Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Soadreqm]

You don't have to like every game. Not even if it belongs to a series you like. Just let go and go play something you actually enjoy.

[CognitiveDissonance]

I can help a bit with the love/hate on this game. I have both.
This game is NOT like the original UFO series. This is a more cinematic, focused game. Each combat encounter is equal 2+ from previous games. You have fewer units, fewer techs and fewer everything - but those things are more impactful.

This game is essentially a complete remake. It keeps the same ideas, but takes it into a different direction.
The combat is also COMPLETELY different. Each shot is equivalent to several turns' worth of shooting from the previous games, so you have to make it count. The 20% shot is NOT a good idea. What is a good idea is to break line of sight completely, and focus on sniping/flanking. Risky shots are only good later in game, where technology is better and you have more health/damage.

Impossible is simply unfair, and I don't recommend it unless you know the "meta-game". It does have superior spawning mechanics, but it makes me very prone to ragequitting.

Thin-men are (I figure) specifically designed to weed out rookies. They are the game's breaking point, and if you can survive past that, you will be just fine.

Also, as I learned from Let's Plays (link to my favorite) the game demands a LOT more "losing". You are SUPPOSED to lose countries and units, and survive regardless. The losses are more necessary, and more painful, than the original series.

At the end of the day, it's 60% tactics, 20% mechanics and 20% cinematic enjoyment. It's a good game for what it is.

[Vactor]

I really can't see the love-in this game seems to have amongst members here.

Its a AAA game which has losing as a core mechanic, which for the last decade was becoming a rarity.  This game is part of a revitalization of PC gaming, which is largely happening in smaller studios and indie gaming, which is returning to the romantic "NES hard" ideal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure it fits NES hard all the time. Most NES games had a formulaic standard that you could win with, X-COM will occasionally kill you on the whims of the RNG.

[WillowLuman]

Yeah, NES games aren't really big on the RNG, just excruciating puzzles or platforming.

[GlyphGryph]

NES hard is about requiring losing to advance. There is no way to win, aside from extreme luck, if you haven't already lost at a particular challenge, often multiple times.

And X-Com generally doesn't "kill you", meaning make you lose, on the whims of the rng. It also doesn't require you to lose to succeed. It makes losses almost inevitable, yes, but that's slightly different.

(Note that on non-impossible difficulties, the rng is actually tilted in your favour - you can actually only miss SO MANY shots in a row before getting a hit. There is a hard cap on how unlucky you can get at standard difficulty levels)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

(Note that on non-impossible difficulties, the rng is actually tilted in your favour - you can actually only miss SO MANY shots in a row before getting a hit. There is a hard cap on how unlucky you can get at standard difficulty levels)

But really, they made an X-COM game. Everybody diving headfirst into the drained swimming pool that is Ironman Impossible was hardly unforeseen.

[CognitiveDissonance]

(Note that on non-impossible difficulties, the rng is actually tilted in your favour - you can actually only miss SO MANY shots in a row before getting a hit. There is a hard cap on how unlucky you can get at standard difficulty levels)

But really, they made an X-COM game. Everybody diving headfirst into the drained swimming pool that is Ironman Impossible was hardly unforeseen.

I heard rumours that they expected impossible to really be impossible, and were really surprised to hear somebody actually BEAT that

[WillowLuman]

I lost Ironman impossible while using all the cheat soldiers, and not failing a single mission. Too many abductions happening immediately after each other...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In Impossible, being able to balance your actions outside of combat is just as important as avoiding losing missions.

[Nadaka]

I would note that even on ironman impossible it is possible to recover from an almost total loss. I spent the better part of 30 missions grinding through raw recruits, losing every mission and killing 80% of my men on every mission before I caught a break and managed to win one and get the salvage I needed to upgrade weapons and armor. I was literally on my last 4 men and a party wipe would have ended the program completely. But I managed to pull through a win somehow.

[Kaje]

I played it on Classic, it just didn't feel enjoyable to me. It's not the losing - I love rogue-likes and so dying in games is almost second nature - I just felt it was yet another AAA title that had a lot of looks but no heart or soul.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And why do you feel that?

[CognitiveDissonance]

I played it on Classic, it just didn't feel enjoyable to me. It's not the losing - I love rogue-likes and so dying in games is almost second nature - I just felt it was yet another AAA title that had a lot of looks but no heart or soul.

To me, it feels like many "modern remakes and sequels" - the game is good, but does not compare to the original. But the comparison is not necessarily fair; I try to enjoy the game for what is, and look for something different scratch that old itch.
(Ever try the UFO series? They are cheap, work in Windows 7, and are a lot of fun)

[Kaje]

And why do you feel that?

As above really, being a long-time fan of the original series and the spin-offs prior to XCOM: EU it makes me sad that the bigger strategy depth (i.e. base building, researching etc.) seems to have been simplified for the COD generation of players. The smaller scale strategy, i.e. the squad battles, seems like it's turn based tactical lite.

I don't know, it just seems like somebody wanted to make a turn-based strategy title that would pull in the action crowd instead of really sate the hunger of the true strategy fans out there.

If the original X-Com was the book, XCOM: EU is the third rate, poorly acted million dollar film venture.

Oh and not to mention the accents are ALL Yankee regardless of the country the unit comes from