Sorbicol Posted February 20, 2016 To be fair to both Rob and David I think that point they were making at the start of the podcast - that the strategic level is a mess, which game almost wilfully goes out of its way not to explain is a perfectly valid comment. It is a horribly obtuse game the first time you play it - nothing is explained, the relative importance of the resources is unknown to the player, and if you follow the tutorial mission(s) it prolongs that state of ignorance quite some way into the game. It's something (once they've fixed all the performance issues and bugs) you'd hope Firaxis will go back at and look at again Where I, and from the comments in this thread pretty much everyone else agrees is that after a couple of hours it all becomes very clear, and how balancing those resources against the tasks you need to complete on the strategic layer, along side making sure that your soldiers are competing in the arms race is what makes the strategic layer vastly more engaging and entertaining than what XCOM1 managed. XCOM2 is not a bad game. It's a brilliant one that improves on the reboot in every department. Yeah it's got some technical issues that I really hope are sorted sooner rather than later (looks like Firaxis are on the case with that) but I guess my ultimate issue wasn't that David and Rob thought what they did - hey, everyone is entitled to think what they want and it sure as hell doesn't have to align with my opinions! - but that I just couldn't see where their conclusions were coming from. Especially David saying the XCOM2 was a step backwards from XCOM1 and was 'a bad game'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arathain Posted February 21, 2016 I think we can agree that XCOM 2 is going be confusing for a first time player. There are quite a number of different resources and rewards. A given resource can be used for different things; Intel to expand or visit the Black Market; engineers to clear, build or man stations; supply for a million different things. You mostly find out what everything does by clicking around menus and trying things. On the other hand, all your choices are meaningful, and not necessarily wrong, since there are multiple routes to get to the same place. Chose the engineer but not the supply? You'll make supply back by clearing rooms. Chose the intel over the scientist? The black market can speed up your research. I think the game is more cleverly designed than a lot of people are realising. I believe, at least at the medium skill level, any choice made with purpose (rather, even, than experience) can be made to work fine, and provides multiple paths through the game. Perhaps some of it is anxiety from the previous game, where there were a great many wrong choices. And the game deliberately works at creating anxiety- resources always feel scarce and the clock keeps ticking.+ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sclpls Posted February 21, 2016 Yeah, intel is listed as one of the different types of resources available in the strategic map. But a popup the first time you're in the strategy map listing the things intel is used for ("1. Making contact with resistance cells, 2. Buying stuff on the black market, 3. Revealing dark events") would make a big difference for first impressions. A new player still wouldn't necessarily know how to properly value it, but at least you would know what it is used for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fhnuzoag Posted February 22, 2016 I'd echo a lot of people's impressions here. Yeah, XCOM2 doesn't explain itself very well. Yeah the UI has issues. But the systems it adds or modifies aren't just random cruft, they actually work together really well and interestingly, once you put in the effort to understand what they add up to and why they are there. (For example, the Intel mechanic is actually pretty important in trimming down the effectiveness of the satellite rush in the first game and ensuring money is always tight. The panel seems to think it's just thrown in for no reason - it's not.) One thing I've observed though is that people who dislike XCOM2 tend to be exactly those with technical issues with it. I wonder if that's the real problem here. Like, the game clearly functions to very different levels on different setups. Personally I haven't seen any major problems (aside from a few hilarious cosmetic glitches, and choppiness during the cutscene where soldiers are deployed), but if your basic experience is frustration and waiting and crashes and suffering, you'd probably be much less prepared to grant the game the patience it needs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itchyeyes Posted February 23, 2016 I'd echo a lot of people's impressions here. Yeah, XCOM2 doesn't explain itself very well. Yeah the UI has issues. But the systems it adds or modifies aren't just random cruft, they actually work together really well and interestingly, once you put in the effort to understand what they add up to and why they are there. (For example, the Intel mechanic is actually pretty important in trimming down the effectiveness of the satellite rush in the first game and ensuring money is always tight. The panel seems to think it's just thrown in for no reason - it's not.) One thing I've observed though is that people who dislike XCOM2 tend to be exactly those with technical issues with it. I wonder if that's the real problem here. Like, the game clearly functions to very different levels on different setups. Personally I haven't seen any major problems (aside from a few hilarious cosmetic glitches, and choppiness during the cutscene where soldiers are deployed), but if your basic experience is frustration and waiting and crashes and suffering, you'd probably be much less prepared to grant the game the patience it needs. I think the opaqueness of some of the systems and the technical glitches kind of work together to make it especially inpenetrable for some people. It's not always clear what is a bug, what is