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

[Sirinan]

@Sinfullyvannila

FULL FANBOYISM HO!

Really your posts are so annoying to read right now. People gave you a ton of legit reasons of why this game is dumbed down. The reason you don't see it is becouse you hold your hands to your ears and say : "Herp derp derp blocking it out".

Console yourself that it's almost certainly worse on the Firaxis forums - I'll bet that anyone posting anything like a balanced view of the game would get flamed out of existence.

[GoodGuyEddy]

On a second thought, just ignore what i said. By this point in time everyones point of view is set in stone.

I JUST DON'T WANT TBS TO GET WORSE, i love this genre. *sob *sob

Edited November 1, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[HWP]

I JUST DON'T WANT TBS TO GET WORSE, i love this genre. *sob *sob

No need to worry then, XCOM:EU is not a TBS. Formally by genre it's a TBT. Practically it's barely even that.

It still has some entertainment value, it just isn't X-COM or a real strategy game.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Oh yes it can. If the only thing that is forcing you is poor game design.

Minimalism is not poor game design. Because...

You have just admitted that a 1994 unfinished, pushed out game is more tactically flexible than a 2012 finished one. Seeing a problem here?

And yes flexibility = freedom. Becouse with more flexibility there are more manuevers and thus more strategies that you can execue.

Take chess for example. Would it chess be a better strategy game if the king could teleport, could castle an unlimited number of times and had a ranged attack? You'd certainly have a lot more flexibility, but I'm pretty sure any serious chess player would disagree.

Games are nothing more than a set of rules, which are all limitations. So games(particularly strategy games) are defined by their limitations. In a strategy, game, limitations that make you think(regardless of whether or not they are grounded in our reality, the goal isn't realism), are good limitations, because they force you to formulate a strategy.

Really your posts are so annoying to read right now. People gave you a ton of legit reasons of why this game is dumbed down. The reason you don't see it is becouse you hold your hands to your ears and say : "Herp derp derp blocking it out".

Most of those reasons are illogical and really not legitimate at all. Limited inventory? Oh no, I have to think about which item I'm bringing in! Restricted move system? Oh no, I have to think about how I'm going to spend my turn! Less soldiers per mission? Oh no, my soldiers aren't just expendable fodder I can discard at a whim! Limited terrain destruction? Oh no, I have to think about when the best time to destroy cover is!

Now, if you don't like those design decisions, that's fine. If you think that they are flaws, that's fine. If you don't like the game, that's fine. There are some legitimate spots where the game is admittedly dumbed down(pointless Labs, Firestorms are strictly better than Interceptors, no regards to base defense[a forgivable concession considering that base defenses were an awful idea]). But these don't dumb the game down, because they actually make you think about the decisions you make.

It does not work the same. I already listed thatin a revious post. And it is not reflected because in a TU based game(like GA2) everyone can do that. The "perks" are just a cheap way to try to cover up for the abundance of nonsensical limitations of the modern game. Now a gunslinger perk is a cool idea for this RPG system, ideas like that are good. But not the ability to shoot twice. Everyone should be able to do that. I mean if i don't waste time running and the shooting once but just start shooting and only be able to shoot once, where does the extra time go? And at least a third of all the "skills" are like that. Running out of ideas how to pad out the "skill" tree firaxis? Oh yes silly me, they wouldn't want to give too many options to the player in a TBS, they would actually need to develop a proper AI, and balance the aliens *le gasp

The perks work around the same philosophy as cards in a CCG. If you've never played one before, the cardinal rule for them is that if a card contradicts a rule, the card's rule takes precedence. Perks serve to make new rules or alter old ones. They make you think about which classes to use and how to use them, when to break a rule and how important it is for that rule to be broken. Again, the goal isn't realism, the goal is to make an environment where rules interact in a way to make you think about when and how to use them.

Oh, and pretty much any notable CCG has limitations on how many of the same cards can be used. In tournament rules, sometimes a card is restricted to one copy, or banned altogether.

The reason i'm saying this is not because the unfinished original was a perfect game. But because a 60 FUCKING DOLLAR GAME, THAT IS A STRATEGY, HAS NO RIGHT TO BE A MORE SHALLOW STRATEGICAL EXPERIENCE TYHAN THE EXACT SAME GAME FROM 18 BLOODY YEARS AGO!

Well, that's up to your personal definition of depth and how it affects your strategic experience. It could be argued that X-Com is a much deeper experience than Chess, but I'm willing to guess you'd have a lot harder time and have to think a lot more to beat the newer Chessmaster games than the original X-Com.

