I have some questions about the directions the game has taken. Namely: Base count, units and uniqueness, engine
Base Count
The original Xenonauts was based on the original XCom's original idea of having the option to build multiple unique bases around a planet to simulate a global strike team.
You guys have decided to nix that because, in the original, it was seen as horribly inefficient. Instead of trapping the player in a bad situation, you are restricting them to a single base with lesser satellite bases.
This is an interesting direction, but aren't there tons of games that already focus on the A-Team aspect of a defense force. In fact, I think that's what most squad based games focus on.
Wouldn't the other direction have been more interesting?
For example, giving an actual reason to have multiple strike groups and dropships. This would incentivize managing multiple individual teams. It would promote evolving scenarios where lesser bases are sieged and lost with higher frequency, as well as other options like sending teams on small recon missions or whatever (sort of like what you are doing with the operatives, but with a bit more oomph). There could also be evacuation scenarios where high command is forced to move, or a satellite strike team has to come rescue a team that is being sieged or suppressed by an enemy force. More bases just feel like they would give more options, and less to me feels like these options are being cut down.
Units
It looks like you got rid of strength, crouching accuracy, and tanks.
To promote unified templates, less micromanagement, and some guerilla stretch goal tank alternative.
This is an interesting direction, but again: Tons of games have unified templates, simplified micro, and streamlined vehicle types.
Wouldn't the other direction have been better?
Namely, more distinguishing characteristics between new and old soldiers. Giving Greeny Doe a single grenade because he could barely carry his rifle and supplemental gear added a bit of flavor to a character. Are you adding things to replace that flavor if you are getting rid of strength? I heard something about weapon specialization? Will there be other cool perks as well (faster firing, more nimble, etc).
Units, I know you have sentries and some other thing, but what else? Will there be more unit types than in the original game?
For crouching and the like, wouldn't it have been more interesting to go in the opposite direction? Add bracing, deeper cover mechanics, stealth, etc. Things that build on what you already built in Xenonauts. What made you decide to streamline the accuracy options on the tactical map?
The Engine
I can't recognize the engine you used for the original game. It runs perfectly for Xenonauts, which leads me to believe that you guys built the thing from the ground up or maybe off a very basic framework (Unity 2d?)
... So you just went screw it and got rid of what you built?
Wouldn't the other direction have been better?
Namely, building on the engine you already have and adding more features to it? What led you to scrapping the 2d engine and relying on a potentially unstable third party one instead?
In Summary
I loved the original XCom, I loved Xenonauts 1. I immediately backed Xenonauts 2 because you guys deserve it, but I'm worried that you are trying to go in the direction that many other games have gone, which is going to take away from the uniqueness of your product and alienate you from your original audience, and possibly even hurt the game in the long term. I'm mostly curious to see what your reasoning was for the choices you made and why you believe it's better than the alternatives. In this case: one base, less attributes, less units, weaker engine vs many bases, more attributes, more units, stronger engine.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I wish you luck with your second Xenonauts installment!
I have some questions about the directions the game has taken. Namely: Base count, units and uniqueness, engine Base Count The original Xenonauts was based on the original XCom's original idea of having the option to build multiple unique bases around a planet to simulate a global strike team. You guys have decided to nix that because, in the original, it was seen as horribly inefficient. Instead of trapping the player in a bad situation, you are restricting them to a single base with lesser satellite bases. This is an interesting direction, but aren't there tons of games that already focus on the A-Team aspect of a defense force. In fact, I think that's what most squad based games focus on. Wouldn't the other direction have been more interesting? For example, giving an actual reason to have multiple strike groups and dropships. This would incentivize managing multiple individual teams. It would promote evolving scenarios where lesser bases are sieged and lost with higher frequency, as well as other options like sending teams on small recon missions or whatever (sort of like what you are doing with the operatives, but with a bit more oomph). There could also be evacuation scenarios where high command is forced to move, or a satellite strike team has to come rescue a team that is being sieged or suppressed by an enemy force. More bases just feel like they would give more options, and less to me feels like these options are being cut down. Units It looks like you got rid of strength, crouching accuracy, and tanks. To promote unified templates, less micromanagement, and some guerilla stretch goal tank alternative. This is an interesting direction, but again: Tons of games have unified templates, simplified micro, and streamlined vehicle types. Wouldn't the other direction have been better? Namely, more distinguishing characteristics between new and old soldiers. Giving Greeny Doe a single grenade because he could barely carry his rifle and supplemental gear added a bit of flavor to a character. Are you adding things to replace that flavor if you are getting rid of strength? I heard something about weapon specialization? Will there be other cool perks as well (faster firing, more nimble, etc). Units, I know you have sentries and some other thing, but what else? Will there be more unit types than in the original game? For crouching and the like, wouldn't it have been more interesting to go in the opposite direction? Add bracing, deeper cover mechanics, stealth, etc. Things that build on what you already built in Xenonauts. What made you decide to streamline the accuracy options on the tactical map? The Engine I can't recognize the engine you used for the original game. It runs perfectly for Xenonauts, which leads me to believe that you guys built the thing from the ground up or maybe off a very basic framework (Unity 2d?) ... So you just went screw it and got rid of what you built? Wouldn't the other direction have been better? Namely, building on the engine you already have and adding more features to it? What led you to scrapping the 2d engine and relying on a potentially unstable third party one instead? In Summary I loved the original XCom, I loved Xenonauts 1. I immediately backed Xenonauts 2 because you guys deserve it, but I'm worried that you are trying to go in the direction that many other games have gone, which is going to take away from the uniqueness of your product and alienate you from your original audience, and possibly even hurt the game in the long term. I'm mostly curious to see what your reasoning was for the choices you made and why you believe it's better than the alternatives. In this case: one base, less attributes, less units, weaker engine vs many bases, more attributes, more units, stronger engine. Thanks for taking the time to read this and I wish you luck with your second Xenonauts installment!