Xenonauts vs Xcom Enemy Unknown

[HWP]

Choices in Ass Effect could cost you a "good" ending. Of course you'd have to be fairly clumsy with them. Same in EU, really, there is one best way and it's at least as obvious. But at least ME3 has some blue alien ass to cover for its lack of depth in all other aspects. EU's assets... nah, they don't quite compare.

[XenoMask]

Umm, sorry, but that doesn't work. Losing terror mission = Insta loss for country plus panic, so if there was three choices with at least on terror mission, you would have to take that one always. Secondly, in original game not doing ufo landing mission isn't major, only missions dangerous for losing the game is terror misson because ignoring them gives you 1000 score penalty. Though you can apparently just abort mission to get 0 points to either side.

[Shuichi Niwa]

Really O_o Sorry I have never ignore a Terror mission in the original game so I wouldn't know about that -1000 rating *O*

Anyway, aside from small things like that I mean you can do lots of thing in that kind of situation instead of the one and only 1-of-3. I don't blame it from dumbed down the game and give people obvious choices for their easy understanding. Just don't say it give you "more choices" or more "tactical depth". That I won't stand for *O*

[wiglafman1225]

I just noticed something. Aren't you actually just full of prejudices ? Why did you assume that all people aside from you DIDN'T play at Classic difficulty ? I haven't play the game at any other difficulty aside from Classic. So stop that please, it's annoying as hell.

I'm not sure "prejudice" means what you think it means.

And let me explain what this game limit the player with their stupid "3 choices". The same situation arise in both the old XCOM and new XCOM. 3 abduction sites.

New - DECIDE. 1 of 3. Bwahahahaha.

Old - Do all of them [if you have good squadrons]. Do 2 of the. Only do 1 of them.

Another more in-depth situation. 3 different locations require your attention. 1 abduction sites. 1 terror mission. 1 UFO landing.

New - never happened. Because that would make people to think too much it hurt their braincells.

Old - You can do all of 3 if you think you are strong enough. Only do the easy mission if you don't think you can. Do the UFO landing for the materials and perfect condition UFO Source you need. Do the mission in country that are indanger of withdrawing. Or even more tactical choices, if you only have 2 squadron that are capable enough you can do the abduction and terror mission, while having you Interceptor aecure the airspace above the landing UFO to prevent them from up and escaping and then after one of the two mission complete you can think about going to the UFO landing.

Okay, now answer me. What game offer you more choices ? And did I make something up in my simulation ? You say "more choices" mean more "tactical depth". Totally agree with that. Just don't understand what makes you think the new EU give you "more choices".

It give you OBVIOUS and difficult choices ? Sure, agreed. But more ? Absolutely not.

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.

[XenoMask]

Yeah http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Scoring As you can see, no other alien mission causes significant score loss.

It does give you tactical depth in that sense that it makes it harder as you have to only choose one(what kind of lack of resources do they have anyway? I mean thats why Bradford says you can only respond to one, but what is it? Lack of hangar space for two skyranges? Lack of soldiers? What?) which can be very hard since sometimes its better to take the reward than manage the panic and reverse. In original game its just matter of responding to every mission, at least until you get bored of doing grounded ufo missions. Anyway, its debatable whether that is good thing as managing the panic levels is frustrating unless you know what to do or get lucky with missions.

@Wiglaf: Basically basic ones are good for nothing but medium ufos at best unless you get lucky or use boosting items well plus get lucky. At least until you get firestorm which is superior to the point it can take down everything, I assume it might have problems with battleship though but never got chance to try that out.

[Shuichi Niwa]

No, I actually said the opposite: More choices do not necessarily mean more depth.

Okay, and chess have less choices than your average board game out there ? Simple game does not mean "less choice". Dude. Let's stop here, obviously we have totally different thinking on the "tactical" meaning of games.

I'm not sure "prejudice" means what you think it means.