FULL FANBOYISM HO!

Not really. "Fanboys" are usually defined by their lack of willingness to admit flaws(which I admitted where flaws were present), lack of willingness to accept others opinions about the overall quality of the game(which I didn't do), ignorance of one game in question during a two-game discussion(which I didn't demonstrate), favoritism towards a certain brand(which I didn't display), and lack of willingness to look at a game from outside your own experience(I honestly didn't even realize people were so attached to the Sim elements of the game and in some cases viewed the game more as a Sim game than a strategy, which I believe I conceded that the old one is a better Sim game than a new one, but I personally evaluate it as a Strategy game).

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[Gorlom]

Oh, ok, so would chess be a better strategy game if the king could teleport, could castle an unlimited number of times and had a ranged attack? You'd certainly have a lot more flexibility, but I'm pretty sure any serious chess player would disagree.

That is not adding flexibility. If the king could teleport there is only ever one move you could make in chess. white king to black king: check mate.

Making stuff more powerful does not add flexebility or strategy. It is completley different from allowing a unit to take a step around a poisonous cloud rather than forcing a unit to walk through it (when going from point A to B) because it's the shortest path.

I'm not sure Chess is a good example of minimalistic game design. Checkers or tic tac toe strikes me as better choices. Granted Go and other eastern ancient board games are more "flexible" than Chess, so it is possible to make a better strategy game (from a number of strategies available point of view at least).

Edited November 1, 2012 by Gorlom

[Sinfullyvannila]

That would be illegal, since you are putting your own king into checkmate.

Yes it is adding flexibility, you get more options with your King, so that makes the game deeper and more flexible by the definition that's been going around here. That's my point entirely. You add too many options without regard to the overall design of the game and you have freedom, but there's very little reason to have to think about anything. That's what the original is like. It's not so much a strategy game as it is an alien killing playground game. And while that is fun, there really isn't much strategy required.

Don't run through poisonous clouds(or bring a medkit when fighting Thin Men, they make you immune to poisom). There's almost never a reason to do that.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[Gorlom]

That wouldn't be checkmate.

my bad, you are right the black king would be in check mate before the white player made his move.

Yes it is adding flexibility, you get more options with your King, so that makes the game deeper and more flexible by the definition that's been going around here. That's my point entirely.

in that case the general definition about flexibility is in my opinion wrong. You can't add flexibility by arbitrarily making things stronger without context (you'd end up invalidating other strategies or options). However if you made the playing field bigger rather than affecting the pieces chess would have more options. ( pretty much what they did with 3D chess)

You add too many options without regard to the overall design of the game and you have freedom, but there's very little reason to have to think about anything. That's what the original is like. It's not so much a strategy game as it is an alien killing playground game. And while that is fun, there really isn't much strategy required.

I disagree about you asessment regarding the original X-com.

Don't run through poisonous clouds. There's almost never a reason to do that, but yeah, the pathing is could be better.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Gorlom

[GoodGuyEddy]

I know i said i wouldn't bother, but scumbag brain makes me really want to adress this point.

That's what the original is like. It's not so much a strategy game as it is an alien killing playground game.

Excuse me!?

In the original you outnumbered the aliens on most occasions. You had to plan out your advance, arrange your squad into smaller teams. You couldn't just steamroll the game untill the last moments of the game because the aliens were more powerful than you. They were tougher , more accurate ,killed you quicker. Hmm sounding like a fanboy now...The original XCOM sucked! <_< ...>_>

In the remake they switched the roles. Now the aliens are constantly zerging you. Just spam overwatch and you're set. Allmost allways there were 6 soldiers vs 10+aliens who did not go on overwatch/utilize cover before they spot you(why would they? They have a gimmick . Can't force those game developers to put much effort into AI!).

I really don't hold XCOM as the holy grail of strategy, but the hypocrisy of that statement was jus...ARGHH!

there's very little reason to have to think about anything.

It's not so much a strategy game as it is an alien killing playground game.

2012Xcom EU in a nutshell.

