I am an XCOM veteran and have now played XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

In my eyes the Xenonauts DEMO was better than the full XCOM:EU

Such a shame Firaxis screwed it up for the serious strategy gamers but I can imagine the folks at Goldhawk are overjoyed

This way you sold games today .

Hot and greasy, with no nutritional value.

Todays games offer a lot of eye candy but Intellectually standing idle, that's were the money is.

Fewer want/can use their brains.

So it is easier and less stressful to watch TV instead of reading a book.

And less and less are now able to read a book.

I'm not sure where the line for "AAA games" is, other than boasting, but EU definitely doesn't show it. In terms of graphics, it looks like a 2002 game - that's 10 years back. In terms of content, it's got so few maps that they keep repeating, and the maps are poorly done. In terms of detail, there's none, late 1990s games have more detailed maps. Even Ufopedia images and context are lacking.

In pretty much all aspects it feels like it's been cheaply hacked together, like a B-movie. Battlefield, Mass Effect, Dishonored, Dirt, these are A, or AAA if you please, titles. They look like it and feel like it; EU doesn't.

Xeno Alpha 16 would already be a better game, if not for the bugs. Sadly, latest alphas are very unstable, worse than the Buttkicker demo, with CTD issues still around (so I can't get far there). But your mileage may vary, and a few hours of early play aren't going to spoil anything.

Do you have a pathological hate of EU or something?

I dont' get why you are harping on graphics, when EU's graphics are excellent. Not the super-duper-super-extra with all the trimmings, but why the hell would it even go there?

A game that focuses so much on graphics tends to suffer in other areas.

Maps poorly done? A bit on the small side, but I don't see whats so horrible about them.

Almost every "veteran" on this particular thread is particularly keen on bashing EU so I'm not sure why you are focusing on HWP's dislike

I mean really, how many people here states their opinion as facts? Pretty much everyone.

Hey I'm hating on EU too, but within bounds of reason...and for legitimate reasons.

Are they also opinions which you state as facts? If you state them as opinions then no problem

I dont' get why you are harping on graphics, when EU's graphics are excellent. Not the super-duper-super-extra with all the trimmings, but why the hell would it even go there?

Graphics were my final disappointment about EU. I accepted the fact that gameplay is trimmed down to a boardgame. I gave up on expecting an intelligent story. So I was hoping to at least get some pretty graphics, not eye candy, but "UFO in high definition".

Instead the game throws something that looks like a "Remember when..." moment at you. Like, you know, Walkman, SDTV, flip-open cell phones, bootleg software stands, bright yellow website backgrounds, AOL, penis enlargement pills in your inbox, blowjobs in the oval office.

What are you on about?

Seriously.

The graphics are fine. Maybe you have a problem with the art/design or something.

Yeah, there are no problems with graphics And he can't be talking about art/design because how that can be "old"? So he either has bad computer/thinks Crysis' max graphics are modern day graphics.

Oh, about the crappy, big boxy laser rifles?

This is how a laser rifle prototlye looks like.

It's big. It's big because new technolies and prototypes are by definition new territory and such lacking in efficiency.

Remember the first cell phones? they were huge

The first computers? they were big

If anything, the laser rifles looks like they should.

Oh, about the crappy, big boxy laser rifles?

No, about the crappy, big, boxy everything, even ballistic weapons, and armor that looks at best like football gear, at worst like cosplay suits.

So he either has bad computer/thinks Crysis' max graphics are modern day graphics.

Crysis' max graphics are still only 2007-2008 graphics. Modern day graphics are more along the lines of BF3 ultra, and they are getting better year by year.

As for my PC, I suppose you could say that, just a modest SB@4.9, 4x8@2133, 2x680@1235, Revodrive - I know I need to upgrade, just can't seem to find what to.

So you just don't like the art design, not the quality of the graphics themselves. I personally kinda like the whole Action Figure look, but that's me.

Crysis max graphics are still better than 99% games out there. I LOVE Crysis. Best FPS I've played IMHO.

This action figure design, combined with boardgame mechanics, uncreative lore and general restrictiveness, takes a lot out of what could otherwise be a relatively immersive game.

As for the graphics, well, it's not that I have to have good visuals to play if the game is worth it, but I don't understand people raving on about EU's graphics. Yes, they are better than any X-COM game to date, but that's like being faster than any combine harvester to date - still far too dated to proudly announce the game part of the "big league" or to list them as a strong side of this game.

