Xenonauts vs Xcom Enemy Unknown

[Gorlom]

After seeing the very long gameplay footage plus just having recently finished the demo I can safely say the new x-com is NOT the game that us x-com fans have been waiting for. All my hopes lie with xenonauts now.

ps: is there a thread where I can see pictures / screenshots from the latest builds?

Youtube. no wait that's vids..

I'm not sure anyone is taking screenshots of anything but bugs in Xenonauts? There is just so little point in it since there are vids and a demo.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Gorlom

[Jean-Luc]

ps: is there a thread where I can see pictures / screenshots from the latest builds?

Not really I think. This guy has a v15 lp going if that helps:

[SyDaemon]

Well, its not COMPLETELY removed, just mostly Four slots, weapon, pistol, armor and extra item. Apparently one class has perk that gives them one more item slot.

Right, you are. I stand corrected. You just can't manipulate your inventory during the mission after the customisations made in base. I do appreciate the considerations for these streamlined design though.

[2late]

Not really I think. This guy has a v15 lp going if that helps:

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.

[ElTee]

Well, its not COMPLETELY removed, just mostly Four slots, weapon, pistol, armor and extra item. Apparently one class has perk that gives them one more item slot.

Xenonauts, it's not a matter of who is right or wrong since this is entirely subject to someones tastes and opinions. People aren't looking at the old X-COM with rose-tinted glasses. Some people just do not like the fact the "streamlining" meant simplifying features, removing options or removing things outright.

I get that as a company, they want to reach as wide of an audience as possible. Their size allows them to do that, whereas new indie devs have to appear to a niche market. But that does not mean I have to like what decisions they made, and if I feel it strayed too far, I'm perfectly within my rights to choose not to buy it.

[XenoMask]

It does force you to choose what you take with you to missions resulting in another kind of strategic choices besides "take everything with you and change them based on situation". Of course, it comes down to preference, but its still not dumbing down(which is different thing from streamlining)

Edited October 4, 2012 by XenoMask

[Citizen844]

I admit it! There were times in the orginal X-Com that I ran back to the Ranger to grab the missle launcher and an incendiary missle to 'burn the aliens out'. In terms of 'developer double talk', streamlining usually means dumbed down.

[Gazz]

streamlining usually means dumbed down.

That's like saying that DLC usually means overpriced junk. It's not that simple, though.

Streamlining is a lot of work and requires a great deal of creativity. It's like removing the rock around the sculpture inside...

Not all developers are amazing and smart people, though, and they don't always get the time they need to do it right. The result can be that they cut the feature entirely instead of only removing the dumb micromanagement from the feature.

[venomxxx]

That's like saying that DLC usually means overpriced junk. It's not that simple, though.

Given the track record the industry has with DLCs, it left me quite cynical to that matter.

Well, the positive exceptions shine all the more through that

Overall, I got the feeling the new Xcom will be a more arcade approach to the genre.

Like Ace Combat or Hawx with Falcon or Lock-On on the other side of the spectrum. Both sides are valid.

I'll watch how the new Xcom develops (Patch support, mods, etc) and make my choice when it is cheaper.

I am patient

[jdturner11]

I'm excited for both.

Xenonauts, indie developed and being completely faithful to the original with improvements and a nice grid based graphics system.

Then X-Com from firaxis, triple A looking title, took out a few of the nostalgic things and added some others. Multiplayer is a "meh" for me but I am excited to see how it turns out.

I think it's fair and natural to compare them, they are both basing off the same game. But I think choosing one over the other may be a tad silly, with the low pre order price of xenonauts. They certainly are different games.

[Harmonica]

See I'm not alone on finally jumping on the Xenonauts train. I don't care when it finally gets in at the station I'm just content to be supporting this over whatever XCOM finally turned out to be. I think that game might be a perfectly decent one for those who want that kind of flashy squad shooter. But it's not X-COM. I think it's okay that they're actually compared head to head because it's about choosing what kind of game devs represent you as a player. I value those who do things properly by the fans.

I watched and waited for the past year, before making up my mind either way but I can't see myself enjoying Firaxis' efforts. Things like the lack of battle randomisation, the canned nature of things, the storyline not being the longest or the most interesting, and the ant-farm being, well, a fancy UI, turned me off to it. On top of that the whole thing with the pre-order DLC being such a boon for squad customisation, to get people to buy way before reviews arrived, leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

When Xenonauts was followed by Firaxis' announcement I was worried for it but frankly it will more than stand up to it.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Harmonica

[Shuichi Niwa]

Nah, comparing them wouldn't be fair... to the Firaxis XCom. Since XCOM:EU is like a simplified combat-oriented of Xcom, and Xenonauts IS Xcom itself [and even more]. Nothing can compare to Xcom |( `O')/

Seriously, the Firaxis one is good. But it's a good game, not a good Xcom T_T

[Gaurav251]

So after finishing xcom enemy unknown I can write all sorts of long paragraphs and essays on how the new xcom by fireaxis didnt feel like XCOM,

but instead I will say that xenonauts is more of a xcom game then xcom enemy unknown.

