The XCOM veteran's two main reasons the XCOM:EU game is bad.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Because they called it XCOM.

They did it to use the marketing power behind this name.

But by doing so they also build certain expectations for the xcom hardcore base.

It's a decent game, but it's a bad Xcom.

My expectations were exceeded.

It's a great game and a great XCOM.

[Henry Jekyll]

this game is bad, imho. reasons:

the main part of the game is the tactical combat. for that reason alone the developers have made 4 significat simplifications:

1. you can´t move free in the map.

2. you can´t make the number of actions you like even if you have enough time, only 2 and sometimes only one.

3. you have umlimited ammo.

4. you can equip only a predefined amount of predefined equipment in predefined slots.

every simplification in this game makes it poorer, the diamont looses one facet one by one. after all you have a glass marble instead of an diamond.

general:

* only one base. another simplification. the radars you can build can scan the entire airspace of the world because there sattelites.

the aliens dont shoot this sattelites, they are safe in the earth orbit.

in xcom you must build an base on every continent or you take the risk to miss some importent alien activity in some regions and it was always possible to lose a base (alien raid).

this is history, no alien raids on the base in firaxis game.

this game was created for casual gamers, the developers try to be all things to all men. the only way to ensure maximum profit.

henry

Edited December 4, 2012 by Henry Jekyll

[dracopticon]

Why do you always bash different games?

Do you really know me that well, that you can honestly judge from my plethora of posts that I "always bash different games"? I think not, I myself wouldn't assume to say a thing like that about you, simply because I don't know you, or your posts well enough.

In another of my replies, I said that I praise Firaxis for the Alpha Centauri game, but bash them for XCOM:EU. That's within my right, just as it is your right to bash or praise games in or out of your taste. I am exactly as negative as I want, because it is a democratic right to be that, just as it is being positive about things. As I've played the X-COM games from the very start (I am 48 years of age now), I can honestly compare them, and do so with a "X-COM veteran's opinion".

[dracopticon]

this game is bad, imho. reasons:

the main part of the game is the tactical combat. for that reason alone the developers have made 4 significat simplifications:

1. you can´t move free in the map.

2. you can´t make the number of actions you like even if you have enough time, only 2 and sometimes only one.

3. you have umlimited ammo.

4. you can equip only a predifined amount of predifined equipment in predifined slots.

every simplification in this game makes it poorer, the diamont looses one facet one by one. after all you have a glass marble instead of an diamond.

general:

* only one base. another simplification. the radars you can build can scan the entire airspace of the world because there sattelites.

the aliens dont shoot this sattelites, they are safe in the earth orbit.

in xcom you must build an base on every continent or you take the risk to miss some importent alien activity in some regions and it was always possible to lose a base (alien raid).

this is history, no alien raids on the base in firaxis game.

this game was created for casual gamers, the developers try to be all things to all men. the only way to ensure maximum profit.

henry

Good summary! I concur.

[icepick37]

I've seen plenty of hardcore gamers enjoying it. So it's not like it can't appeal to both "casual" and "hardcore" gamers. I don't think it's fair to say that it's a "bad xcom", but it's fine for you to not like it. (shrug)

I also don't agree with the idea that added complexity is always added depth. That said, I do prefer games that allow lots of meaningful choices, like ufo defenses crazy micromanagement lets you do.

[Mew]

OK... I think I will add my two cents in.

Enemy Unknown's problem is that it oversimplified. Some of what it does are definite improvements but the problem is that it wants too much to be 'streamlined' and in doing so, remove depth.

Let me explain.

Reducing from time units to actions can make sense. Many tactical games use actions instead of an overcomplicated time unit system and it works great. The problem is that actions are too limited ; you can only move-move, move-shoot/use item, or shoot/use item. What they should have done is have a larger pool of actions, reduce their potency, and have some 'harder' actions take up more actions (or be counted as more than one). In short, there is a balance between the incredibly complex and nigh-impenetrable time unit system (which works wonders given you can master, true... but this is given you can master it, that is) and the overly simplified, limited 'move-move' action system.

But what truly annoyed me is the unability to fire freely. That was my true beef. You cannot destroy cover, create your own, or even just target foes that you don't see. Likewise, foes always have that silly 'OMG! Aliens here!' cutscene and then get a free turn. Every time. It can be compensated for but it seems like an artificial limitation. It must be noted that the 'enemy only attack when viewed' point is actually exhagerated ; the dumber aliens do so but once you make it to Mutons and Ethereals, the 'get to cover when spotted' things is actually revealed for what it is: the enemy get a free turn upon first contact. This can become extremely deadly and frustrating as the foes will flank you from the dark and then get a free turn, allowing them to crack your defense not because you made a mistake but because the mechanic allow them to play twice in a row.

But the above are admitely minor compared to the Geoscape.

My REAL beef with the Geoscape is not that you don't get extra bases. Functions in-game would make them redundant. The only really bad thing is how little the workshop and lab extensions do (just new engineers) and that although the game allow you extra interceptors, it do not allow extra skyrangers for some odd reason.

And this brings me to the real problem of Enemy Unknown.

In the old games, you were actually leading a real war against an unknown enemy. Aliens sent scouting forces, identified targets, placed bases, and then deployed terror and attack ships to destroy X-com's funding. Putting pressure on them meant their ships begun to get escorts and that they'd try to locate your bases and then attack them.

But in Enemy Unknown? You get 1-3 random UFOs per month, one terror mission, maybe one request by the council, and that's it. It's just random events with every base attacks and what not being only story missions. Not that story missions are bad ; I don't think anyone will complain about the Cydonia, T'leth, or Alien Dimension missions in the old X-com bases. The real problem is that there is no actual strategic element outside of base management.

And that is what truly hurt Enemy Unknown on the long term. You cannot ever truly get overwhelmed by the aliens nor can you truly ever pressure them. The only measure of doing well or not is the panic meter for the nations.

The panic meter was one thing that Enemy Unknown wasted, in particular. A bad element of the original games was that you didn't know the panic level of nations. Enemy Unknown show you a clear, fancy display of how every nation felt about you. The problem was that since it's all event-based and the game force the panic meter to rise constantly in an artificial way (via not allowing you to build more Skyrangers to deal with all terror sites), it become little more than a game over timer. This is especially sadening that Terror from the Deep actually did a similar concept (forcing you to eventually move on with the plot via worsening odds) much better than just stopping you from dealing with terror sites.

I could go on but I won't.

In short? Enemy Unknown did many things well, it did many things badly. One should learn lessons from the points where its streamlining worked and avoid the pitfalls it caught.

[Henry Jekyll]

it´s bullshit and you know that.

[icepick37]

Mew: I think I agree with all of this. Well said.

Thanks for that enlightening post, Mr. Hyde, care to expand a little?

[StellarRat]

Mew: I think I agree with all of this. Well said.

Thanks for that enlightening post, Mr. Hyde, care to expand a little?

I think he's saying the game is crap and Mew is being too diplomatic...

[icepick37]

I think he's saying the game is crap and Mew is being too diplomatic...

Oooooooooh. That does make sense.

Never played it. It doesn't look worth my time/money. It is fun to watch people die mercilessly in streams, though, heh.

[Mew]

Well, if that's the feeling...

Frankly, I'm being diplomatic because although the game is pretty mediocre, it did do a few things well and on first playthrough, it does a decent job.

I must stress that the 'panic meter' point is something that I'm baffled took this long to be implemented in a X-Com game. It would have saved me a ton of trouble in the original games if I knew how close to pulling the plug the various nations were in the older games instead of having a rather vague 'Excellent-OK-Average-Bad-Terrible' rating that doesn't mean anything really.

And the 'one base' point worked surprisingly well.

But those two points alone do not prevent the game from suffering from event-based gameplay (aliens appearing in vacuum), cheating AI (enemy get a free turn when spotted. Cannot destroy cover. Cannot target opponents you don't directly see), and shallow tactical depth (no ammunition shortages, weapons are class-limited, the likes).

They said 'streamlined'. In truth, it's actually and truly dumbed down. I have to side with the haters on that point.

[StellarRat]

Well, the new SimCity is due out pretty soon. I hope to hell they haven't "streamlined" that one as well. The new graphics look amazing, but they'll mean nothing if the depth isn't there. It used to be that a new version used to mean more options and greater depth, now it seems the opposite is true. I'm starting to wonder if the human race is actually getting stupider or maybe so lazy we don't even want to think anymore.

[Wintermist]

They could have PRETENDED there was more XCOM bases, to let us understand that we're just one of many. And give us some troll feedback at every montly report. That would have given us a setting more realistic and plausible.

Also, yes, the base defense mission being ignored, bad call really. Sure it didn't have to be like in the original, but in a very modified way. Perhaps even in XCOM favor so that you just can't lose it and also explain why the aliens try again. Atleast something that tells you that they tried.

But meh, I did not like the new XCOM, the only thing nice about it was the combat and graphics. It lacked everything else.

[thothkins]

I must stress that the 'panic meter' point is something that I'm baffled took this long to be implemented in a X-Com game. It would have saved me a ton of trouble in the original games if I knew how close to pulling the plug the various nations were in the older games instead of having a rather vague 'Excellent-OK-Average-Bad-Terrible' rating that doesn't mean anything really.

Between funding fluctuations, graphs on UFO activity in areas/countries and intercepting certain craft types, I thought the original had this part well covered.

[StellarRat]

Between funding fluctuations, graphs on UFO activity in areas/countries and intercepting certain craft types, I thought the original had this part well covered.

Agree. It would nice to have some type of map overlay indicating the general level of happniness with XCom though by region. You know a "picture is worth a thousand words."

[HWP]

But meh, I did not like the new XCOM, the only thing nice about it was the combat and graphics. It lacked everything else.

Combat was OK, but very repetitive after a point.

Graphics... disappointed me, I hoped to see something like Mass Effect (just the first one), instead it was modern but meh.

Also, yes, the base defense mission being ignored, bad call really. Sure it didn't have to be like in the original, but in a very modified way.

Well, they couldn't make it because of their static maps.

Although I think they could have you defend the entrance up top.

For a game that's so easy to lose in unintended ways because of a few dice rolls, one mission, even one through the whole campaign, with an intended possibility to lose it would not change much, but be a nice touch.

I'm sure it had to be proposed at some point. Then some Firaxis exec just shrugged, asked Marketing - "You think it will sell without base defense?", Marketing said "Don't see why not", and so it was.

[crusherven]

OK... I think I will add my two cents in.

Enemy Unknown's problem is that it oversimplified. Some of what it does are definite improvements but the problem is that it wants too much to be 'streamlined' and in doing so, remove depth.

Let me explain.

Reducing from time units to actions can make sense. Many tactical games use actions instead of an overcomplicated time unit system and it works great. The problem is that actions are too limited ; you can only move-move, move-shoot/use item, or shoot/use item. What they should have done is have a larger pool of actions, reduce their potency, and have some 'harder' actions take up more actions (or be counted as more than one). In short, there is a balance between the incredibly complex and nigh-impenetrable time unit system (which works wonders given you can master, true... but this is given you can master it, that is) and the overly simplified, limited 'move-move' action system.

I agree inasmuch as they should have allowed the possibility to shoot/move--the game punishes aggressive behavior, but shooting without moving "wastes" a move.

But what truly annoyed me is the unability to fire freely. That was my true beef. You cannot destroy cover, create your own, or even just target foes that you don't see. Likewise, foes always have that silly 'OMG! Aliens here!' cutscene and then get a free turn. Every time.

Sure, the cutscene got annoying, and free firing would be nice. I like that you can't target enemies you can't see unless you're a trained sniper, though. Really, they should have let the player use suppressing fire on an area.