I like EU better than the original, and I got started with TFTD WAAAAY back in the day. When I think of X-Com, I just think of the deadliness of the combat and the brutality of dealing with mistakes. I'm not married to specific mechanics. I'm don't even really care about the strategic layer. Classic difficulty in EU is MUCH more dangerous and the consequences of dealing with mistakes are far more dire than the original. I think it captures the X-Com "feel" better than the original. The original isn't really deep, it's obtuse. Once you figure out how to beat the game, there are clearly obvious research and building priorities and each game more or less plays out the same way. In the new one, you always have to make decision with consequences, ESPECIALLY in Ironman mode.

And let's not even get into the absurd and tedious amount of micromanaging in the first. And did someone say that the new one's AI is WORSE than the original? The original that gave enemies much higher sight range, accuracy and BLIND PSI attacks to actually make the game not a total cakewalk(which it inevitably becomes once you learn how important Blaster Bombs are).

Both games are awesome, but I like the new one better.

I don't agree with your assessment. I have played XCOM almost non-stop for the past 2 days, and it's really good. The problem is that it is a console game, and it's a 2012 game, so it is much simpler than the original XCOM or than Xenonauts, but the core gameplay is the same and it is really addictive.

lolz

the xcom eu is utterly shit and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the xcom serie, the only thing in commen is the history and the facts its a turnbased strategy, there is no other base for them to be in the same serie.

there is sooo much wrong with xcom eu its rediculess.

i will mention a few.

movement system, camera system, shooting system, destruction of inviroment system, alian ai, etc. it is a terrible game and its a freaking joke to call it xcom, its taking a giant shit on the original and i hate fira for doing it.

dont even try to compare it to xcom becouse it got around as much to commen with the old game as doom 1 would have with helo (both kill stuff and both fps.)

xenonauts on the other hand is true to the real xcom serie soul! and it feels awesome, i would have loved full 3d with good camera controll, but i MUCH rather have this simple graphic and the awesome xcom feeling and gameplay then some sell out bullshit xcom eu which have nothing in commen with the old xcom besides the name, genre and the overall story line.

ps: i REALLY wanted to like the xcom eu since i am a SUCKER for nice graphic, and i have completed the game on classic (not ironmode becouse the game got nothing to do with your mistakes when a 99% shot miss your man dies the rest of your squed goes in panic by unlucky RNG and you just lost due to retarded mechanics . the game is more luck then its actual tactics and i am a fcking good gamer when it comes to making tactical decisions so that pisses me off alot, the old xcom at least had the decency to be fair with the RNG, if you missed you had movement points left to react accordingly and the RNG alone couldnt make you lose EVER. in xcom eu the rng is 80% of the reason you lose or win and still it got the balls to call itself an strategy game, i have seen more strategy in a casino )

Stop stating your opinion as facts And write correctly, I know that I speak Engrish at times, but its not my native language so I at least I have excuse. And at least I still put correct letters as capital. Also, you are swearing too much, thats rude.

Also, you are saying that you can't miss "106%" in original game? How is that nothing to do with your mistakes? (yeah, I consider reloading when you lose because of one in hundred chance to be stupid too unless its part of mechanics like in Fire Emblem were for "100%" run you want to keep all your units alive and since game has autosave, you do that by restarting whole chapter when someone dies whether it was luck or stupid mistake. Though really, you SHOULDN'T lose them by luck if you actually play it well) Also what tactical or strategy games have you played in fact?

Just to be clear, I'm annoyed comments about RNG since I consider those to be insult to every darn game in the world that has RNG.

This action figure design, combined with boardgame mechanics, uncreative lore and general restrictiveness, takes a lot out of what could otherwise be a relatively immersive game.

As for the graphics, well, it's not that I have to have good visuals to play if the game is worth it, but I don't understand people raving on about EU's graphics. Yes, they are better than any X-COM game to date, but that's like being faster than any combine harvester to date - still far too dated to proudly announce the game part of the "big league" or to list them as a strong side of this game.

EU's graphics are fine. Period.

I don't get graphics wh***s and their obsessiveness with all the lastest vanity features.

Does a game look GOOD?

Yes? Then we have nothing to talk about.

Hell I still think Fallout Tactics has good graphics... I'm so old...

Sprite graphics are the best!

Jagged Alliance 2 still looks great. And what about games like Close Combat? The maps in those games are simply bitmaps with height mapping but they look crazy beautiful (to me, anyway) to this day. Lovely attention to detail and digital painting. And of course there's things like Another World...

A different kind of artistic skill to producing 3D that looks good. I still remember the era where everyone decided to transition to 3D and all those games looked ugly as hell to my eyes (Dungeon Keeper 2 vs 1 for example).

Early technology is always wonky.

By pioneering something you are dwelling into things no one did before. Refinement comes after.

