XCOM 2 Will Push Your Resistance Movement To Its Limits

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

XCOM 2 Will Push Your Resistance Movement To Its Limits

What can returning Commanders expect from XCOM 2? We spoke with producer Garth DeAngelis to find out.

Read Full Article

Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.

"These can be from your character pool when you start a game, so you can say 'I want my wife to be in the character pool"

No, no you really don't want that. Its awkward trying to explain to your significant other why their nickname in your game is "Bullet Sponge".

Anywho, I never liked the idea of operating in a limited timeframe in a game, the only one that I thought it added to the game was Majora's Mask. We're gonna see really quickly people figure out how long you have and what you can do to extend your campaign length, particularly given that a lot of people just really enjoyed extending the campaign to a ridiculous length ot see how far they could push into the alien invasion.

Silentpony:
Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.

We get it, you're upset over a change that does nothing to erase or otherwise mar your previous experiences, nevermind the fact that every single playthrough you played would erase over each previous one if you applied the same logic.

Silentpony:
Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.

Why ARE people so pissed about this?
Seriously, it's a different time a different game. It could be a different universe, think about it. You won! GO YOU, YOU'RE AWESOME. But I lost one or three of my playthroughs, so I fucked humanity. Your turn now to come save my universe from my shitty commandering :)

MarsAtlas:
"These can be from your character pool when you start a game, so you can say 'I want my wife to be in the character pool"

No, no you really don't want that. Its awkward trying to explain to your significant other why their nickname in your game is "Bullet Sponge".

Oh god this happened to me, I had one of my characters named after my GF, even made her look like her. Then the bad thing happened to her... She still doesn't let me forget it.

EDIT: How the hell do you put spoilers? I want to say how/why she died.

Qizx:
SNIP

Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.

Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"

Silentpony:
Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.

Okay, but we'll have more of XCOM, so that's good, right?

This is probably the only game I've been interested in seeing released for the past year or so.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
SNIP

I had a nice cup of coffee once in Spain nearly ten years ago. Does that count?

All serious, I can be positive, its just that in today gaming climate that's virtually impossible. Like when Batman was first pulled from Steam on promise of fixing it and I said it'll still be completely broken when it relaunches. People said I was negative.
Or when I said TitanFall doesn't look like a game that'll last too longer after opening month.
Or that Sonic Boom looked iffy in gameplay trailers.
Or that Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system was kinda' broken because it required the player to die for shit to happen but the game was too easy.
Negative, negative, negative.
But I'd rather be negative and correct than constantly getting let down by AAA shittiness. Being positive doesn't make bad games better. Just means you have no pattern recognition.
But if it'll make you feel better, I'll say something nice about the first game I see on Steam's storefront:
Space - The Return Of The Pixxelfrazzer. Lets see...I'm sure Markiplier's video will be funny for the first 5mins.
There. That positive enough for you?!?

Silentpony:

Imperioratorex Caprae:
SNIP

I had a nice cup of coffee once in Spain nearly ten years ago. Does that count?

All serious, I can be positive, its just that in today gaming climate that's virtually impossible. Like when Batman was first pulled from Steam on promise of fixing it and I said it'll still be completely broken when it relaunches. People said I was negative.
Or when I said TitanFall doesn't look like a game that'll last too longer after opening month.
Or that Sonic Boom looked iffy in gameplay trailers.
Or that Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system was kinda' broken because it required the player to die for shit to happen but the game was too easy.
Negative, negative, negative.
But I'd rather be negative and correct than constantly getting let down by AAA shittiness. Being positive doesn't make bad games better. Just means you have no pattern recognition.
But if it'll make you feel better, I'll say something nice about the first game I see on Steam's storefront:
Space - The Return Of The Pixxelfrazzer. Lets see...I'm sure Markiplier's video will be funny for the first 5mins.
There. That positive enough for you?!?

