IGN review

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/08/07/xenonauts-review

7.8

A bit harsh considering the minor negative comments they have...

Well, I think it's a bit harsh too, but the points he makes are valid, if a little too weighted against the game rating.

Seems fair to me. While I really like the game, a full 10 would obviously require it to be a full scale AAA title like Firaxis version, but retaining the mechanics and depth of this. Just the fact that it isn't and still looks like a game from maybe 10 years ago drags down the score a bit already. The reason for it being that way is obvious, and it's fine, but for the score that is irrelevant.

A perfect 10 would also require it to be a game that absolutely everyone should play, but it is simply too difficult and complex for a large part of the market.

Those things combined already limits it to probably something around 8.5 or so, even if everything else is perfect. Add in the flaws he mentions and 7.8 seems just about right. Personally, I'd go with a straight 8, but close enough.

For an indie developer making their first game is is amazing, but compared to the industry standard these days it still feels a little dated, and that's just something you're not gonna get around as a indie studio, unless you're designing a game type where the simplicity of the graphics can be turned into part of its charm.

Sometimes if you look at the user comments or reviews, I hate the fact that when some whattoputofthis..... average gaming crowd comes to have a look at Xenonauts, their first impressions would be.

- Graphics Sux, graphics ish better tan gameplay

- Too Hard, can't bother to rethink strategy

- It's duh Nostalgia!!!

- It's a X-COM clone

Maybe I'm abit too preachy here, but sometimes people couldn't just stop being spoonfed and being led to a linear corridor with shining objective markers and cinematic flareups, complaining that their brain will fry the moment Turn Units became 2 digits and beyond, needs a nanny to tell them that spacebar is the jump button, cry and whine that the game is a remake for the past and therefore shit, so your argument is invalid because old 90s style game = shit, and therefore@*#(^@!#@#!&*(!!!

............

Oh wait, we have Xenonauts, and other games like FTL, Door Kickers, Expeditions Conquistador(You should really check this out Turn-Based Fans) ,Rimworld, and many more! So I think there's no need to rant for the poor ol' gaming industry.

Silly me. I've never realised we have the faithful sequel of X-COM all along.

Getting on topic, this guy's just being a prick and taking cheap shots with his "It's a good game, but not everyone can accept this garbage" tone. Still, I do agree of a more intuitive informative pop-up message system that can inform you whether your jet fighters has been refuelled in base, and the graphics should have detail in them in order to stand out.

That review was a little strange. Firstly, I'm not sure the fact that not everyone would enjoy the game should necessarily count against it - giving a game 100% doesn't necessarily mean that everyone would want to play it, just that it is a truly excellent example of its genre. So I'm a little unconvinced we should be penalised too much for making a game that is intentionally somewhat dated and niche. It's aimed at people who enjoy that sort of thing.

Secondly, 78% is actually an OK score. It's one of the lowest we've had, but it's only 2% lower than the previous average. But the review kinda reads like it should be a low 70s score (i.e. a pretty dreadful game) instead of a high 70s score (maybe slightly above average). The points raised are all perfectly valid, I just don't necessarily agree with the relative weighting given to them.

Anyway, Dan's been a great help to the project during development so I'm in no place to complain. He used to be the reviews editor of PC Gamer and got us coverage when we were still in an incredibly rough form because he's a HUGE X-Com fan. I think in this case he's possibly just a little too aware that Xenonauts would not appeal to people who are not.

Could those issues mentioned be fixed and patched in? The bigger gripes didn't seem like a big deal to me. E.g. Update pop ups. Change the image of the hedge to look less destroyed...

If I may weigh in with my opinion (and my first forum post!), I think the score is reasonable based on my experience of the game.

My quibble with the review is that he spends too long on the bad points, which seem to make up the majority of the review. If you like something, you don't need to keep saying "but...". Someone logical reading that review and then seeing a score of 78% should be thinking "he mentions all these bad points but it must be a decent game because it still gets that score", but not everyone will think like that - some will just see a score and decide on that whether it's worth their money. It comes across as much as a comparison to the OG than as a review in its own right - as a derivative I suppose that's inevitable to an extent, but when design choices have been made that contradict the original, those are intentional. You might not like them, but perhaps you should be more open-minded that others might.

I also think that a reviewer (of any game) should mention the amount of work being undertaken by modders. Admittedly it perhaps shouldn't affect the score, but it is an indicator that a dedicated community of people are willing to spend their free time tweaking a beloved game. Not only does that reflect highly on the game being modded, but it also adds value to your purchase. Since the reviewer is a big fan of the OG, what would be most interesting to me would be a answer to this question - going forward, when you want to scratch an X-Com itch, which game will you load up? My suspicion is that the answer would be Xenonauts with the addition of some select mods. That being the case, it would speak volumes.

I couldn't run the Firaxis X-Com on my computer... the fact that Xenonauts is not as demanding on the hardware side is great for me.

I usually do not like IGN reviews because they want easy good looking game which this game is not.

So some of their complaints were kinda off a bit for me.

For instance "Doesnt have a notice for when your air craft are fueled/armed!

Well there is its called math, you look at the hrs until its ready and look at the time!

This is what being an XCOM leader is all about! You have to do a lil match to get things perfect!

"Small characters" I guess a zoom in option wouldn't hurt , but really???

"Can't tell if your character is in cover" Well just aim your gun and you can tell...lol

"Its not modern enought" there are a gazillion modern games, we wanted something that felt like the original.

"it wont tell you who died" Again this is part of being a good XCOM commander and remembering the names

of your soldiers.

"No tutorial" ...lol youtube/twitch what are they?

"Poor information" again this is part of being a good Xcom commander. Figure it out

When I 1st played Xcom I wanted to quit it right away because of how difficult it was.

But as I kept playing it and building new things it just got more and more addictive.

So I will agree that there is a huge learning curve, but that's Xcom.

I do not agree with their review!

Well, Goldhawk didn't donate to the "IGN Happy Reviewer Charity" prior to the review being published, which automatically knocks a point off or two

I actually agree with the criticisms of the "Who died?" and "Aircraft refueling". And the criticism regarding cover is valid; I'm new here, but I have already seen several posts from people who aren't sure how their soldier was shot by an alien that they, themselves, were unable to shoot at. You get notices for everything else. But I think the problem with Soldier death is that (in my honest opinion) really obnoxious "Hidden Movement" sign. Because you'll see an alien walk up and kill a guy, then HIDDEN MOVEMENT, and you have to wait until the end of the turn, check your inventories, and then move on.

Seriously what is the point of that sign, though? You can't see the movement regardless, so why is it there? It's no big deal -- I modded it out. But still...

Like, what would help would be a little message box that informs you of events as they happen -- when someone scores a hit, when someone is hit, when an alien dies, etc. XCOM Enemy Unknown had one, and before you get out your "modernized and casual game" pitchforks, know that Fallout -- another game nineties gamers love to gush about -- also had such a thing. Of course, however, that was a role-playing game, so it served more of a purpose. But still, an event log is helpful in a turn-based game.

Well, the "who died" you actually can find out. You can still press the hotkey for that soldier even if they're dead and you get all information about it.

[snip] But still, an event log is helpful in a turn-based game.

I agree

I understand the game is no longer 'in development' (completely fair enough as they really have done what they said they were going to do an more) but some of these suggestions seem to be really simple addons. The fact modders have added kill counts and removed the HIDDEN MOVEMENT screens suggest is it simples.

If Goldhawk Interactive insist on purely patching for bug fixes they should sticky existing mods which they, Goldhawk Interactive, feel the community want which do not affect vanilla gameplay. e.g. Soldier's role in unitbar, (soon to be released) cover icons, etc.

If you want that stuff, talk to the community coders, ask them if they can include it all in the CE edition.

I would give the game a higher score, but I have to agree with the main criticism of many things simply not being clear. You can argue that games have become too simple in the last years, but they also do a better job at presenting information.

In retrospect, maybe the asymmetric LOF system was a mistake. Without it, there was the valid complaint of "why can't my soldiers lean", but at least you figured that out and then things were clear. With the current system, you just keep getting surprised by some shots that are possible to make.

Well, Goldhawk didn't donate to the "IGN Happy Reviewer Charity" prior to the review being published, which automatically knocks a point off or two

Yep.

If you want that stuff, talk to the community coders, ask them if they can include it all in the CE edition.

I can buy the "who died" argument (and in fact I've already looked at that and the notification wouldn't be exactly trivial to add), but "the alien that has just died has died" ? I'd need to be pretty bored to spend time on implementing Captain Obvious.

In retrospect, maybe the asymmetric LOF system was a mistake. Without it, there was the valid complaint of "why can't my soldiers lean", but at least you figured that out and then things were clear. With the current system, you just keep getting surprised by some shots that are possible to make.

I don't, what would be an example of a shot that should surprise me? Once I figured it out, things were clear.

Leaning actually does not really matter for determining whether an alien can score a shot or not. Some of the LOF complains are because some props provide different cover than one would expect from their graphical representation (e.g. most doors are actually wider than they look), and the cover indicator in 0.27 should make that clear. But whoever gets really confused by the fact that an alien can lean and shoot at a soldier should be equally surprised when the alien moves one tile to get a non-lean shot and manages to do the same.

Show me one example of leaning making unexpected shooting possible. Otherwise I consider all complains about this to be just excuses for one's failure (or bad luck). I rather wonder if Firaxis also gets a load of whining about all the shooting through walls.

I think this was a fair review score, and I think Dan spent a fair amount of time on both the flaws and commendations. Dan makes a perfectly valid observation with regards to how difficult this game is to pick up if you aren't already familiar with it; especially for the people who may believe this is a "spiritual successor" to Firaxis' XCOM, and not the original. He starts the review by saying, "this game nails all of what makes X-Com my favorite game of all time", but it has room for improvement.