Early sprite graphics wasn't any better. PONG ffs!

lolz

the xcom eu is utterly shit and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the xcom serie, the only thing in commen is the history and the facts its a turnbased strategy, there is no other base for them to be in the same serie.

there is sooo much wrong with xcom eu its rediculess.

i will mention a few.

movement system, camera system, shooting system, destruction of inviroment system, alian ai, etc. it is a terrible game and its a freaking joke to call it xcom, its taking a giant shit on the original and i hate fira for doing it.

dont even try to compare it to xcom becouse it got around as much to commen with the old game as doom 1 would have with helo (both kill stuff and both fps.)

xenonauts on the other hand is true to the real xcom serie soul! and it feels awesome, i would have loved full 3d with good camera controll, but i MUCH rather have this simple graphic and the awesome xcom feeling and gameplay then some sell out bullshit xcom eu which have nothing in commen with the old xcom besides the name, genre and the overall story line.

ps: i REALLY wanted to like the xcom eu since i am a SUCKER for nice graphic, and i have completed the game on classic (not ironmode becouse the game got nothing to do with your mistakes when a 99% shot miss your man dies the rest of your squed goes in panic by unlucky RNG and you just lost due to retarded mechanics . the game is more luck then its actual tactics and i am a fcking good gamer when it comes to making tactical decisions so that pisses me off alot, the old xcom at least had the decency to be fair with the RNG, if you missed you had movement points left to react accordingly and the RNG alone couldnt make you lose EVER. in xcom eu the rng is 80% of the reason you lose or win and still it got the balls to call itself an strategy game, i have seen more strategy in a casino )

I've played a lot of the new one, and although luck does play a lot into the game, your tactical decisions matter far more. So much moreso, that I'm assuming you made a ton of errors and are just blaming it on luck. And since you are dismissing Ironman out-of-hand, I don't believe you ever even learned the difference between a mistake and bad luck.

I though about this topic a little bit, and I've looked at both games objectively(which I don't think that too many people people here have done), and honestly I've come to the realization that the old game was a great "Scary Alien Invasion" game, and not so great a Strategy game. Whereas the new one is actually a really good, if somewhat straightforward Strategy game.

First off, I want to dispel the illusion that "depth" as most people are defining it(which is quite subjective, but it seems people are basically saying because there is more options and variables, the original has more depth) is the most important, or even an important area in strategy games. It really isn't. Look at some of the most timeless strategy games, chess and checkers. Both have no variables and very few options for each piece, but these games have withstood the test of time and are irrefutably the best strategy games out there. Why? Because despite having relative little depth, every move has a huge consequence eventually, so you have to make a strategic decision for every move.

Now let's be honest. X-Com UD has very few difficult decisions to make, and any difficulty on the Strategic layer is due to lack of information, and when you figure out the information and priorities, decisions become a no-brainer. Basically, the only decision you make where you have to weigh the consequences is whether to rely on default interceptors or Firestorms, maybe whether or not to take out supply ships and alien bases(although, eventually you get to the point where there is very little reason not to). Every other decision on the strategic layer is very easy to make. And on the tactical layer, it's an absolute joke. It basically boils down to a scorched earth policy. Hunt down each individual unit and overwhelm it with the most powerful weapon from your focused force. There are very few consequences for making a poor decision, since your soldiers are so absurdly expendable.

The new one on the other hand, is rife with difficult decisions, even on the strategic area. Do I focus on satellites right away for long-term benefits, or do I focus on my technology to keep my(absurdly valuable) troops alive. Do I rush weapons so that I can take down Chryssalids faster on a terror mission in case I run across them at a bad time, or do I rush Armor so that my increasingly more valuable soldiers hold out long on the increasingly more attrition they are going to have to face now that they can't one-shot the enemies with grenades and Rocket Launchers anymore? Or do I sacrifice short-term survivability for long-term research benefits by rushing alien containment.

Frankly, the old one doesn't even compare to the number and difficulty of decisions you have to make either on the tactical level either. I'm not even going to get into it on this post, because it's so absurdly obvious, but basically if you think that the old one's tactical battles require more strategy than the new one, you are highly delusional. It's not even in the same ballpark.

TLDR: "Depth" in itself doesn't make for a good strategy game, having to make hard decisions does. By those standards, EU is a much better strategy game than the old one.

Everyone is probably gonna disagree with me, but I don't really care, because in the end, I enjoyed both games immensely, so enjoy your butthurt.

Well, someone is butthurt allright.....

I get annoyed by the whole perception that this game is dumbed-down, when it actually involves a lot more thought and strategy than the old one.

So yeah, ignorance hurts my butt.

I haven't played Fireaxe's game, and wasn't planning on it. I really hate the whole power armor art thing that I see in all the trailers. But Sinfullyvannila, you make some good points. Now I want to try it. I just wish it wasn't $50. And about people being ignorant, I think it's nostalgia for the old game. It makes the old game look better than it really was.