Okay, let's drop the flashing name calling. I just want to tell you this "stop telling other people to play on Classic dificulty". Because it give the feeling that you're assuming everyone else aside from you didn't. That easy to understand ?

[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.

[Shuichi Niwa]

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.

This I totally agree.

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.

From a game design perspective, I can say the concept is similar, not the design itself. I have some confident in this as I'm a game design myself...

[HWP]

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.

Exactly.

The real XCOM, despite its isometric perspective, worked hard to offer the player some immersion. This has been washed away in EU with visibly artificial situations, cartoonish design, pre-set priorities, pre-cooked decisions in a railroad gameplay. Special effects failed to bring it back.

One time in the original XCOM (difficulty patched and maxed) I got into a bad standing situation, so I could try and fix it, almost surely losing... Well, instead I said "screw you" to half the world and focused on saving just a few countries. That screwed my funding, but I provided acceptable radar coverage for the countries I decided to save and ensured that they will be left standing. Since I couldn't get reasonably funded the normal way, I had to compromise on progressing with the storyline and ramped up commercial production instead, survived on what profit my workshops could bring. Then, as I was getting back on my feet and as Earth kept slipping from under them, I managed to scrap together a team to get that Martian brain in time.

Such an alternate path isn't merely unthinkable in EU, it's nowhere near being an option. Sadly Goldhawk decided to remove the option for self-support from Xeno, and that's a major flaw for the game, but hopefully that option can be brought back by mods; I'm not even hovering my mouse over "New Game" in the release until it's fixed or I fix it myself.

[XenoMask]

Hmm, btw, does anyone have confirmation on whether alien invasion progresses on its own or not? I'm under impression that it does as its possibly to have base mission with early game enemies rather than late game ones. Though that might be because I got lucky and it didn't have cyberdiscs or mutons.(while on other time I got those before base, but I lost the game before I could assault the game)

[Bletchley_Geek]

Playing Enemy Unknown on classic has been a great experience.

In this, I agree with your post. I have some issues for the rest of it.

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.

Looking back at Xenonauts Kickstarter page I see the following "stretch goals" (which I think are what you refer as "features being held as hostage for Kickstarter money, link http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/69341191/xenonauts/posts/226254):

$75,000 – Hire a Level Designer - we will hire a dedicated map designer to add more variation and randomisation to the maps!

$100,000 – Indoor missions – these would be missions where combat squads are sent into large buildings or into underground bunkers to clear out an alien strike team.

$140,000 – Soviet Town terror tileset – the current terror tileset is an American town. To fit with the Cold War theme, we’ll put in an alternate tileset for the Soviet bloc countries using Soviet-style architecture.

$180,000 - Military Base tileset - this tileset would allow us to put military terror sites in the game, where aliens have attacked a military base and you are sent in to deal with them.

$205,000 – Tileset-Specific NPC Allies – we do have friendly AI soldiers in the game, but only one type. This would add different variants – police on the Industrial tileset, farmers with shotguns on the Farm tileset, mujahedeen with AK-47s on the Desert tileset etc.

$230,000 – Motion Detector – This would be a one-hand soldier item that, when equipped, will display a coloured overlay on the battlefield to show any AI movement in previous turn within range of the soldier holding it.

$255,000 – Memorial Screen – This would be a tab on the UI which allowed you to view a list of all your dead soldiers, including the location and time of death, their portrait and number of kills etc.

$280,000 – Vehicle Combat Experience – soldiers level up with experience, vehicles do not. This would allow vehicles to increase their stats (not armour / health) by a maximum of 15% with combat experience.

$305,000 - Pilot Portraits and Callsigns – at the moment, the aircraft are just aircraft. This would give each aircraft a pilot portrait and a callsign, so they seem less expendable. These pilots will not level up with experience.

$330,000 - Proxy Grenades – These are fun. This would add a secondary fire function to all advanced grenades (Alenium grenades upwards) that allows them to be used as proxy grenades.

