not what I was looking for, I understand that old UFO fans like it, but have some bones to pick with it. It is still miles and miles better then the planned FPS (Which thank god disappeared into development limbo).

You are right. And the same can be said about Xcom Interceptor too. But that only strengthen my point.

At least this new game is a strategy game like its true predecessors. I guess it is already something.

Oh gawd, not THAT game xD Microprose forgot it can make sims by that point I'm afraid :D But yeah, it is a strategy game, and at least they were intelligent enough to give the title to a dev that only dabbles in strategy games. From what I saw, it has the Firaxis influence, making it more accessible from the original. They did the same thing with Pirates, and the delivered product was a really enjoyable title. Maybe there is hope for the X-Com franchise to shine again, too.

Alright, I've managed to finish the game on normal and will play it on classic + ironman mode soon. Here's my thoughts on it:

1. The game is buggy. Real buggy. I mean if you launch two interceptors at same time the map freezes on zoom permanently till the end of game. Tanks (I really don't rememeber the new name for those) often brake as in I had few and they just bugged out so badly that I couldn't assign a single one to my Skyranger. Last mission... Had to re-star it cause last room entry bugged out on me allowing only 3 out of 6 soldiers to go in... It's buggy as hell but...

2. ...but it's good nonetheless. It's most definitely the best reenactment of original. We had some other UFO games over the years but all of them were lacking that *something*. Something that's hard to describe but is a pure definition of gameplay.

3. It's much much MUCH simpler and shorter than original. Not being able to run few missions at same time and also having all the reasearch run out half-way through the game is bit disappointing but does not brake the overall feel.

4. And overall feel is - it's a good game, bit too much console-oriented but still tactically demanding and fun. Also with some patching and possible DLC it could be the best turn-based tactics have to offer these days. :)

Yeah, I've given up all hope of Ironman until the bugs have been sorted out.

Best bug I've seen so far was on the geoscape/scanning map, when the skyranger was en route to a mission a ufo appeared.

I sent an interceptor to take out the UFO, but started the abduction mission before it reached the UFO.

When I had finished the mission, the interceptor continued to the UFO and then the game froze up. Had to start again (only save from ironman was at the mission end, so every time I loaded it the game froze on the geoscape).

Sometimes when I am at work in the weekend I have a lot of time on my hands.

I decided to go look for reviews of this game on the net. Incredibly high score all around, the lowest I've found was 8.5 on 10. I even saw 10 on 10 once or twice.

Then I went to Xenonauts site for completely another reason. I discovered a user rating thread there and their review was so abysmal it was just like we weren't discussing the same game anymore...

Well, if you were to just look at the negatives of XCOM then you might give it a bad score. (which is why despite my criticisms of XCOM in this thread I pointed out that I was playing and enjoying it, there's just stuff about it I wish had been done a bit differently).

It's all about the differences in design decisions, and you either accept them and enjoy the game, or reject them and don't play the game.

In other news, I got my soldier portrait the other day, which I uploaded to imgur: http://i.imgur.com/F9Jqs.png

I'm glad Xenonauts is still months away, it means that when I'm bored of XCOM I'll have something new to play! (in fact, thanks to my kickstarting, I probably wont be buying new games for quite a while).

I'm sure it's a decent game in its own terms, but probably not great? I find Firaxis a little like that, they make good sequels, but I don't find them at the level of the originals. And it's OK if I don't, people can be as dogmatic defending new games as bashing them. It's OK if some people resent that a game franchise loses depth--be it to adapt to the consoles market or for whatever reason--obviously a lot of us here do. I liked Sid Meier's Pirates! better than the previous ones, but that was an almost exact remake, with much better battles (but still very simple, which in this particular case was good).

I can't believe it's been almost a decade and you still are just a contrarian dipshit for the hell of it. The new X-Com is barely different from a mechanical and design standpoint to the point that its biggest issues are how the minor mechanical changes with the old design in contrast to the new don't exactly fit, but of course, without even having played it, you just spout generic bullshit that you've been screaming on these forums for years. What is wrong with you? Are you functionally retarded?
You understand less about game design than a fifteen year old and show about the general grasp of its concepts that can be expected from your average RPG-Codex dork.

Yes, yes... And you are still the annoying troll that you were in the past.

I guess nothing change, right? ;)

Pigggy, you know very well that your behavior has earned you a zero tolerance policy since 2010 and that any warning you receive will cause a one week suspension of your forum account.

The sort of language you used just now leaves me no other choice but to issue you another warning - and thus cut off your access for another week.

Please use that time to reconsider your behavior (though I doubt you'll ever change as a result)

Just popped by to see if my high school sweetheart of all websites is still rocking, and one of the first topics I stumble upon is this. Familiar faces...

I love how some things never change. :) Now I am waiting for Tom Henrik and Kosta to emerge from the shadows and I shall be complete!

That... may be difficult. :(

Hoi Overlord. :) You all should visit more, this forum doesn't have a tenth of the activity it used to have. :(

Hehe, someone still remembers my old username. :)

Glad to hear from you Japo and Fifth. Yeah, I wish I had more time, guess life just took me away from Abandonia.

I will try to stop by more often though. Always nice to see familiar faces and walk down the memory lane again :)