You add too many options without regard to the overall design of the game

But you dont have to. You can add just enough that the game obtains a layer of depth. Moving AFTER shooting, not insta ending your turn on a reload/shot taken.(LMG being the only acceptable case). Thats it! So little yet means so much for gameplay. And they could have balanced the game around it, but they didn't. And that's what's infuriating. So close, but if they just put a bit more work into it it would be ok. You are basically arguing with our points by going into the full extreemes of the other direction, when what is asked for is far from those extremes. Implying that just a bit deeper level of tactical possibility is overcomplication, but it's not. They just decided not to work around the extra possibilites and just focused on the eye candy portion of the game. And that is very poor game development.

Infact the game would be perfect if they went into the opposite direction. Making the aliens over the top powerful, but allowing for multiple actions per turn would force you to think about ways of outmanuevering your opponent, outwitting them and ultimatly creating favourable positions for your self. Thats the beauty of a potential of a game like this. Can you look at this from our side at least for a second?

Instead the remake made you the overwhelming force that steamrolls over everything because that is literally the only thing it can mechanically do. Just give us more options like all the other good TBS games, give aliens actual advantages and done! Kind of like chris is doing but with many times the budget and work force. But we wouldn't want to scare away the teen customers derpy herp perp. No, we wouldn't big companies. Make it simple and defeat the point.

And most importantly blah, bluh blop nuh....

... Why am i still here?

Edited November 1, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[Infinitum]

Really, though. X-COM never was a very deep strategy game from the outset. Space your dudes to avoid grenades and then advance in leapfrog order, saving as many TU's for reaction shots as possible. If encountering enemy, pray the reaction fire doesn't kill your spotter, then focus it down. Maybe use an explosive every once in a while to clear the field of fire. Rinse, repeat, eventually get Blaster Launchers and Psychics in order to remove risk for the sniper squaddies entirely. Go to Cydonia. Kill brain.

..And that's about it really. Sure there were a lot of content beyond this in the game, but none which promoted tactically diverse gameplay. With no objectives beyond "kill everything", and no time restraints and an opposition whose only tactics were staying put and random roaming, there was never any incentive to deviate from using the above method to systematically kill everything. The game was unforgiving, sure. Sometimes brutal. But tactically challenging?

Alien killing playground game about covers it, really.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Yeah I was going to write another long reply, but pretty much everything you just said has absolutely no basis in reality.

Go ahead and keep calling me names, putting words in my mouth and having a completely rose-colored perception of the original. That's really making you look good.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Really, though. X-COM never was a very deep strategy game from the outset. Space your dudes to avoid grenades and then advance in leapfrog order, saving as many TU's for reaction shots as possible. If encountering enemy, pray the reaction fire doesn't kill your spotter, then focus it down. Maybe use an explosive every once in a while to clear the field of fire. Rinse, repeat, eventually get Blaster Launchers and Psychics in order to remove risk for the sniper squaddies entirely. Go to Cydonia. Kill brain.

..And that's about it really. Sure there were a lot of content beyond this in the game, but none which promoted tactically diverse gameplay. With no objectives beyond "kill everything", and no time restraints and an opposition whose only tactics were staying put and random roaming, there was never any incentive to deviate from using the above method to systematically kill everything. The game was unforgiving, sure. Sometimes brutal. But tactically challenging?

Alien killing playground game about covers it, really.

This, exactly this. Thank you. It felt like I was the only person here who actually played the game in the last decade.

[GoodGuyEddy]

Go ahead and keep calling me names, putting words in my mouth and having a completely rose-colored perception of the original.

Yep, the "scumbag ear" picture sums up your attitude nicely.

Really, i am not putting words in your mouth and i don't even love the original at all, it was "meh" at best. Are you honestly teling me that you see no problem that all the "AAA" industry can turn out is an even more shallow game than a game that is 18 years old!? And for 60 bucks no less. The major problem is that they have dumbed down the only tactical element of the original(TU) while not going far enough from it in other places.

but pretty much everything you just said has absolutely no basis in reality.

Why not? I did not ask for a cure for cancer or anything outlandish. Just it to be better than an 18 year old game. Is that impossible? Is the technlogy not there yet? Oh righ i disagree with you ergo i am always wrong and the perfect new XCOM is perfect in every possible way and adding two more lines of code and balancing the aliens around that, is just too much.

X-COM never was a very deep strategy game from the outset.

I never said it did! I said that it was deeper than what we have now. And with all the hype, budget and manpower thay should have done much better then they did. Why are you ignoring everything and pretendidng that all i want is carbon copy of the original?

You are the ones putting words in my mouth. Do you know how nerve wrecking, and infuriating it is?

But yeah, keep ignoring arguments and keep calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a hater(or implying other words with a similar meaning). That makes you look sooo much more enlightened.