The graphics don't bother me, but I'm also running this on a laptop that has trouble with Google Chrome every now and again. I'm just happy my computer runs it... but in today's market, video games are judged by their visual appeal. World of Warcraft (vanilla) is a great example of a game that runs decently on older hardware, but still manages to pull off a unique artistic style that incorporates seamlessly the general "feel" of the game. It may not seem fair, but there is an expectation that PC games will look better than console games; and while Xenonauts doesn't have a console variant, being a 2D game will absolutely prevent a perfect 10.

I also understand tutorials are difficult for the programmer, but I was still in elementary school when I first started playing X-Com. It took me a few days before I felt comfortable enough with Xenonaut's controls and interface to not feel like I needed to restart the game after an hour of gameplay. Even then, there were pretty standard controls that were present in X-Com, and are present in the various remakes, that simply do not exist here without mods (i.e. "Next Soldier" buttons). Twenty years ago, throwing a 200-page manual at someone and yelling "learn or die" worked, because that was what gamers expected. Today, (optional) in-game tutorials teach people the basic mechanics they need to get by, and then let them figure out how to play from that point on. I expected there to be a tutorial to show me how to do things because there are popups that seem to suggest that someone is going to teach me how to play; to this end, the brief pamphlet that was pushed out was so woefully inadequate to show me how to play the game that I immediately set it aside and just massacred my soldiers until I remembered how to play X-Com. I can only assume that playing Xenonauts without being familiar with X-Com would be like playing Dark Souls if the developers assumed that you were already a Demon Souls veteran and could puzzle out the subtle differences on your own.

Once I understood the game, these problems were easy to accept and play around because this is still a genuinely good game that manages to hold my attention while usually doing a pretty good job of straddling the thin line between difficult and punishing. However, some important gameplay inconsistencies include altitude bonuses not being worth the risk of getting shot, not being able to shoot through tumbleweeds or cacti, the issue with UFO walls filling up entire blocks, and the aliens being able to shoot you through obstructions that block your shots. If Xenonauts were published by, say, EA or Activision, these critiques would be self-justifying and couldn't simply be dismissed.

If it were me writing the review, I would note that there are no glaring issues that would push my rating down. However, there are a lot of little ones that would chip away a pretty significant chunk. My first impression of the game was pressing the "mods" button to import the AWACS, and spending a couple of days trying to figure out why it wasn't working. I understood how to install mods manually, but there was a button that was supposed to load mods, and supposed to make that whole process significantly easier... and it does nothing. In other words, within the first two days of owning Xenonauts, I already had the impression that I bought a game that wasn't finished. Then I saw that the developers had already decided that they wouldn't add new features in. If you take a step back, and look at that objectively: how would you feel if you opened XCOM and there were missing features on the main menu or splash-screen? I'm not saying that's the truth, but it's certainly the perception I had when I bought Xenonauts after months of anticipation while following the development cycle.

While I understand that there is a community edition to fix this, there shouldn't have to be. These are the sort of problems that undermine a game by priming new players to believe that the game was just pushed out the door because the developers were tired of working on it and wanted some cash for their efforts; and telling me that I should just download a mod to fix it is literally telling me that a blatantly unfinished and unincorporated feature is an illegitimate complaint and it's the responsibility of the consumer to fill that gap by doing the coding for the developer.

In the end, I really do enjoy Xenonauts. It's a lot of fun, and I feel it fixed a lot of the problems that frustrated me with X-Com; but there are very clear areas for improvement, or spots that could have been polished a bit more with relatively little effort. The same is true of Morrowind, Fallout 3, Skyrim, ArmA, Operation Flashpoint, and several other ambitious and fun, albeit buggy, games. If Goldhawk puts out other games, I'll check them out because Goldhawk now has name-recognition with me, and I'd expect the game to be fun. However, as fun as Xenonauts is, I'm not going to pretend that it's flawless or that it doesn't batter the inexperienced player with a learning curve and difficulty reminiscent of Dwarf Fortress and Demon Souls' illegitimate love child.

Sorry to dig out this thread again.

I am abroad and ign tends to redirect you to the local website.

In the Italian ign review, Xenonauts got 8.5, while in the IE/UK it got 7.8. (no I don't think it's because of our translation)

Any other experience of different reviews with different scores?

US, Germany, Russia, Spain... other communities?

Gam

Sorry to dig out this thread again.

I am abroad and ign tends to redirect you to the local website.

In the Italian ign review, Xenonauts got 8.5, while in the IE/UK it got 7.8. (no I don't think it's because of our translation)

Any other experience of different reviews with different scores?

US, Germany, Russia, Spain... other communities?

Gam

There is no game review of Xenonauts by IGN Germany.

Maybe it is my ignorance, but I did not know that there is an IGN here, so I wager to say that this site has no relevance in Germany.

8.0 on Russian IGN. It even reads like it ws written by a guy who had played some pre-release versions.