Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 343: XCOM 2

Recommended Posts

I haven't played XCOM2 yet (I decided years ago that life is to short to be playing PC games on release -even if there are no bugs, there will still be balance issues) . But i have to say, a few of the panelists on this show appear to have played XCOM1 far too much, and forgotten what it is like for a new player. Speaking as somebody late to the party, and still trying to complete the game the way it is meant to be played (classic ironman), I feel nearly all the criticisms the panel make of 2 could easily apply to 1. The game hides a lot of important information from the player (a good, if frustrating, design choice I feel, as it makes the aliens feel more alien and more dangerous - if the game told you how to go about beating the aliens and what all their strengths and weaknesses were off the bat, it would lose a lot). 

 

Overall, disappointing show. I'd much rather you all waited a month or two and then gave us some in-depth insightful commentary. 3MA is at its best when it's happily behind the times and discussing a game that's been patched by the devs, and played properly by the panelists. For example, even though I haven't yet played EU4, I still enjoy those shows as the game is mature and the panelists generally know exactly what they're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circling back around, I didn't really say anything about XCOM 2 when I commented.

 

My comment is that I think XCOM 2 is a fantastic game that is absolutely hamstrung by its weird technical hitches. I am a player that will often get into analysis paralysis, and that was very true with XCOM. I was sometimes scared to go to that big ol' spinny globe and let the world rotate, because the only shit that would happen felt like bad shit that was going to make countries leave or get my soldiers killed. I think the game's absolute best strategy decision was its setting. Building up a guerrilla resistance to overthrow a hugely powerful foe works so much better for me than the strongest powers in the world collapsing against the weight of an invasion. I love the little poke at its own predecessor that you lost XCOM 1, contrary to panel belief. This game has invoked a one more turn mentality on the world map that I absolutely could not have predicted before purchase.

 

This will sound weird, but I have gotten into a rhythm where I have nightly rage quits playing the game, and I mean that as a compliment. I am tired enough that I know I should go to bed, but I throw the dice one more time that I can get the next bit of research done before ADVENT strikes back. Inevitably, they do, and I roll in and tactically screw up badly enough that I get people killed. I throw up my hands, yell fuck it, and Alt-F4 because the game is still hard enough that you need to be invested in the tactical turns. It is my fault I screwed up, but the game makes me want to keep playing past the point I'm capable of playing well.

 

The biggest flaws in the game are all technical. It's not that I don't want to do a retaliation mission, it's that I don't want to have a 90 second load and then have Bradford just SCREAM at me on turn 2 because someone got shot. The game badly needs a patch, and it does not get a pass for being weirdly filled with glitches and bugs. It is good enough to shine right through them, though. I willingly boot up the game to play even though I know that hitting the caps lock key cuts off 45 seconds of skyranger end of mission. I installed a mod that makes the turns 50% faster, and it makes Bradford shut up. It's a quality of life improvement that I shouldn't have needed, but at the same time the designers knew people would come up with stuff they'd never even think of. I'm excited to find that stuff when I get past needing the technical stuff.

 

XCOM 2 is not a bad game. It's, in spite of itself, a great game that I hope gets even better when they fix the damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree once again with all you wrote there Badfinger.  

 

It may interest you to know that there's a mod called "Quiet Bradford" or something similar.  You can probably guess what it does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had to restart the penultimate mission (the first of the "this is it" missions you can't go back from) because one of my squad got stuck behind a dead Alien. Couldn't move him anywhere :( S**t like that just drives you insane no matter how good a game it is. I hope someone at Firaxis is taking notes! I completely agree with Badfinger there, there is no way I would currently contemplate playing this game in Ironman mode. 

 

The other thing I don't like is the Aesthetic choices in the late game - mainly the look and feel of the 3rd tier weapons and armour. They are took shiny and "perfect" looking for an organization based out of a re-purposed alien craft that is supposedly still eking an existence from whatever it can steal / scavenge or recover from what's left over, while being hunted down by a vastly superior force. I know it's petty but the industrial cobbled together look of the second tier weapons and armour (especially the fantastic looking EXO suits!) fits the feel of the game so much better.