[XenoMask]

My opinion? Firaxis game is fun and addicting as hell. Its also plays differently than original, but it in my opinion has same spirit, in different sense though.

As in, old game had that feeling of protecting earth from alien menace and new one also has that, but it feels different... Like old game is horror and tense, this one is tense in fast and furious way. I mean seriously, EVERYTHING in this game is faster than original. Everything. Building equipment, researching, getting missions, etc. Its still very strategic and hard game, but strategies it requires are completely different strategies than original game.

So whether you consider it to feel like xcom or not depends on whether you think XCOM is about the setting and concept of researching aliens and their artifacts to combat them and protect earth from invasion or whether its about gameplay mechanics of the original game. I personally play XCOM games for immersion so I personally feel like its XCOM game, but yeah, its opinion based whether you consider it to be XCOM game or not.

Gameplay wise Xenonauts does feel closer as it has much slower pace, like the original did. In new XCOM, month in game time is much shorter time than in original and Xenonauts.

[Ljas]

Firaxis deserves credit just for making a mainstream turn-based tactics game. A shame the graphics options do almost nothing, as I'd have bought it if ithe demo had run better than it did.

[Assoonasitis]

Classic Iron-Man mode hates my freedom in XCOM: Enemy Unkown. My first terror mission ended in abject disaster.

[GoodGuyEddy]

The game has a lot of problems: models clipping if the units get too close to each other. The AP system was dumbed down just a bit too much, inventory got deleted(no, the weapon slots you outfit only in the base do not count) etc. But the game works well enough to be fun. But my biggest gripe with it , the gripe that brings it down from a great game to a good game is the single skyranger. Why the fuck can't i have a second skyranger? I can build a facility to store aliens,launch sattelites into the orbit weekly, reverse ingeneer ,in weeks, the technology that would normally take humans centuries to develop, get money thrown at me from all the nations of the world, what's stopping me from getting a second plane? The game has choice. It gives you alien invasions in three locations simultaniusly, the second skyranger won't take away that choice. And with the second ranger you run a risk of hospitalizing most of your troops in no time. So in a way the ability to produce more skyrangers gives you more things to worry about. Just why do my 16 soldiers sit at the base masturbating while the other 6 are on a mission. That doesn't make any sence from the realism standpoint, and it holds back the game mechanically. When the game is in no short supply of hard to make decisions. Especially when a big portion of the game is centered around the geoscape air space control. That is just a too artifitial of a way, no...a gimmick to introduce more choice in the area the game is already good at, that's just too cheap. That gripe just infuriates me so much! Let me buy a second plane damnit!

Edited October 12, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[Ljas]

Having fiddled with the demo for a couple of hours, my biggest gripe is that it's not playable on my laptop. It could run quite well if the devs had the decency of making a proper options menu. Why the flying... fishstick does the low setting have depth of field and ambient occlusion - one of the most resource demanding settings - turned on? Moreover, why does the game crash at the beginning of the tutorial if I try to turn it off from the configs?

Yay for suboptimal PC ports.

[sectoid]

The game has a lot of problems: models clipping if the units get too close to each other. The AP system was dumbed down just a bit too much, inventory got deleted(no, the weapon slots you outfit only in the base do not count) etc. But the game works well enough to be fun. But my biggest gripe with it , the gripe that brings it down from a great game to a good game is the single skyranger. Why the fuck can't i have a second skyranger? I can build a facility to store aliens,launch sattelites into the orbit weekly, reverse ingeneer ,in weeks, the technology that would normally take humans centuries to develop, get money thrown at me from all the nations of the world, what's stopping me from getting a second plane? The game has choice. It gives you alien invasions in three locations simultaniusly, the second skyranger won't take away that choice. And with the second ranger you run a risk of hospitalizing most of your troops in no time. So in a way the ability to produce more skyrangers gives you more things to worry about. Just why do my 16 soldiers sit at the base masturbating while the other 6 are on a mission. That doesn't make any sence from the realism standpoint, and it holds back the game mechanically. When the game is in no short supply of hard to make decisions. Especially when a big portion of the game is centered around the geoscape air space control. That is just a too artifitial of a way, no...a gimmick to introduce more choice in the area the game is already good at, that's just too cheap. That gripe just infuriates me so much! Let me buy a second plane damnit!

yup, thats certainly what i felt after the first "demo" mission where the second mission will need xcom to respond to 2 alien abduct site: ChongQing, China (rewards $200) or New York, US (reward 4 scientist). and xcom can only choose either one.

seriously, you call that xcom...? i could do both in 1994 with a skyranger in one trip, not even need to return to base for replenish ammo.

**laughing in disbelief***

[sectoid]

Firaxis deserves credit just for making a mainstream turn-based tactics game. A shame the graphics options do almost nothing, as I'd have bought it if ithe demo had run better than it did.

precisely. can someone tell Firaxis don't do cutscene of soldier's facial closeup if they couldn't achieve something like the Korean face in the Crysis? LOL.