Its not impossible, but it may seem that way if all you look at is the negative parts. I mean for discussion value, if all you add is negative points and nothing constructive, which is immediately what my mind jumps to when seeing your nick/avatar, then what good is any of what you say to the discussion? I've got no problem with bringing up negative points as long as there's some discussion value beyond the negative. It is just hard for me to understand why one would bother posting if one has nothing to add to the discussion except the same negativity you've brought in the past.
And I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I'd also bring up something like despite the Nemesis system being broken by easy gameplay its still a great system that could be implemented in better games in the future and is something I'd enjoy the hell out of if developers learned the lesson from SoM.
I'd love to hear more than just the down notes is all. =P

Qizx:
EDIT: How the hell do you put spoilers? I want to say how/why she died.

This thread will teach you that command and many more.

Silentpony:
Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"

What story though? Vague alien threat invades the planet? Its a framing device for the gameplay to occur rather than something naturally accompanying it. The gameplay is far more important to it than the story. There's three ways they could do an XCOM sequel - a timeline sequel, a timeline prequel or a change of the events. We had a prequel in The Bureau and people hated it. We've already had a sequels in XCOM where we've gone to the depths of the ocean and invaded their positions offworld. Where can it go that isn't either a retread of what we've had before or doesn't similarly discount any given successful playthrough? Using your standard, for example, you can't incorporate any of the researched technology except for the Arc Thrower, the Outsider Interrogation, the Hyperwave relay and the Gallop chamber because its possible to get through the game with just those plus whatever you used to take down the Overseer ship which could be a widely varying technology. You can't incorporate deaths of XCOM operatives because not only were they randomized and often customized but you can get through a playthrough without any deaths. You can't be specific about the state of any of the council nations because any of them could've left the council within a month of the invasions beginning. You can't be specific about dates because you can prolong the invasion to multiple last years. You can't assume that the player played any of the coucil missions. You can't incorporate anything from Enemy Within because not everybody played that. You can't even assume that the player won the first mission or played a single other mission in the first month. These are the kind of restraints you're trying to impose. Its more or less impossible to make any decent timeline sequel that would be consistent with every single players' various playthroughs, let alone do that without leaving gaping plotholes that couldn't be answered such as "what happened to the laser weapons left over?" without declaring one option event as canon or not.

Silentpony:
Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.

Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"

I've never understood why people are so upset over this decision, given how well it does fit the mythos of the series. The entire alien conspiracy movement does contain a section where aliens invade covertly that inpsires the (at least initial) waves of alien attackers. Then the game follows through with a more overt alien invasion as things heat up. It's a great series, but there's other bits of the mythos to explore that isn't always done.

Hence, XCOM 2. Where it follows the idea that aliens are actually in control of our governments, and only a dedicated few remain outside of alien control in order to fight back. It's still going with the aliens are real mythos.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
SNIP

The Nemesis system was interesting, yeah. What they should do is take the idea of it, put into a Assassin's Creed game, then set the whole thing in the 40k Universe.
That's a game I would reserve negative comments on until after launch and recall.

Qizx:
EDIT: How the hell do you put spoilers? I want to say how/why she died.

MarsAtlas:
This thread will teach you that command and many more.

Gawd, how do you manage giving a link to the old version and not the new one, despite it being stickied? I've actually lost count on people doing this. T_T

Aerosteam:

Qizx:
EDIT: How the hell do you put spoilers? I want to say how/why she died.

MarsAtlas:
This thread will teach you that command and many more.

Gawd, how do you manage giving a link to the old version and not the new one, despite it being stickied? I've actually lost count on people doing this. T_T

Because I have the old one bookmarked, mwahahaha!

Silentpony:

Imperioratorex Caprae:
SNIP

The Nemesis system was interesting, yeah. What they should do is take the idea of it, put into a Assassin's Creed game, then set the whole thing in the 40k Universe.
That's a game I would reserve negative comments on until after launch and recall.

I'd be up for that. I'm not happy with the AAA games of late, though a few have been good recently. I feel that the failures of today can end up being the catalysts for success tomorrow, but as long as the fledgling devs of right now are learning the lessons the AAA devs are teaching, unknowingly.
I feel personally we're in a holding pattern while the industry catches up to the general customer malaise. We're hurt by what I call the hardcore casuals, gamers who buy games but have no care to put their voice out and keep buying the same crap that is hurting (not ruining) the industry and gamers as a whole. These "hardcore casuals" are dangerous in that they represent the larger number of gamers and are probably unaware, willfully ignorant or otherwise, of the problems in the industry. Moreover they don't follow the trends, the pitfalls and such and don't add their voices to the discussion. Its just bad that the industry is driven by the people who buy without researching or keeping up in gaming and that overall is the biggest reason outside of the AAA publishers why games are being so crappy.