 

I know it doesn't matter the great scheme of things, but if I were any good at modding at all I think that's one of the primary things I would change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main problem with XCOM 2 is that it doesn't explain itself well. I restarted the game twice after I felt I had made major strategic mistakes because I didn't understand the game. On my third play-through I have had a pretty smooth run do to the lessons learned in my abandoned games. On this third run, I have learned even more things that were not at all clear: Oh, I can only build one workshop and one lab? Although my lab has only 2 slots, my unassigned scientists are still speeding up my research?  It takes time to open up the black market, but then it persists for the rest of the game? It really feels like a game that suffers because the people making decisions understood the game too well, so they didn't bother to clarify things for those new to the game. All that said, now that I understand most of the systems I have found it to be an excellent game and am already thinking of new strategies and tactics to try in my next play-through. XCOM 2 has some problems I think, but it felt like in the podcast they weren't able to come near the core issues because they hadn't were so tripped up at the surface level of understanding what was going on in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chalk me down for another "don't get all the Enemy Unknown rose tinting". If anything that game was even more obtuse and easy to mess up without knowing it than XCOM 2, especially on Classic and Impossible games.

 

They've improved on every single problem I had with Enemy Unknown/Enemy Within - almost all the class specialisation choices (I have not found a use for Sword Rangers yet) actually feel like a choice now, the base building isn't a complete chore of a puzzle with an obtuse best answer, the bland airgame is gone. I can't say the research is really improved but it's not really worse either. I was bemused by the comment that you could skip lasers in Enemy Unknown, which runs completely counter to my experiences, lasers were such a huge upgrade from ballistics that I cannot imagine skipping them. I sort of see skipping carapace armour, but you need lasers because a dead alien can't kill you.

 

As someone who played enough Enemy Unknown/Within to have memorised all of the maps (the trainyard and murder street can go die in a fire) the procedural maps, for all their occasional jankiness are such a huge improvement that they alone leave me feeling warm and fuzzy towards the game.

 

Even the camera and line of sight issues are improved on. These issues are still there, but the line of sight indicator is wonderful and the camera is that slight bit less janky.

 

I'm not even going to try and excuse the weird technical problems though. They need fixing, even if I haven't encountered them myself all that much.

 

Also it sounds like the panel needs to use more grenades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I have not found a use for Sword Rangers yet)

If you get one to max level Reaper is amazing. As long as the first attack is a kill it will trigger implacable. I had a fully speced blademaster ranger kill three enemies in a turn. however I think I still prefer snipers with serial since they can stay at range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get one to max level Reaper is amazing. As long as the first attack is a kill it will trigger implacable. I had a fully speced blademaster ranger kill three enemies in a turn. however I think I still prefer snipers with serial since they can stay at range.

But its up against Rapid Fire, which is the most amazing "thing must die now" button and I find the conceal skills on Scout rangers work much better with the rest of the team, a Scout Ranger spotting for a serial sniper is a good set up to delete aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will sound weird, but I have gotten into a rhythm where I have nightly rage quits playing the game, and I mean that as a compliment. I am tired enough that I know I should go to bed, but I throw the dice one more time that I can get the next bit of research done before ADVENT strikes back. Inevitably, they do, and I roll in and tactically screw up badly enough that I get people killed. I throw up my hands, yell fuck it, and Alt-F4 because the game is still hard enough that you need to be invested in the tactical turns.

Haha, I do exactly the same thing. Play until I fuck up too bad to deal with emotionally :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strategic layer is a bit muddled and unsatisfying this time around. I agree with most of the comments in the cast on it. 


But I'm loving the tactical side. Concealment is amazing - it speeds the early turns of maps way up, letting you skip the torturous creep forward/overwatch routine in favor of dashing into a good ambush position and wrecking the first aliens you encounter. Rangers with concealment skills are a huge help in moving faster without activating multiple pods.

 

I also like the timers, though lots of people hate them. Again, they speed the game up. I loved EU, but by the end of my time with it the slowness you had to play at in order to survive became painful. I think XCom 2 compensates for the timers by giving you multiple ways to deal with less-than-ideal map positions - concealment, of course, but also early access to stuff like flashbangs, smoke grenades, and specialists with defensive buffs and ranged heals.

 

Snipers feel much less overpowered, so far, and I think that's another good change. Squadsight is as crazy as ever, but so many maps demand mobility that you can rarely just plant your sniper in a perfect spot at the start of the map and call it a day. 