Enjoy the steamroll experience, because lord knows game developers will not be putting out anything better if everyone keeps pretending that the game they bought is perfect in every way and could not be possibly improved.

I have wasted way too much nerves here.

Edited November 1, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[LittleNicky]

I agree that the new game should not be 60$. To do again I would buy it for maybe 20$ or 15$. There is no replaying worth in the new game. I beat on classic and started on impossible but got bored. Actually I did not have the feeling like I beat it. More rather it beat itself while I clicked things that are very obvious. This is not a good game design to me.

[Sinfullyvannila]

I think Eddy is having a bad day. It's just an opinion about a game dude, chill out.

I never said that the new game is deeper than the original. Just that it requires more strategy to beat.

I just don't value depth for depth's sake. If the game is deep, but doesn't require you to plumb it's depths to succeed, that depth is pointless and only really serves to get in the way.

[GoodGuyEddy]

I'm sorry man.

I am only seeking out the elements of the game that i really hate, and criticizing them because i want devs to do better, when "better" means just one more tiny step dove game developers but a great leap for gameplay. I bet it would be better if they didn't have the IP. The original had only one interceptor and the "two step" weapon progression.(laser>plasma(or should i say heavy plasma beause that is the only thing you used in that game)).

1.Do more interceptors, 2.make the enemy much stronger than you are 3.and allow moves in any combination (do not end with one shot unless there is an actual reason for it). And there - perfect.

Outsmarting a vastly superior foe and with time asimilate his strengs so the ultimate victory would be possible.

The essence of this kind of game, and i can't wait for it to be done to it's best execution.

If the game is deep, but doesn't require you to plumb it's depths to succeed

And Chris pulls off his ambitions then the essence of XCOM will be combined with depth that requires you to plumb it's depths that'll be the perfect tactical sci-fi experience for guys like me!

Please Chris you are our only hope!

Edit:

Just that it requires more strategy to beat.

No it doesn't. They are about the same strategy wise. I don't mean depth as in having a billion mechanics but how many strategies can be executed. But since mechanics are tighty connected with the strategies you can utilize, maybe that blurry line is what made us percieve each others meanings differently than intended.

I also hate complexity for complexitys sake, but all i was trying to say is that by giving you the options for more strategies(it gives you less , thats why everyone cries "dumbed down") and enforcing the need for those strategies with powerful oponents(not by tweaking the "to hi"t chance in their favor, but by making them tougher, much more damaging). That's what would make it perfect, and really thats all i was trying to say all along.

"Give me a lot of tools, and make me use them to beat a nie unstoppable force".

I am crawling out of my skin to phrase this as best as i can. I suck at phrasing

In hindsight i was only planning for this retort to be no bigger than seven lines. Just to express the essence of what i sturdly believe to be wrong with the game. But as you see i can't make it shorter than "War and Peace".

Edited November 1, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[Sinfullyvannila]

Yeah, I really don't have a problem with the kind of game you are describing, it sounds really good. The term "dumbed down" really just gets to me.

Have you play UFO: Extraterrestrials GOLD at all? I think you may like it.(the gold edition is basically just an integrated mod that allows you to change a bunch of the UE's flaws.)

[LittleNicky]

Just that it requires more strategy to beat.

This new game does not require much strategy. This is not comparing to the first game. I am meaning all by itself. The strategy parts does not require for much input from the players. I have the feeling of the game holding my hand through the strategy parts. It allows me to make some very limited decisions on the tactics things but that is not the strategy parts. The new game requires strategy of follow directions the workers say to do and you win. That's how it happened to me anyway. There were no options that are meaningful to do except to let me be led around doing what I am told.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Ya, I understand. It doesn't require a ton of strategy, it just annoys me when people say it doesn't compared to the old one.

Which difficulty did you play on again?

[LittleNicky]

The term "dumbed down" really just gets to me.

I do not understand this. I look things up many times because my english is not as best. This term meaning 'The act of taking a product and watering down elements of it to make it appeal to a broader mass market. This often damages or destroys the very elements that gave the product any appeal in the first place.' is what that happened to the new xcom. Maybe I am not realizing the meaning that you think. This one I quote above is the one that I mean when I say about the new xcom.

[LittleNicky]

Ya, I understand. It doesn't require a ton of strategy, it just annoys me when people say it doesn't compared to the old one.

Which difficulty did you play on again?

I beat on classic and did not finish imposible when I got bored with it.