It can be compensated for but it seems like an artificial limitation. It must be noted that the 'enemy only attack when viewed' point is actually exhagerated ; the dumber aliens do so but once you make it to Mutons and Ethereals, the 'get to cover when spotted' things is actually revealed for what it is: the enemy get a free turn upon first contact. This can become extremely deadly and frustrating as the foes will flank you from the dark and then get a free turn, allowing them to crack your defense not because you made a mistake but because the mechanic allow them to play twice in a row.

No, that's because you made a mistake: exploring a new area with your final move. Throw a sensor out there to get a free shot at enemies before they move. The reason the enemy gets a free move is that the AI is incapable of acting on its own--it can only react to what the player does. They had to give the AI a free move or the game would be even easier.

The panic meter was one thing that Enemy Unknown wasted, in particular. A bad element of the original games was that you didn't know the panic level of nations. Enemy Unknown show you a clear, fancy display of how every nation felt about you. The problem was that since it's all event-based and the game force the panic meter to rise constantly in an artificial way (via not allowing you to build more Skyrangers to deal with all terror sites), it become little more than a game over timer.

With a sound strategy, it's not *that* hard to avoid losing from panic, unless you skip/lose missions, of course, or misuse satellites. On harder difficulties you may find it prudent to give up a continent, but it's hardly a "game-over timer." Perhaps if you had used the strategy you claim the game lacks...

I think the game suffers heavily in the replayability department, but it does reward tactical play and have strategic choices on the geoscape.

[MrPyro]

No, that's because you made a mistake: exploring a new area with your final move.

The issue with that is that exploring a new area can be accidental; for example, firing a rocket at an alien and destroying the cover behind them might reveal further aliens behind the wall.

The reason the enemy gets a free move is that the AI is incapable of acting on its own--it can only react to what the player does. They had to give the AI a free move or the game would be even easier.

That strikes me as lazy programming; they couldn't/didn't want to write an AI model that would act sensibly outside of direct combat (moving from cover to cover, etc.), and so put in a hack instead.

[HWP]

The whole AI was probably done by an Indian on his lunch breaks in between cloned android apps and web 1.0 sites for small stores.

Or maybe not. In that case it should have been.

[thothkins]

Why Indian? I think you're looking for the game Xenophobes and came here by mistake

Edited December 10, 2012 by thothkins

[Gorlom]

I think he is referencing outsourcing jobs to India and that their ridicolously high education from Indian universities only bringing them menial jobs like cab drivers?

[thothkins]

I did type a smiley in there you know

[Gorlom]

oh dear me i mistook it for multiple exclamationmarks. my bad

[centiles]

The whole AI was probably done by an Indian on his lunch breaks in between cloned android apps and web 1.0 sites for small stores.

Are you from Germany? A widespread opinion here is, indians are hired because they are cheap. They are said to have not too great education, but for (financial) tactical reasons companies here say there are no german experts ("Fachkräftemangel") in order to have a constant flow of cheap foreigners.

I don't know about the qualification of indian experts. What I think is, they cannot have that many super duper experienced guys who started computing with Commodore C64 etc...

ridicolously high education from Indian universities

With a smiley or without?

[licker]

It's interesting that on the 2K forums many people are now expressing how they simply cannot go back to a TU based tactical system. Frankly, I agree with them.

After trying to replay some UFO:ET missions... it was just painful. Sadly, Xenonaughts feels the same to me now. The simple elegance and simplicity of the 2 action system seems to have ruined TUs for me. Needless and often irritating click clicking

Oh well. Funny how perceptions change.

For what it's worth (though I know many will disagree), the 2 action system does not feel dumbed down or limited at all to me. Rather, TU systems feel over complicated and offers too many ways to 'cheese' various scenarios. That and TUs just play so slowly, and feel more prone to misclicks since you have to be far more of a bean counter to try and maximize your movement/shots/actions. That's just not really fun to me anymore.