 

And Sectoid mind control is actually a sort of blessing. Early sectoids in the previous game were deadly and obnoxious. They would just pelt your troops with plasma from distant heavy cover, and had the annoying habit of constantly retreating and setting up overwatch. Here, mind control is almost a wasted turn for the aliens, because if you expect it you can set up to kill or stun the Sectoid and immediately get your controlled trooper back. 

 

Of course, what's inarguable is the terrible, terrible performance issues. My game, like lots of other people's, is running like garbage. Mission intros and outros are a stuttering mess, and there are often huge pauses during combat where everything will just kind of stop, and then a minute later some piece of burning scenery will crumble and combat will start up again. It's almost enough to get me to put off playing any more until it gets some patches...but I think I'm too addicted already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Sectoid mind control is actually a sort of blessing. Early sectoids in the previous game were deadly and obnoxious. They would just pelt your troops with plasma from distant heavy cover, and had the annoying habit of constantly retreating and setting up overwatch. Here, mind control is almost a wasted turn for the aliens, because if you expect it you can set up to kill or stun the Sectoid and immediately get your controlled trooper back. 

 

The new sectoids are a little bit genius, I think. It's a bit of thematic escalation from the first game, as mind control is a late-ish game enemy ability in EU. But the reality of how the mechanics work (as you describe) actually make the new sectoids the lowest priority targets of any enemy group (as long as you're in a good position to kill them next turn, if necessary).

 

Still haven't listened to this episode; it sounds like a really stressful listen, to be honest. But I'm enjoying the discussion here a lot. I tend to agree that the strategic layer in XCOM2 is an improvement from EU, but not by a huge margin and not without its own new frustrations. The tactical layer is just better in every way, though.

 

I love the timers. I understand how they might feel like a dumb, brute-forcey counter to snail paced overwatch strategies, but it works really well so I don't see a problem. I think the length of timers is spot on too: usually I have several turns to spare at the end of a mission, but occasionally I come right down to the wire and have to plan my last three turns out with precision and with a sense of exhilarating stakes.

 

Necessary disclaimer that we're all making, I guess: yes it's buggy and it really sucks :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new sectoids are a little bit genius, I think. It's a bit of thematic escalation from the first game, as mind control is a late-ish game enemy ability in EU. But the reality of how the mechanics work (as you describe) actually make the new sectoids the lowest priority targets of any enemy group (as long as you're in a good position to kill them next turn, if necessary).

 

The sectoids I've experienced appear to prioritize in this fashion:

 

1) Reanimate corpses

2) psionically affect your troops

3a) Movement

3b) Fire on your troops

 

They've kind of become second priority for me in the early game. Make sure a trooper is dead to be reanimated, and then be in position to kill the sectoid before the zombie can cause any disruption to the battle lines. The very early game a single grenade will kill the stock trooper, so that's a strong opener. Worth losing loot to not lose soldiers.

 

I'm curious if the sectoids have different priorities on different difficulties. I'm only playing on Veteran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sectoids I've experienced appear to prioritize in this fashion:

 

1) Reanimate corpses

2) psionically affect your troops

3a) Movement

3b) Fire on your troops

 

They've kind of become second priority for me in the early game. Make sure a trooper is dead to be reanimated, and then be in position to kill the sectoid before the zombie can cause any disruption to the battle lines. The very early game a single grenade will kill the stock trooper, so that's a strong opener. Worth losing loot to not lose soldiers.

 

I'm curious if the sectoids have different priorities on different difficulties. I'm only playing on Veteran.

They do the same stuff on commander. I feel like the enemy AI makes choices that make the game hard, but not insane. There are just lots of times where they could have done so much more damage with mind control than zombies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, as does just about everyone, that the strategic layer does not explain itself well. However, I do get confused when a bunch of folk I know to be smart and knowledgeable miss a major mechanic of a game they are playing.

There should have been a pop up explaining Intel. There should be a UFOpedia telling you how you get it and what you spend it on. But look, whenever you contacted a region there was a pop up telling you the Intel cost. Things at the Black Market are priced in Intel. You are told when a mission will give it to you. You're told radio towers decrease the Intel cost of contacting cells. It's one of the resources displayed at all times in the top right of the strategic layer.

If running out of it caught you off guard, trying to spend it not knowing you needed it that has to be because you didn't read a whole bunch of stuff that was presented to you. Not in the most friendly, digestible way, sure. But it was always there.

This is one of those times we miss manuals. There would have been a big section on Intel. I mean it about the UFOpedia. The mechanics are not all that complex, and could be broken down concisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, one more here who thought some people were maybe looking back at EU/EW through rose colored glasses. Not that XCOM 2 doesn't have plenty of issues, but this conversation felt really one sided to me and several of the criticisms felt like they were really stretching.

 

I would have liked to see more discussion around the fact that the game is clearly designed with the assumption that you're going to play the campaign more than once, and that things that seem like huge hurdles your first playthrough, quickly become a non-issue. I can definitely see arguments both for and against why that's a valid approach to the design. 

 

On the subject of turn timers, I think they're a major improvement over EU/EW, which quickly became very stale. They lead to much more dynamic and interesting encounters than just overwatching your way through every map. That being said, Invisible Inc handled that same problem better, and I'm hoping to see some mods or expansions that work in some more variation on how to put pressure on the player than just immediately failing the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to register an account to post about this episode because it was absolutely infuriating. They apparently don't remember how one note the strategy layer of 2012 was and complaining there are actually choices and multiple systems to interact with in the strategy layer now is one of the weirdest criticisms ever. They made it a strategy game instead of a puzzle game and now you don't like it?

I had zero problems understanding the strategy layer. The game tells you the basics of everything going on, it's not the games fault if you don't pay attention. Simple stuff, red missions obviously affect avatar score since they are both red. You don't start a major base invasion with basic gear, that's common sense. And the game rates missions with a difficulty you don't go in blind.

Their tactical problems talking about getting hit by too many groups and bad starts. That was just frustrating, they obviously were just bad at the game and hadn't used all the new gear they give you to handle the new systems. Accidentally pull too many groups? You don't reload you throw a mimic beacon. Lizards/Sectoids rip you to shreds? A ranger sword one shots them before they even move. I won my first game and never even knew lizards had a grapple because they never got an attack off my entire game. Enemies too close at the start? Throw a battle scanner before you move and don't sprint at the start like a crazy person.

The technical stuff is an issue, but that fire talk. If your dudes are sitting in the same spot long enough to get fire to spread to them your playing the game wrong. Load times are too long and multi-level movement can be annoying, but it worked better for me in this game then EU.

I really like 3MA and I don't think I have seen them just completely whiff on a game discussion like this ever before. Being bad at a game and impatient doesn't mean it's a bad game David Harin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like 3MA will have to return to XCOM soon. Everybody seems pissed by this episode.

 

I myself haven't played XCOM2 and can't feel your pain. Here's an idea: how about XCOMEW Long War episode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like 3MA will have to return to XCOM soon. Everybody seems pissed by this episode.

I myself haven't played XCOM2 and can't feel your pain. Here's an idea: how about XCOMEW Long War episode?

If you go back and listen again I think both Fraser and Jonathan give a much more balanced appreciation of both what XCOM 2 is doing and what XCOM 1s flaws were. I think the issue is that some of the stuff David Heron and Rob are saying is just so far out of kilter with what would appear to be everyone else's experiences with both games that they stand out a lot more.

I too would love an episode which looks at the evolution of the Firaxis XCOM games and the influence of The Long War mod (which at the end of the day is probably one of the greatest game mods ever made - and I include the likes of Counter-Strike and Fall from Heaven in that statement) on XCOM 2. Because I've just started a new campaign on Commander level and boy can you feel the influence of LW at that level!

I would also dearly love that conversation to include Jake Solomon or Garth from Firaxis as well - or whoever else the lead designer is. We had that for both XCOM:EW (Jake and Garth) and for XCOM:EW (Ananda Gupta) - in fact over the last couple of months this seems to be something 3MA doesn't do any more - have those conversations with lead designers - for any of the games they are reviewing unless it's one of Bruce's more obscure wargaming titles. Now as unlikely as it is I'll ever play one of those games I usually listen to the podcast because it's fascinating listening to the designer talking about how they came to their decisions. I distinctly remember both Jake and Garth saying how pleased they were to be on the podcast too - how they all considered it to be gold standard and that everyone at Firaxis listened to it. Or words to that effect.