[GoodGuyEddy]

Have you play UFO: Extraterrestrials GOLD at all? I think you may like it.(the gold edition is basically just an integrated mod that allows you to change a bunch of the UE's flaws.)

Oh yes, pretty nice. well i played the normal version. Gold edition didn't exist at the time. I spent like 30% of the total time nerding out in the UFOpedia. The major issue with that game is that you can't play it in iron man mode.

Let me explain.

All next gen guns requires a very high "strengh stat". And most rookies can only hold like a laser rifle(weapon tier2/5).And those that can hold a plasma(3/5). Have parkinsons disease, so good luck hitting anything. Now when i lost some elites and the rest were hospitalized, i fielded mostly rookies. All they could carry are laser rifles. Thing is my enemys by that point were two meter tall fish cyborg bastards. I shit you not, i got one of my rookies point blank next to one and unloaded the entire clip into the cyborg with burst shots. That didn't even scrach him. Game over. If i am hiring badass mercenaries then please make them competent. If the stats were anything to go by then the game implied that the top rank soldiers were exceeding the limits of the human body. And experience can't do that. And i don't mean world guiness book of records kind of exceeding, i mean comic book characters kind of exceeding.

If you are telling me that i am hiring badasses then please make them competent at a base level, game.

They got the nie unstoppable force more or less right, but forgot that you shouldn't run an elite organization with janitors.

And the vehicles were useless. But still a nice game. Don't know if it's way better with gold, but it's not really worth a replay for me.

Luckily enough Chris is adressing this problem by having the vehicles be able to switch weapons. And with giving all aliens special powers and "hypevelocity" mechanics to weapons, hillarity will ensue. >:]

Xenonauts are not doing anything over the top, but the potential of shooting through walls with sci-fi guns and small touches like that, really present a heck lot of moves to be used in combat. Which is why i really hope Xenonauts will succeed.

Edit: God damn in "War and Peace"!

Oh and it lloks like a kitty appeared while i was typing.

Edited November 1, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[Sinfullyvannila]

I do not understand this. I look things up many times because my english is not as best. This term meaning 'The act of taking a product and watering down elements of it to make it appeal to a broader mass market. This often damages or destroys the very elements that gave the product any appeal in the first place.' is what that happened to the new xcom. Maybe I am not realizing the meaning that you think. This one I quote above is the one that I mean when I say about the new xcom.

Ahh, ok. Yeah, I can see where the confusion is then. Yeah, by that definition, I can understand someone calling it dumbed down.

When I hear it though, I think more of it specifically being easier, or requiring less thought to be put in it as before.

[Sinfullyvannila]

One thing I believe the mod addressed is that, from what I hear, soldiers were given to you automatically. In the mod, you hire soldiers and can filter their stats so that you can get higher aim and strength if you need to. Also, as you level up, you pick which stats you improve.

[dracopticon]

Get a Heavy with the Grenadier perk, there, two grenades.

Perks are for computer Role Playing Games, where they stereotype the characters to such a degree that it's silly. But that's also in line with todays gaming on consoles and even PCs: people can't cope with a lot of different choices when it comes to tactical games like UFO nowadays. And exactly like Par'Gellen says, it's just BOOO stupid to limit stuff down to either a protective vest (that isn't even put in the right compartment on the soldier) OR a grenade. How many times does this have to be mentioned to be discussed and generally agreed on?

I understand the game designers want the XCOM:EU game to be like a battlefield chess game - like "when you use that tactic with that playing piece, this happens" - but then they should call it XCOM:Chess! It is restricting and limiting into a level that's only insulting to the classic XCOM player mind.

The graphics are very nice, but crawling around in night time cities that look much the same whether you're in New Delhi or New York is also stupid. It's a world view for the uninformed masses. It's from a world "overrun by tourists with 89 flowers on their back" to quote 'the artist fomerly known as Prince'.

[Sinfullyvannila]

I think you are just dismissing everyone that the one item limit doesn't bother. Yeah, everyone agrees that it's unrealistic, but not everyone thinks that makes it a bad thing. Besides, really, how often did you use more than 1 or 2 grenades total per mission in the old one?

The graphics are very nice, but crawling around in night time cities that look much the same whether you're in New Delhi or New York is also stupid. It's a world view for the uninformed masses. It's from a world "overrun by tourists with 89 flowers on their back" to quote 'the artist fomerly known as Prince'.

This is exactly the same as the original.