$355,000 - Tall Grass – There’s waist-high grass in X-Com. This would put it in Xenonauts too, complete with the ridiculous (yet amusing) fire mechanics from the original.

$380,000 - Human Psionics and Blaster Bombs – We’ve removed these from the game due to balance reasons, and we will not put them in Xenonauts. This stretch goal would bundle the game with a developer-made mod that allowed people to put them back in.

The updated UI concept didn't ever make the cut of the polls. I found personally quite unnecessary - this is not Master of Orion 2. Some of the things on the list look to me as mere gold plating or chrome (tall grass, the memorial screen - I enjoy the bagpipes on X-COM:EU, but that's all I think it does add to the game, pilots portraits & callsigns, etc.). Other features I can see to be more interesting (such as the Motion Detector, the tile set specific allies, human psionics/blaster bombs, vehicle experience) but I can also see a few reasons for them being cut out on the grounds of balance concerns (human psionics on original X-Com were a bit unbalanced, in my opinion).

The military base tileset not making the cut was sad, though - variety is extremely important in this kind of game and it's been one of the things which have marred most past attempts at rebooting X-COM (UFO: Aftershock for instance, where the "been there, done that" syndrome made me to walk away from the game).

Enemy Unknown gets rid of a lot of the tedious micromanagement of the previous game.

Indeed, X-COM:EU has little micromanagement, but attaching the adjective "tedious" to "micromanagement" can be quite of a problem, since what one gamer finds a chore, another sitting next to him finds to be extremely entertaining. For me, handling inventories on the previous X-COM could be a bit tedious indeed. But removing the soft constraints entailed by inventory "cells" and weight, by the main weapon/side arm/armor/special item thing, is a bit too much I think. Allowing soldiers to carry a frag grenade and medkit (for instance) would have hardly been a source of imbalance and/or "tedious micromanagement".

And even with this "simplicity", there are other kinds of micromanagement which aren't obvious.

When you get the squad assembling screen, the only way to browse between available soldiers (and their inventories) is via the add/clear unit buttons. The "detailed soldier view" that you can access from that screen doesn't allow you to navigate across soldiers, and you have to navigate back and forth between the two screens, say, to figure out who were the guys with the plasma rifles, put them back into the base inventory, and re-assign them to the soldiers you want to carry in that mission. Of course, you can Escape all the way to the base view and get to the barracks, where you can browse soldiers in a more comfortable way. But having to "backtrack" like this, is a bit odd, since I find, in general, X-COM:EU interface to be very refined.

This makes me think that Firaxis playtesters didn't particularly rotate soldiers in squads quite often (which I think is one of the most important points in X-COM:EU and the original X-COM). And leaves me wondering why isn't the case that soldiers get their inventories emptied after a mission and pre-loaded with the best equipment that fits their "role" when selected. More so when "premium" equipment - i.e. that the player builds or loots - carried by injured soldiers goes back to the base inventory.

The inability to pick up dead comrades' guns and items adds to the importance of each soldier.

If you mean, during the tactical combat, yes, it certainly makes each soldier more important. Not that in old X-COM every of your squad members could use properly equipment such as heavy cannons or autocannons because of poor strength/agility scores.

On the other hand, if you mean that "premium" equipment carried by a dead soldier is lost, even when winning a mission, then I'm not amused (that's a quite arbitrary credits/alien alloys/weapon sink in place for the sake of game balancing). Could anyone tell me if this is the case? I have yet that to happen to me in my campaign.

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.

Here I don't see your point at all. Others have discussed this in depth. I don't see why having several "simultaneous" tactical missions in a game whose main component is, indeed, tactical combat can be tedious. If that's what you feel like, then I'd say: "Wrong game, mate". It's like complaining about Baldur's Gate II because it had too many "side quests".

The choices related to the abduction sites seem to me more "strategic" than "tactical", to be honest. Do you go after the short-term reward given when finished a mission or you want to keep panic levels low in countries which are dishing a lot of dough on X-Com each month? On the original X-Com, there were quite a few mid-game moments where your resources where really stretched out and you had to make "hard choices", provided you hadn't prepared better. Most of the complaints about this new mechanic I think revolve about depriving people from trying to save everyone (and getting way, way better scores or accessing high-end high-tech equipment earlier than other players).

The lack of base assaults is a bit unfortunate, but good base design and foresight is still important thanks to adjacency bonuses.

That would have made an excellent storyline/plot device. It's a lost opportunity for Firaxis. Inded base design/foresight is important - you need to plan ahead, which is good - but the point is more about having the aliens feeling like more "intelligent". That is, if X-COM is the weapon and shield of Earthlings, it makes quite sense to target it directly, rather than just killing random humans (no matter how entertaining that might be for the Alien Hordes).

The smaller squads increases the importance of each soldier.

To me it is more of making virtue out of necessity. Making big maps - the main reason for big squads - affects 'pacing' - it may be "tedious" for some to clear a big sized map -, involves a lot of artwork - since the real 3D nature of X-COM:EU makes quite hard to come by procedural techniques that produce big varied maps with a coherent "art direction".

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.

Here I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, it's obvious to me that whoever designed that, played a lot of the original X-COM. I used to have similar "classes" defined and kept track of who was suited for what on a notebook

On the other hand, it's a bit too random - in my current Classic Campaign half of my non-Rookie troops are Snipers, which is way too high but could be a random fluke, indeed -, roles such as Support are a bit too useless because of the limited inventory (my "support" roles in the original X-COM being more like a "jack of all trades" right, more like a "rifleman" than anything else) and roles such as Assault a bit too focused on tactics relying on very short range high damage weapons.

However, the "skills" indeed do give your soldiers some more personality (and some of them really make a difference).

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.

Well, I used a lot the reserve AP function, and it was quite a limitation of the original X-COM UI that you couldn't check how many AP's you needed to get somewhere (something which was introduced by Jagged Alliance, if I recall correctly).

As with the "classes", the way movement/fire is handled is clearly a sign of having people who have played a lot the original in the design team. The one-move + one tactical action (such as shooting or reserving AP's for reaction fire during Alien's turn) vs. "strategic movement", was indeed an structure implicit on the original X-COM.

Most important, the AI in Enemy Unknown is fantastic. It will flank, use items, and retreat when necessary.

I totally agree with that. It's really strong.

It makes occasional bad moves, but usually only due to lack of LOS.

And it's fair. I hate AI's which are "boosted" by playing by rules different than mine (such as being able to spot stuff I can't spot, for instance). Seeing the AI getting "surprised" by a smart move of mine is quite rewarding

Yes, it gets a free turn when spotted, and some aliens remain stationary until spotted.

[/quote

Which they use to run for cover, I haven't seen them shooting during that 'special round'

The former rule is necessary for balance reasons, and the latter because players would just sit in overwatch all day.

I'd also like a lot that kind of "extra movement" thing happen to my soldiers when they first spot an alien (or it's maybe a skill?) to get them out of dodge if possible or necessary.

On the other hand, I think it's a clever ploy to hide the fact that the enemy NPC's spawn in "parties" and appear in specific parts of the map. X-COM:EU AI is good, but is basically reacting rather than pro-active (i.e. actively seeking contact with the player units and modifying his units locations as it gathers more info on what the player is doing). I must say that the AI is much more pro-active than in countless titles - it does seem to attack when it has superior numbers, and then chooses between frontal or flanking attacks, these two things being a hallmark for me of intelligent behavior.

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.

I think it will compete. I see Chris is being able - finally - to put together an stable and reliable team. In outfits as small as Goldhawk, this can be quite hard, where losing a key member of team at the wrong moment is a catastrophe.

You have to play on Classic. Other difficulties are worthless.

Classic mode is indeed the way to go for me on X-COM:EU.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Bletchley_Geek

[Par'Gellen]

I just noticed something. Aren't you actually just full of prejudices ? Why did you assume that all people aside from you DIDN'T play at Classic difficulty ? I haven't play the game at any other difficulty aside from Classic. So stop that please, it's annoying as hell.

And let me explain what this game limit the player with their stupid "3 choices". The same situation arise in both the old XCOM and new XCOM. 3 abduction sites.

New - DECIDE. 1 of 3. Bwahahahaha.

Old - Do all of them [if you have good squadrons]. Do 2 of the. Only do 1 of them.

Another more in-depth situation. 3 different locations require your attention. 1 abduction sites. 1 terror mission. 1 UFO landing.

New - never happened. Because that would make people to think too much it hurt their braincells.

Old - You can do all of 3 if you think you are strong enough. Only do the easy mission if you don't think you can. Do the UFO landing for the materials and perfect condition UFO Source you need. Do the mission in country that are indanger of withdrawing. Or even more tactical choices, if you only have 2 squadron that are capable enough you can do the abduction and terror mission, while having you Interceptor aecure the airspace above the landing UFO to prevent them from up and escaping and then after one of the two mission complete you can think about going to the UFO landing.

Okay, now answer me. What game offer you more choices ? And did I make something up in my simulation ? You say "more choices" mean more "tactical depth". Totally agree with that. Just don't understand what makes you think the new EU give you "more choices".

It give you OBVIOUS and difficult choices ? Sure, agreed. But more ? Absolutely not.

This man speaks truth. Summed it up very well there!

So many people have a problem with the idiotic 3-choices thing in XCOM: EU (myself included) that one of them has already made a mod to get rid of it. It also removes some blatant cheating the AI does on Classic (not to be confused with being more difficult, that's still there). Check it out if you want to intercept those UFO's before they land instead of just waiting for the game to force you to make a stupid A, B, or C multiple-choice decision. http://steamcommunity.com/app/200510/discussions/0/864948300017084740 I highly recommend it!

[TrashMan]

I reallly hate the soldier overspecilization.

You can't pick up or use the other soldiers equipment? Why the hell not?

Each class has it's own abilities that are for some magical reason exclusive only to it? Ok..exactly why is only the sniper able to use the grapple? Why is physicly preventing others to use it? Oh, that's right..the game itself.

Tactical limitations due to 2-moves design?

Frak that.

To me it speaks volumes of how bad the internal battle machnics is when you have to come up with stupid s*** to make the game interesting.

[Par'Gellen]

I reallly hate the soldier overspecilization.

You can't pick up or use the other soldiers equipment? Why the hell not?

Each class has it's own abilities that are for some magical reason exclusive only to it? Ok..exactly why is only the sniper able to use the grapple? Why is physicly preventing others to use it? Oh, that's right..the game itself.

Tactical limitations due to 2-moves design?

Frak that.

To me it speaks volumes of how bad the internal battle machnics is when you have to come up with stupid s*** to make the game interesting.

You bring up a very good point. I don't mind limitations in a game as long as they make sense. However, artificial limitations that are simply there by magic and serve no purpose other than to well... limit you? Yeah, those can all go jump off a bridge into a house fire.

[Vivisector 9999]

You can't pick up or use the other soldiers equipment? Why the hell not?

Each class has it's own abilities that are for some magical reason exclusive only to it? Ok..exactly why is only the sniper able to use the grapple? Why is physicly preventing others to use it?

To be fair, the grapple was a function of the skeleton suit (and maybe other armors, but I didn't use those). Anyone can equip those.

Perhaps you meant "Why do only snipers get that throwable battle viewer thing?" Because that's something else that the other classes could have gotten a lot of mileage from...

I understand the complaints about equipment restrictions, anyway. I would have preferred if anyone could use any gun, but each class is better with some guns than others.

[Snarks]

I'm loving the new XCom EU right now as evident by my 70 hours of play since release. It's really good, but in a different way compared to the original game. The emphasis on scarcity, and streamlined combat makes for a smooth and enjoyable experience. This is really weird coming from a person who would spend hours going over every minute detail of his squad inventory, but the limitations makes the game more desperate and intense, something that I applaud Firaxis for doing very well.

Now if I had to rate the game, I would say it's definitely very polished which puts it above the original game. There hasn't been any game breaking bugs and aside from a few forgivable graphical mishaps, the game runs great and is very stable. The pacing is better than in the original which at a certain point, became too easy without forcing somekind of self-imposed handicap. Comparing XCom EU to Xenonauts or the original game is like comparing peaches to oranges though. Some days I want a peach and some days I want an orange. Some people hate peaches and prefer oranges and vice versa. For me, I enjoy both types of games, but admittedly, I think I like Firaxis's approach more.

[Shuichi Niwa]

Ok..exactly why is only the sniper able to use the grapple?

To be fair, the grapple was a function of the skeleton suit (and maybe other armors, but I didn't use those).

Ghost Armor have grappling hook too Oh and somehow in this game Flying Suit proved to be utterly useless, because flying is far worst than the Grappling Hook. The only advantage it bring is the Heavy Armor so that you can both give your Assault Heavy Armor [which mean a HUGE HP bonus thanks to their ability] and a high mobility suit. Still can't understand why did the designer decide that using Flying Suit would not give soldier the "height advantage" bonus. That makes no sense to me.

I understand the complaints about equipment restrictions, anyway. I would have preferred if anyone could use any gun, but each class is better with some guns than others.

Yeah. How I wish my Support can use Shotgun T_T

[sectoid]

This man speaks truth. Summed it up very well there!

So many people have a problem with the idiotic 3-choices thing in XCOM: EU (myself included) that one of them has already made a mod to get rid of it. It also removes some blatant cheating the AI does on Classic (not to be confused with being more difficult' date=' that's still there). Check it out if you want to intercept those UFO's before they land instead of just waiting for the game to force you to make a stupid A, B, or C multiple-choice decision. http://steamcommunity.com/app/200510/discussions/0/864948300017084740 I highly recommend it!

you 'da best!

Muuuakssss!

[sectoid]

I reallly hate the soldier overspecilization.

You can't pick up or use the other soldiers equipment? Why the hell not?

Each class has it's own abilities that are for some magical reason exclusive only to it? Ok..exactly why is only the sniper able to use the grapple? Why is physicly preventing others to use it? Oh, that's right..the game itself.

Tactical limitations due to 2-moves design?

Frak that.

To me it speaks volumes of how bad the internal battle machnics is when you have to come up with stupid s*** to make the game interesting.

snipers are globally having phobia to pick up and use a rifle...

[Harmonica]

The apples and oranges argument is fine, but in this context you can't begrudge people expecting their apples, and getting freaked out when they get a pineapple. I think it's fair to say the majority of people who have fond memories of the originals loved their micro management and the tough decisions that brought along, and the sometimes grueling (lack of) pacing. Other people might rather point at the alien menace, the variably brutal difficulty and sci-fi tropes and so on, which are still in the game (even enhanced) and be more happy than the first group.

I really don't think it's unfair to expect a deep and demanding management/tactics game from something bearing the XCOM name, and because it doesn't really fulfil those characteristics, to question why it was ever branded under that license in the first place.

I would probably be playing the hell out of the game if it were an original series. To put up with the changes and play what feels like faux-X-COM to me is kind of emotional blackmail.

edit: exactly the same thing happened to Jagged Alliance.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Harmonica

[Dowly]

The apples and oranges argument is fine, but in this context you can't begrudge people expecting their apples, and getting freaked out when they get a pineapple.

Well said.

[TrashMan]

edit: exactly the same thing happened to Jagged Alliance.

Actually, I'd say JA has more of it's old concept still there.

It's rough, rushed and missing some features, but for the most part it is like the JA2 of old, at elast in spirit.

Mechanics-wise some things do suck.

Like the leveling mechnics

Use of repair kits and equipping milita.

And not being able to make your own IMP.

It basicly being real-time doesn't bother me.

It's still time-units basicly, only everyone executes at the same time.

[Knightpt]

After more play in X-COM EU i find that the panic level of nations is realy bad. Its a good concept but very poorly executed.

I find it interesting that you are constantly pressured into going faster against the clock because you can't control the world per say, but i find the implementation of "you can only help 1 country, forget the other 2" in very specific timmings is very ARTIFICIAL and realy feels fake.

The major problem is that it feels realy realy fake. Its an artificial barrier that when you see it you just think "RLY? again? there goes my monthly gamming perfection". It feels that you might play realy well but its all for nothing because the Panic abductions have like 90% of the game dificulty attached.

It would feel much more natural if those abductions (and consequent increase on localised panic levels) happened in places where you didnt have satelites and one at a time to make you speed up the satelite coverage and interceptor investment in all continents.

The game from start to mid-game is a race for :

a) Engineers

b) satelite links

c) satelite building

d) deployment of satelites on regions that are in max panic, but you had no control over it anyways.

Game feels unidirectional and frustrating because you feel there's something unfair coming up in a few days that kinda invalidates most of what you do. It seems that the game was 99% done and on playtest they found it too easy and said "hum, what can we do to make it harder ?" and then they decided to put a monthly barrier of something you can't realy control untill mid-game.

[Par'Gellen]

After more play in X-COM EU i find that the panic level of nations is realy bad. Its a good concept but very poorly executed.

I find it interesting that you are constantly pressured into going faster against the clock because you can't control the world per say, but i find the implementation of "you can only help 1 country, forget the other 2" in very specific timmings is very ARTIFICIAL and realy feels fake.

The major problem is that it feels realy realy fake. Its an artificial barrier that when you see it you just think "RLY? again? there goes my monthly gamming perfection". It feels that you might play realy well but its all for nothing because the Panic abductions have like 90% of the game dificulty attached.

It would feel much more natural if those abductions (and consequent increase on localised panic levels) happened in places where you didnt have satelites and one at a time to make you speed up the satelite coverage and interceptor investment in all continents.

The game from start to mid-game is a race for :

a) Engineers

b) satelite links

c) satelite building

d) deployment of satelites on regions that are in max panic, but you had no control over it anyways.

Game feels unidirectional and frustrating because you feel there's something unfair coming up in a few days that kinda invalidates most of what you do. It seems that the game was 99% done and on playtest they found it too easy and said "hum, what can we do to make it harder ?" and then they decided to put a monthly barrier of something you can't realy control untill mid-game.

I agree. It's like playing a MMO with that guy in your group that is constantly yelling "Let's go! Let's go!". I really hate that guy lol!

[Serret]

So, I've played X-COM:EU and I must say this only made me want to play Xenonauts more ^^

While X-COM was very interesting I feel that it only really scratched the surface of what could be done with the whole concept.

I believe X-COM and Xenonauts are both great games on their own right but to be tasted differently.

I'm not sure if this is in the plans though I did read Xeno had lots of placeholder art, I've seen some alpha gameplay and what I felt was missing was well.. mostly animations and art. Do note I'm not expecting AAA 3d graphics, 2d is fine but it could use slightly more detailed animations to show off what is actually happening. (or perhaps I didn't see the good videos yet - I may be being unfair since it was an old video, didn't have to time to play it YET but will do so soon).

What I enjoyed watching was the aerial combat, seems to have much more depth than XCOM:EU. In fact as a whole xenonauts seems to have more depth.