Silentpony:

Qizx:
SNIP

Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.

Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"

The difference is Xcom has failure as very much an option, sure you CAN save scum, you can play on super easy, but that's not how you should! When Chris or or Leon die in RE you lose, GG load up a save (Usually the same screen).

When your favorite sniper dies in Xcom? Tough titties.
Argentina just left taking their money? Fuck off commander.

Failure is ALWAYS an option in Xcom and when you lose it doesn't just say "reload." Sure you can but the point is you lost, you failed earth.

I feel like the story line in XCOM 2 is an interesting one, although kind of "wasted". By that I mean, it's a perfect way to revive a story that was *supposed* to end on the bad note, yet there seems a whole lot of demand for a sequel so the best way to revive it is to play the bad note. Little pocket of resistance is always cool. I like how the "leave no man behind" kind of plays into the dramatic and patriotic fight back against all odds scenario.

Although it does annoy me somewhat, since I felt like the utter badass for beating Enemy Within on Hard (not Ironman though, sorry), it is successful in making me want to see how it all pans out. I mean, it'd be kind of stupid to play through yet another game and still be wiped out in the end anyway, heh.

Qizx:

Silentpony:

Qizx:
SNIP

Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.

Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"

The difference is Xcom has failure as very much an option, sure you CAN save scum, you can play on super easy, but that's not how you should! When Chris or or Leon die in RE you lose, GG load up a save (Usually the same screen).

When your favorite sniper dies in Xcom? Tough titties.
Argentina just left taking their money? Fuck off commander.

Failure is ALWAYS an option in Xcom and when you lose it doesn't just say "reload." Sure you can but the point is you lost, you failed earth.

I'd say the prospect of failure in XCOM isn't what he was complaining about. In fact, I'd say failure (be it squad wipes, falling behind on research) is a core feature of the series. No matter what you do, you will fail at some point, and sometimes this leads to the "game over" scenario.

But what do you do, then? Do you uninstall the game and never touch it again after it humiliated you?

Hell no! You boot a new game, learn from your mistakes, and go another round with the xeno scum. And you do better the second, third and tenth time around (assuming the early month missions roll in your favor by some miracle). That's what I love about XCOM; it forces you to learn from all your mistakes and losses so that, when you do beat Ironman / Impossible without any shortcuts, it makes the victory that much sweeter. When you fall down, you rise back up stronger.

And that's why I think XCOM 2's opening scenario of "you lost, dumbass" is counter-productive to one of the series best traits. Loss in XCOM is supposed to feel like a motivator to improve. Here, it feels like Firaxis is leaning on the meta-data of "99% of players couldn't beat I/I, so that must mean hardly anyone finished the game" to justify the current events. It feels like a mini-version of ME3's ending debacle, only without the creator's actively calling anyone who complains self-entitled whiners.

I guess my point is there are other ways to justify why the aliens won. They could have gone with you won the first invasion fleet, but then another 10 show up and decimate everything with ease, proving that you've still got a long way to go before you master the alien's technology. Just something that doesn't resort to the Metroid philosophy of every new game must start the player off with a large handicap to make it challenging.

Although, given the story hints and tidbits they've released so far, it's sounding like this is less of a sequel and more of an alternate timeline. The aliens didn't just attack Earth; they specifically targeted XCOM before moving against the rest of the planet. This makes me think the aliens somehow knew that, if given the opportunity, XCOM would find a way to thwart their plans. So, they find a way to warn themselves and adjust their invasion plan accordingly.

If this theory pans out, then that would make EU/EW's victory and loss scenarios both canon for different reasons. And it would make the Ethereals the ultimate save-scummers.

Like I said last time around I came to the understanding that if you can both win and lose Xcom EU/EW then it's like "Schrodinger's Cat" In that the first time line where you said Earth is fine, however the decisions that lead to that cause a parallel time line that results in the defeat of Xcom which still means the First Earth is fine but the GAME follows the timeline of the new second Earth that still needs saving from a hostile alien threat. So now you have to save a slightly different Earth than the one you knew before with a different history that might not be so familiar. Justice League has a pretty good example of what I mean with the "Justice League" and "Crime Syndicate".