[Rivosyke]

Couples gripes that I have with EU:

1. Every successful hit is a "headshot", in terms of where on the body the graphic shows being hit. Why would this not kill anything instantly then? In the original, you had several different hit boxes and injuries on those places.

2. Pre-calculated combat results. In the original, each time the soldier did their shots, it was calculated at the time of the firing. In EU, it would appear that anytime an action is taken by anyone (movement, weapons, items), the outcome of a successful hit (with weapons, psi powers, etc) is recalculated for everyone that can see an alien. This can be proven by playing a non-Ironman mode game and taking a shot, missing, and reloading 20 times. Regardless of your chance to hit (except 100), the outcome is always the same. You could have a 94% chance to hit and each time you reload it will miss again. It reminds me of the new random seed option when starting a Civ V game. If you miss, then reload and have someone do an action, your person who missed may now hit the target, depending on that outcome calculation.

3. EU seems to be an X-COM embodiment of current game development in that it very much is on rails. The UFO encounters seem scripted and certainly does not have that X-COM freedom feeling.

4. Stripping soldier of equipment when he/she gets wounded. While this is a good thing in the sense that you can then use that equipment on the next soldier while the first is recovering, it is quite annoying that when that soldier returns to duty, the gear isn't put back. Quite annoying to have your end-game sniper be healed then head into a mission with a regular pistol.

5. Like another has said here, the lack of being able to do multiple abductions at once. One of the great things in the original was having multiples bases and multiple sets of soldiers to respond to things that happened GLOBALLY. Having to choose who to help and who to let die doesn't feel very X-COM to me.

6. It appeared that the recent update to EU changed this, but earlier in the week every single mission happened at night. Even if the clock said it was 3 in the afternoon, it would still be a night mission. If the Geoscape showed full daylight when you landed, it was a night mission. In the original, I would delay the dropship deployment time until it was daytime as it just made it so much easier. With the update, though, I've noticed that some missions are during the day. Can't seem to time the skyranger deployment time, though, as it can apparently travel across the world in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

Ultimately, I purchased both games. EU is fun in terms of the modern cover based tactical turn-based game. It will have nowhere near the depth of a proper X-COM remake, such as Xenonauts, though.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Rivosyke

[Bletchley_Geek]

So after finishing xcom enemy unknown I can write all sorts of long paragraphs and essays on how the new xcom by fireaxis didnt feel like XCOM,

but instead I will say that xenonauts is more of a xcom game then xcom enemy unknown.

That sentence really says it all. I personally knew this as soon as I downloaded my first alpha of Xenonauts back in February this year and I read the interviews/previews, saw the teaser videos, etc.

I am just signing off XCom Enemy Unknown after 4 hours playing straight, enought to get off the tutorial and having more freedom in the game, and I must say I like it. Perhaps the AAA title I've liked the most since Dragon Age: Origins. And I do think that the way Firaxis guys have "streamlined" AP's makes a lot of sense - more to those like me, who are always reserving AP's for an aimed shot if possible - although it does indeed remove substantial depth, or rather, alternative approaches to the tactical game.

Regarding other changes that seem to be driving people nuts: I think most of those changes are due to having a much, much stronger storyline on X-Com:EU. X-Com had a "sandbox" appeal that isn't in Firaxis game. There's a lot of rail-roading going on for players, I can't say this goes on until the end of the game, or not.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Bletchley_Geek

[Knightpt]

X-com from firaxis is actualy an entertaining game. I wouldnt say its an X-Com remake tough. One of the most important trademarks of the first X-com was the sandbox feel of the game, and the fact that you could choose where to do missions, where to put your bases and the missions were randomized and most of the time you didnt even know what would come next.

On firaxis x-com it seems you are playing a "rails-on-track" game that feels its a strategy game with a story/adventure style slaped into it for streamlined content.

The game is not bad by any strech, and it realy feels fun but its a disapointment so far simply because it "feels" almost everything i do is a simplified version of what i realy wanted to do. Also, i find it very confusing the graphical engine, because where i move my mouse cursor to check for cover spaces, the graphical engine makes everything transparent, making it very hard to understand the scenario where we want to move to.

Also, i realy hate the fact that the game chooses where you can go to your missions, based on a couple of pre-made scenarios. i loved the freedom of the original X-COM, i can't understand why did they do this... "you can help canada, US, or brasil", choose one and upset the rest... Honestly? lol... terrible design.

(hopefuly its just in the beggining of the game?)

Anyways, an entertaining game, but i'll just expect xenonauts to be my game of choice if i'm looking for a serious strategic experience with aliens.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Knightpt

[sectoid]

because Firaxis think that basically, actually and ultimately everyone is only firing the gun, kill some aliens, and load the end game cinematic will be pleasing enough.

[XenoMask]

because Firaxis think that basically, actually and ultimately everyone is only firing the gun, kill some aliens, and load the end game cinematic will be pleasing enough.

*eye roll*

Anyway, in the end it still that Firaxis' game is reimagining while Xenonauts is remake