Now I completely appreciate that Rob and Troy and Bruce are all very busy individuals, and that 3MA is very much a labour of love for all of them, but is it really that hard to get hold of those people any more? The last time I remember you guys getting a designer on to talk about their game (which wasn't a war game) was probably Will and David talking about Beyond Earth.

Does nobody want to talk to you guys any more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back and listen again I think both Fraser and Jonathan give a much more balanced appreciation of both what XCOM 2 is doing and what XCOM 1s flaws were. I think the issue is that some of the stuff David Heron and Rob are saying is just so far out of kilter with what would appear to be everyone else's experiences with both games that they stand out a lot more.

I too would love an episode which looks at the evolution of the Firaxis XCOM games and the influence of The Long War mod (which at the end of the day is probably one of the greatest game mods ever made - and I include the likes of Counter-Strike and Fall from Heaven in that statement) on XCOM 2. Because I've just started a new campaign on Commander level and boy can you feel the influence of LW at that level!

I would also dearly love that conversation to include Jake Solomon or Garth from Firaxis as well - or whoever else the lead designer is. We had that for both XCOM:EW (Jake and Garth) and for XCOM:EW (Ananda Gupta) - in fact over the last couple of months this seems to be something 3MA doesn't do any more - have those conversations with lead designers - for any of the games they are reviewing unless it's one of Bruce's more obscure wargaming titles. Now as unlikely as it is I'll ever play one of those games I usually listen to the podcast because it's fascinating listening to the designer talking about how they came to their decisions. I distinctly remember both Jake and Garth saying how pleased they were to be on the podcast too - how they all considered it to be gold standard and that everyone at Firaxis listened to it. Or words to that effect.

Now I completely appreciate that Rob and Troy and Bruce are all very busy individuals, and that 3MA is very much a labour of love for all of them, but is it really that hard to get hold of those people any more? The last time I remember you guys getting a designer on to talk about their game (which wasn't a war game) was probably Will and David talking about Beyond Earth.

Does nobody want to talk to you guys any more?

 

 

Ha - Sorb, this is one of these rare situations in which we end up agreeing 100%. Chris Park would be another great guest designer to get back on and interview. Arcen may not be all that successfully (both in making "good" games and commercially) but they are certainly one of the most important and interesting strategy game studios around just now.

 

Both the Kingdom and the Thea show would have been way more interesting if a designer had been invited on too. They were already good episodes, but I would have loved to have heard the designers responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna weigh in one last time to be clear that my contention with the podcast isn't if someone liked or disliked the game. A hypothetical scenario- it's early April, an incredible patch has come out that resolves all the bugs, people are playing Ironman with no glitches, this podcast happens and people don't like it? Hey, disagreeing with critical consensus is some of the best podcasting. My frustration is rooted in things that are just objective inaccuracies in discussion that got brushed over and never really countered. Everyone's experience is different, but my base of knowledge seemed extremely different from the panel's just from watching a preview video or two in late January, and 5-6 hours of game time as of the podcast. That can absolutely be leveled as a criticism of the game, but it makes the podcast sound half baked.

 

I'd love a return to the topic sometime in the future and see if opinion have changed, or if they've dug in and solidified. That would actually be a little exciting, because I rarely have as much hands-on experience with the games on the podcast as the panelists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the episode even if I think Rob and Dave were spectacularly wrong. Disagreeing with people can be fun! I think it was unfortunate that Jonathan seemed to have a tough time getting a word in though. I don't actually remember anything he really said about the game other than liking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna weigh in one last time to be clear that my contention with the podcast isn't if someone liked or disliked the game. A hypothetical scenario- it's early April, an incredible patch has come out that resolves all the bugs, people are playing Ironman with no glitches, this podcast happens and people don't like it? Hey, disagreeing with critical consensus is some of the best podcasting. My frustration is rooted in things that are just objective inaccuracies in discussion that got brushed over and never really countered. Everyone's experience is different, but my base of knowledge seemed extremely different from the panel's just from watching a preview video or two in late January, and 5-6 hours of game time as of the podcast. That can absolutely be leveled as a criticism of the game, but it makes the podcast sound half baked.

 

I'd love a return to the topic sometime in the future and see if opinion have changed, or if they've dug in and solidified. That would actually be a little exciting, because I rarely have as much hands-on experience with the games on the podcast as the panelists.

 

Yeah, same here. There are plenty of issues with XCOM 2 that could put someone off of it. But I didn't really feel like the podcast was a discussion of those issues. Or at the very least, for every minute they spent discussing real issues, they spent two talking about things that aren't really issues with the game (eg the "punishing" difficulty of sectoids), or comparing it to some imagined superior version of EU/EW that never existed (where you apparently don't get projects interupted by missions while you're scanning, for example). 

 

Likewise, a lot of the discussion about the general difficulty level (especially when it seemed nobody had bothered to turn it down a notch, and at least a few had turned on Iron Man for their very first run), seemed really out of place too. I get that it's a difficult game, and how that can put some people off of it. But at the same time, it seems a strange thing to complain about if you've played EU/EW, or the original UFO Defense. The difficulty is part of what makes an XCOM/X-COM game. You're supposed to lose soldiers, even entire teams.  That's part of the experience of the game. Complaining that you're losing soldiers in XCOM2 on your first run is like complaining that you couldn't complete Dark Souls 2 in a single life on your first attempt. Again, if this is your first time playing an XCOM game, I could see how that might put you off. But if you've got over 100 hours in XCOM: EU/EW, it shouldn't really be a huge shock to you when you lose a team on your very first campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, same here. There are plenty of issues with XCOM 2 that could put someone off of it. But I didn't really feel like the podcast was a discussion of those issues. Or at the very least, for every minute they spent discussing real issues, they spent two talking about things that aren't really issues with the game (eg the "punishing" difficulty of sectoids), or comparing it to some imagined superior version of EU/EW that never existed (where you apparently don't get projects interupted by missions while you're scanning, for example). 

 

Likewise, a lot of the discussion about the general difficulty level (especially when it seemed nobody had bothered to turn it down a notch, and at least a few had turned on Iron Man for their very first run), seemed really out of place too. I get that it's a difficult game, and how that can put some people off of it. But at the same time, it seems a strange thing to complain about if you've played EU/EW, or the original UFO Defense. The difficulty is part of what makes an XCOM/X-COM game. You're supposed to lose soldiers, even entire teams.  That's part of the experience of the game. Complaining that you're losing soldiers in XCOM2 on your first run is like complaining that you couldn't complete Dark Souls 2 in a single life on your first attempt. Again, if this is your first time playing an XCOM game, I could see how that might put you off. But if you've got over 100 hours in XCOM: EU/EW, it shouldn't really be a huge shock to you when you lose a team on your very first campaign.

 

I really think that Rob and Dave especially were coming into XCOM 2 expecting all the lessons that they'd internalized from XCOM: Enemy Unknown, unconsciously to gauge from many of their criticisms, and were extremely frustrated when those lessons did not apply.

 

A total squad wipe is devastating in Enemy Unknown, full stop. Unless it was a squad of all rookies and squaddies, you've lost expensive equipment and irreplaceable experience that can't be recouped without putting you behind the escalation curve of the terror mechanic. "Terror" in the game is a finite resource that only depletes; if you fill one continent's meter by taking a mission there, it's at the cost of other continents where you didn't take the mission. Therefore, you simply have to trust that the designers built enough room into the system for you to fail as many times as you have to succeed. For many people, that was not the case. Meanwhile, XCOM 2 has several built-in mechanics to roll back its equivalent system, the Avatar track, and simply doing the time-tested strategy of doing a story mission every so often is enough to keep it under control. A squad wipe puts you behind the power curve temporarily, because new enemy types keep getting introduced, but there's not a doomsday clock behind it all that you're losing time on. I can understand how XCOM 2 would be difficult to enjoy if you assumed that clock was there because it was there in the previous game.

 

I also agree with you and Badfinger that it's not the panel mostly disliking XCOM 2 that bothered me; I've enjoyed episodes plenty where they hate on games that I love—or vice versa, love games that I hate. It's just that, usually, the criticisms are coherent and, through them, I get an appreciation of how much and in what way the members of the panel have each played the game. Here, it seemed more like Rob and Dave had both played a little of XCOM 2 and gotten frustrated, not without reason given the game's poor onboarding, so they were taking turns throwing their frustrations against a wall and seeing what stuck, while the other two panelists with more experience took a more passive role in the conversation, even though they had better understanding of the game's sometimes-obscure systems and tried a few times near the beginning to help Rob and Dave see them for what they were. Those choices had two major flaws, in my eyes:

  • Even though Three Moves Ahead often works "newbie impresions" into their discussion, they're never the tentpole of an episode. Rob, Rowan, and Frazer might recount their first impressions of Kingdom or Thea: the Awakening, but only on the way to a holistic assessment of the game's experience as an entirety. That didn't happen here, because all that two of the panelists had were newbie impressions and they weren't prepared to cede the floor at all. In situations like those, I don't expect people who aren't enjoying a game to have played even more, especially in a short timeframe, but maybe just don't do a show on it if you've only played a few hours and don't like most of them?
  • Most of the criticism was very shallow and reactionary in a way that I don't expect from Three Moves Ahead. Dave Herrin opened with the assertion that everything except the armor system and the Support class were steps backwards from XCOM: Enemy Unknown, but then proceeded to state repeatedly throughout the rest of the episode that he didn't understand certain elements and that he felt like he was missing others. He doesn't understand many of the design choices... but he does know that they're all steps backward, I guess? That kind of embarrassing near-contradiction of opinion is out of character for the show and I'd like to think that it's something the show would preferably avoid.

In sum, I think that timeliness is something that Three Moves Ahead should avoid. Even if Rob and Dave had shotgunned XCOM 2, they had maybe forty hours to play it and that's one successful campaign or a few unsuccessful ones. It's not fair to put them on the spot, without time and space to consider their opinions, and hopefully it'll be otherwise in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love a return to the topic sometime in the future and see if opinion have changed, or if they've dug in and solidified. That would actually be a little exciting, because I rarely have as much hands-on experience with the games on the podcast as the panelists.

Two of my favourite episodes are the two they did on Enemy Unkown and Enemy Within.  By the second show they'd really played the heck out of the game, and hearing which little irritants had become not so little, and what had come to feel like a grind, etc was extremely interesting and valuable.

 

I'm one who tries to stay a year or so behind on games.  I like to let a consensus form.  (And let the bugs get sorted out.)  (And, yes, to let the price fall a bit.)

 

I'd love it if they went back to this in a while.  And I'll be interested to see all of y'alls thoughts in a couple of months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy 3MA even though I hardly post here (yay #2) but holy mother of whatever you believe in, there was something really wrong with the panel as they were playing the game.  There is a pretty big difference between just not liking the game or not really paying attention to it due to lack of time and what happened here.  I'm only halfway through the episode before I had to put it down, but two examples of what I'm talking about are:

 

1) 3/4 of the panel either didn't realize or quite get that Intel was a resource until after they had burned through their initial stash.  Yet it is there on both the Geoscape and your main base window, in the resource bar, with a number.  I can understand not really getting a good understanding of it's importance, which itself is questionable given one look at the Black Market shows you it can be used to speed up research, hire advanced recruits, hire support personnel, or purchase items you only see drop as random loot, but to not even realize it was a resource?  Even if they totally ignored the resource bar, which is the only way you can see your total income, that means they all went through at least a couple rounds of spending it without realizing it.  How is that humanly possible?

 

2) Likewise more than one on the panel brought up the subject of a squad wipe or even losing a single trooper or two being a game kill due to there being no catch up mechanic.  And yet Psi characters are, literally, a blatant catch up mechanic.  Even if you don't realize how powerful they are or their advantage as a catch up option at first glance, after you've trained one to the second level it becomes very apparent.  Furthermore at least once a month you'll get a mission with a reward option of a ranked character, the Black Market will almost always have a ranked character for "sale", and you can get ranked characters from random location rewards.  Except for the last item, which I suppose may never show up in a game for you, there are many obvious examples of how you can catch up.  Furthermore both the Ranger and Gunner are useful classes at the Squaddie level even in end game missions, which you can go straight to with the GTS at will.

 

I can understand the other complaints being just the differences in how we perceive a game or our own talents for picking up things faster or slower, such as whether a mission expiration timer on the strategic map is necessary, but the two examples I've listed are just egregious.  Maybe if the panel was full of first time players to video games in general I could understand it but... seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this