a poorly designed system, and what is a good system that's just poorly understood. For example, on another podcast I lestened to yesterday, they were complaining about how there was a bug that would sometimes reveal you in concealment even when you moved to a square that's not shown as red. That's actually not a bug, just a poorly explained system. What's actually happening there is that you only see red reveal sqauares for enemies that are within your field of view, and it's sometimes dangerous to approach obstacles that block your line of sight while in concealment, because there could be an enemy or civilian on the other side that can spot you if you get too close. If you don't understand that system, which the game makes no effort to explain to you, it's infuriating to continually move to squares that you think are safe only to be revealed. Once you get it though, it's a non-issue, maybe even a strength that makes concealment something more interesting and challenging than just "stay out of the red squares". But getting people to that place of understanding, on all the various systems, seems to be where the game struggles the most. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sclpls Posted February 23, 2016 I think you're really onto something Fhunzoag & itchyeyes. The thing about XCOM's opaqueness is it is partially a deliberate design decision. In both games the research tree is different from the one in Civ because it never explains to the player what the benefits of that decision are, and that's done for thematic reasons. So the knowledge the player brings to the replay is incredibly important, and that aspect of the design makes XCOM more like a roguelike than a strategy game. Now I think XCOM goes too far with stuff like that, and a lot of things feel underexplained to me. But that never really bothered me, and I'm happy to experiment with stuff to try and figure things out (I also, it should be said, am perfectly comfortable save scumming until I have a firmer grasp on how the game ticks). Players comfortable with roguelike style designs can have a harmonious experience with XCOM 2, but I can see that bothering people that don't agree to those types of expectations from the player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lork Posted February 24, 2016 I think the opaqueness of some of the systems and the technical glitches kind of work together to make it especially inpenetrable for some people. It's not always clear what is a bug, what is a poorly designed system, and what is a good system that's just poorly understood. For example, on another podcast I lestened to yesterday, they were complaining about how there was a bug that would sometimes reveal you in concealment even when you moved to a square that's not shown as red. That's actually not a bug, just a poorly explained system. What's actually happening there is that you only see red reveal sqauares for enemies that are within your field of view, and it's sometimes dangerous to approach obstacles that block your line of sight while in concealment, because there could be an enemy or civilian on the other side that can spot you if you get too close. If you don't understand that system, which the game makes no effort to explain to you, it's infuriating to continually move to squares that you think are safe only to be revealed. Once you get it though, it's a non-issue, maybe even a strength that makes concealment something more interesting and challenging than just "stay out of the red squares". But getting people to that place of understanding, on all the various systems, seems to be where the game struggles the most. No, there are definitely cases where you can move a guy through a space that by both the rules as they are explained and the UI presented to you should be perfectly safe, only to be inexplicably spotted by a pod that has been in full view of multiple squad members since the start of the turn. I'm not saying I know for sure that's what happened to the podcasters you were listening to, but it is entirely possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sorbicol Posted February 25, 2016 No, there are definitely cases where you can move a guy through a space that by both the rules as they are explained and the UI presented to you should be perfectly safe, only to be inexplicably spotted by a pod that has been in full view of multiple squad members since the start of the turn. I'm not saying I know for sure that's what happened to the podcasters you were listening to, but it is entirely possible. This has happened to me as well on several occasions. I'm also having a problem with the movement square "snapping" to a different square just as I'm pressing move. Been driving me insane this evening Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hexgrid Posted February 25, 2016 All of this is more than justifying my "don't buy a Firaxis game until it's had a year to mature" policy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
creaker Posted February 26, 2016 Now I think that's an improvement on XCOM 1 (Firaxis XCOM1, not the microprose original) For simplicity and clearness sake, i propose to call the new games fauXCOM1 and fauXCOM2. Apparently, in this particular podcast the panel trash fauXCOM2, but i cant force myself to listen, remembering the absolutely lustful rimjobs they gave Firaxis about fauXCOM1. THAT podcast was disgusting to listen to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sorbicol Posted February 26, 2016 Gonna post this here. Terrific interview Rock Paper Shotgun have done with Jake Solomon. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/02/25/making-of-xcom-2/ Apologies if it doesn't link correctly but I'm posting it via my phone. I think a lot of what they talk about covers some of the comments in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turrican Posted March 3, 2016 I'm loving the game. Personally, I don't find anything as being opaque or unexplained, all seems very straight forward to me. Everyone seems to want to load the game up for the first time and go all out on Ironman. I just think that's the wrong mentality. Learn the game and it's systems then, only once you've mastered it, try your hand at the brutal ironman challenge. Interestingly, I note that the Gamers with Jobs guys had a similar poor initial impression of the game ("if my chance to hit is 90%, I should hit every time" and similar nonesense criticisms) but now they've had more time with the game, some of their opinions have done a complete 180. I can't help but think the 3MA team will do the same in time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilitarist Posted March 4, 2016 Everyone seems to want to load the game up for the first time and go all out on Ironman. I just think that's the wrong mentality. Learn the game and it's systems then, only once you've mastered it, try your hand at the brutal ironman challenge. Strange when this is wrong mentality. Strategy games are supposed to be strategic, about planning and doing the best you have with the hand you are dealt. And games like XCOM even have special instruments for when you are loosing. It's sad when games like this are not really supposed to be Iron Man. Something similar with Total War games: I don't think you are supposed to play them on Iron Man ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hexgrid Posted March 4, 2016 Strange when this is wrong mentality. Strategy games are supposed to be strategic, about planning and doing the best you have with the hand you are dealt. And games like XCOM even have special instruments for when you are loosing. It's sad when games like this are not really supposed to be Iron Man. That's not what Turrican said, though; he said "learn it first, then try iron man when you understand it properly". There's a whole argument here about whether "iron man" mode is a difficulty setting or a play style; I could imagine an iron man mode that showers you with enough resources that regular team wipes aren't a problem, or that simply makes the enemies easy enough that setbacks are rare. There's a fuzzy border there between "Iron Man" and "Roguelike". Turrican seems to be thinking of "Iron Man" as a difficulty level; the real challenge you tackle when you've mastered the game enough to take the training wheels off. You seem to be viewing "Iron Man" as a play style; a way of making a game into a narrative arc that isn't confused by backtracking and redos. I don't think either view is wrong, but maybe we need two different names for the different concepts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sorbicol Posted March 4, 2016 For me Iron Man on XCOM 2 is more of a play style than a difficulty choice (although it certainly doesn't make the game any easier!) I say that because unlike XCOM:EU the game here is so much more forgiving than XCOM:EU's ever was. Hell, the game even gives you an evacuation button on the tactical game in case everything is going south and you need to get out. That all plays into being able to go back to the Avenger, lick your wounds and move on. In XCOM:EU it would be 'squad wipe, panic explosion and game over'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sclpls Posted March 4, 2016 Strange when this is wrong mentality. Strategy games are supposed to be strategic, about planning and doing the best you have with the hand you are dealt. And games like XCOM even have special instruments for when you are loosing. It's sad when games like this are not really supposed to be Iron Man. Something similar with Total War games: I don't think you are supposed to play them on Iron Man ever. Turrican's recommendation to hold off on ironman until you complete a game is precisely to make the game more strategic. It is impossible to make any sensible planning before you understand the game's systems. Once you finally grasp the arc and design of the game, playing ironman is perfectly viable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ilitarist Posted March 6, 2016 Thinking again and again about Iron Man as a playstyle or difficulty level. Indeed, it often makes sense to play Iron Man only after you mastered the game itself. Some games practice it short sessions (like roguelikes). In some others it just makes sense to play Iron Man. Like Civilization or Europa Universalis. It is in some sense narrative experience too and you are not supposed to make right decisions every time. XCOM (and Total War) feel close to it and thus it feels like cheating to use save and load there. I can restart mission in an RTS/TBS campaign, nothing wrong with that, every mission asks me to become better till I can crack it. But those games (Civilization, XCOM) feel like a giant single mission. Hindsight is too important there. Reloading TW campaign knowing enemy army will arrive in specific province feels cheap. Though true - TW only offers Iron Man as max difficulty. Maybe it's how it should be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turrican Posted March 8, 2016 Turrican's recommendation to hold off on ironman until you complete a game is precisely to make the game more strategic. It is impossible to make any sensible planning before you understand the game's systems. Once you finally grasp the arc and design of the game, playing ironman is perfectly viable. That was my basic point yeah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cornchip Posted March 8, 2016 My first game of new Xcom was EW on Ironman Normal and it was an extraordinarily good experience! I lost, of course, after about six hours, but I have rarely been so invested in a game campaign. I think the only reason not to play without save states is if progression in the game is too unlikely given your time window to play. In Xcom, you progress to the end of the game whether you're winning or losing, so you never get stuck. Of course, this depends on you thinking your failure as Xcom commander is a valid game ending. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites