wiglafman1225

The new XCOM is designed more like a boardgame at the strategic level (pick one of three countries, shuffle panic tokens around) and a tabletop game at the tactical level. The original game offered a better illusion of an actual alien invasion because choices were not presented as directly. They were still very much there, but they were hidden. Even the story-critical technologies were not indicated to the player. But, from a purely game design perspective (not a realism one or anything), I believe the new XCOM is actually quite similar to the old one in ways that are relevant.

I'm not sure "prejudice" means what you think it means. No, I actually said the opposite: More choices do not necessarily mean more depth. In the original, failing to respond to a terror mission was not a "choice" -- it was suicide for that country. In reality, the player simply had to put out more fires in the original--- and handle dozens more units, and watch as they each shuffled slowly across the maps. Interceptors aren't handled as well in EU, but I'm still not entirely sure how they function in the new game, so I'll withhold judgment.

Choices in Mass Effect 3 could not cost you the game. In EU, the wrong choice can lead to global panic and a loss.

If there's a complaint I have about EU, it's that it's too easy for a run of bad luck in one mission to basically ruin a Classic campaign game. It'd be nice if the Officer Training School upgrade that allows new recruits to start at Squaddie was much, much cheaper. Hopefully, this will be fixed in a patch.

Remember that calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack. The original game basically forced you to respond to certain missions, as well. It was just less forthright about it. The Enemy Unknown strategic game, even with its three choices, does confront players with some tough choices. Players must weigh their squad's strength against the predicted difficulty of the mission, as well as the relevant panic levels, and determine whether it's worth an insertion. The three abduction mission choices can be very difficult to make. If they aren't for you, I suggest playing Classic difficulty.

I suppose so. I do not think of "more options" as "more depth." Remember: very simple games like Chess tend to have the most depth. If designed properly, a game like XCOM could have limitless tactical depth with just 5 units and 1 map. Adding more Skyrangers to the game would allow players to handle more units and go on even more missions, true. Just like adding 10 pieces to a chessboard would give players more things to do. But I'm not convinced it would add much to the game. Enemy Unknown reduces the nonessentials. This seems to miss my point entirely. The poster I was quoting was looking down on "mainstream" games. Now you are saying I am looking down on him by simply pointing out that he looks down on others? Bizarre.

XCOM at its core, by the way, was not a terribly good tactical game. It involved a huge degree of randomness. I chuckle every time someone like you acts like a nuclear scientist because you enjoy tedious micromanagement and tons of coin flips, and look down at a streamlined incarnation as an "arcade game" or a "Rolex knockoff." XCOM was great then, and Enemy Unknown is great now. But let's not pretend either game has the depth of, say, Chess.

It's actually quite far from mainstream. I can count the number of quality turn based games that have come out in the last five years on one hand. Regardless, just because something has a budget, or is released on a console, or is popular, does not mean you should dismiss it. Overcome the elitism for a second.

Playing Enemy Unknown on classic has been a great experience. A lot of the things Goldhawk held hostage for kickstarter money (i.e. varied maps, soldier memorial wall, updated UI) are included and look fantastic. Enemy Unknown gets rid of a lot of the tedious micromanagement of the previous game. The inability to pick up dead comrades' guns and items adds to the importance of each soldier. The inability to field multiple Skyrangers and squads -- which I originally thought would harm the game --- in fact is a welcome change, because there's less tedium (Fewer ground missions) and more choices (Abduction sites), adding to tactical depth. The lack of base assaults is a bit unfortunate, but good base design and foresight is still important thanks to adjacency bonuses. The smaller squads increases the importance of each soldier. The new abilities and skill trees further help personalize soldiers and open up new tactical playstyles, and players no longer have to scour through stats to discern how to play with each soldier. Eliminating time units is a lifesaver -- there was nothing strategic or tactical about constantly having to do subtraction in your head just to figure out how many tiles you could move. Most important, the AI in Enemy Unknown is fantastic. It will flank, use items, and retreat when necessary. It makes occasional bad moves, but usually only due to lack of LOS. Yes, it gets a free turn when spotted, and some aliens remain stationary until spotted. The former rule is necessary for balance reasons, and the latter because players would just sit in overwatch all day. Will Xenonauts compete? Hard to say at this point. There's no AI, there's lots of missing content and maps, and the aliens seem like generic ripoffs of the original XCOM aliens (which, themselves, were not terribly original). But Firaxis has nailed it, releasing the game I've always wanted --- and Xenonauts just missed its promised beta date and is far, far from completion. You have to play on Classic. Other difficulties are worthless.

This post below is very well-reasoned and mature as a response to my criticisms. Thanks very much for taking the time! We will see how things pan out in the following months.

I ... probably will, actually. It's rare to have a tactical turn based strategy game released on a console, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. I don't care what his excuse is. This isn't a pity party, especially since he's promised a beta by Oct. 9 and received tens of thousands of kickstarter dollars from fans sight unseen. I'm just pointing out that his game hasn't made much progress and looks like it lacks basic fundamental game mechanics. It's a complete and total mess right now.

So you're picking a game with no tactics and no AI and no fixed release date over a finished product, because the developers of the finished product are advertising their game? You just concluded Goldhawk is holding back all the good parts of the game? Fascinating.

I'm also tired of people saying "Alpha" and acting like that excuses a lack of progress. I get that this isn't finished. What I also get is that lots of new games, especially from indie devs who outsource programming duties, aren't good even when they are finished, and Xenonauts looks to be one of them.

The game isn't anywhere close to "awesome" right now. It's intensely boring, unbalanced and mechanically unsound.

The game really hasn't changed much this year. It's still a mess, in terms of balance, game mechanics and programming. There's no AI, no good maps, and a lot of very, very very tedious ground missions that involve clicking a lot, and almost zero strategy. I don't see this getting much better, either. Making a game is so much more than throwing a bunch of systems together. I have very little confidence this will be a solid tactical experience anymore. Goldhawk has had more than enough time to throw together a decent tactical experience. They should be in the stage now where they just add maps and some plot elements. Instead, they're still struggling with the foundations. It's a shame, and a reminder of why Kickstarters are a bad idea. Don't give indie devs money if you aren't sure they can make a good game. What else did we expect, given that Chris isn't even a programmer, and is outsourcing the game's development to the lowest bidder? Firaxis X-COM is coming out soon, at least. They're a respected developer with a big budget. That's some consolation prize.