Edit: Spoiler Alert the following clip is from a portion of the ending to "Justice League: Crisis on two Earths"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-rl0tfQO9E

I would like to know how the aliens won, considering that Xcom was designed to be won.

Finally, no more leaving incredibly expensive gear behind just because it's on a corpse.

Silentpony:

But I'd rather be negative and correct than constantly getting let down by AAA shittiness. Being positive doesn't make bad games better. Just means you have no pattern recognition.

There's a skill I like to call "Cautious Cynicism". Basically instead of swinging wildly between any two extremes of being SUPER HYPED or SUPER ANGRY NEGATIVE, you take a little of both and live in a realistic balance. I've been excited for games that let me down and ones that I'd predicted correctly. I've also dismissed games that I thought wouldn't be fun that later proved successful and worthy of praise. If we really put this into perspective, you're saying that everything is shit. AAA games CAN'T be good. Positivity and optimism are childish retreats from the soul crushing reality of game developers working hard to deliver steaming piles shit.

Why would anyone want to live in a world like this? Why wouldn't you want to get excited for something that's been proven to be a difficult genre to be continuing? It's like presuming Persona 5 is going to be shit because I don't get to play as Yu Narukami/Souji Seta anymore. Or Fallout New Vegas and 4 are pointless because I'm not the Lone Wanderer. Or hell, ANY fallout game after 1 because you're not controlling the Vault Dweller.

It also discounts the AAA games that ARE actually really good. Transformers Devastation, Portal 2, Spec Ops: The Line, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Shin Megami Tensei IV. The list can go on. Positivity is not a "blindness". Only bad JRPG villians really think that.

Anyone can be negative. SMT IV has an awful painful map system, Transformers Devastation is kind of short, Link Between Worlds changed the mechanics on how you get tools, Portal 2 had a couple kind of bad puzzles and changed the ending so GLaDOS wan't really dead, Deus Ex: Human Revolution had bad boss fights. It's pointless to just be mean and spiteful of things just because they weren't made how you wanted or were made by big name companies.

I'm honestly not sure which I'm looking forward to most at the moment, X-COM, Dark Souls or Persona but every time I hear anything about X-COM I get more exited about it.

The alien progress thing sounds good, but I think its going to be hard to balance. You want it to be really close to completion at the end of the game for drama, but you don't want to put the game into an unwinnable state if you aren't quick enough in the middle and didn't realise you don't have time at the end to win. I'm hoping that these missions will be that balancing factor.

Silentpony:
Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.

The butthurt is strong with this one. While in essence, it's nothing different from just any developer deciding that their game has a canonical and non-canonical ending.

Like darkside Revan in Kotor, darkside Kyle Katarn in the Jedi Knight series, all the female / male character in games where only one gender is canonical, etc. All those endings and possibilities were ignored as well to make the sequels or the continued story more coherent and interesting.

There's zero need to be butthurt. The fun times you had still existed, they weren't erased. Plus XCOM2 looks to add a ton more to that.

008Zulu:
I would like to know how the aliens won, considering that Xcom was designed to be won.

A newbie was playing it on hard difficulty, lost the game miserably, and the aliens used a ripple in the space-time continuum to propagate that reality to all other X-COM installations.

I have to say, this is starting to sound exciting.

with so much more attention given to character development, losing them will naturally be far more upsetting - which is one reason why Firaxis expanded on the memorial wall

When I played the original X-Com (actually TFTD) as a kid, I kept a roster of my Aquanauts on paper, so I could figure out who died, what their rank was and how many kills they got... after a "campaign" I would peruse the roster of the fallen heroes and compare it to the ones from different playthroughs. This created a "meta game" where I could compare the best soldiers of any playthrough with each other and gauge how well I did based on the number of losses. It really added a lot to my game.

And somehow I think that the tendency to do something like this and to be interested in capturing the statistics of a game is something of a natural, emerging phenomenon in strategy games. It's really a shame most developers neglect this area of gameplay.

I really don't get why some of you are so upset about XCOM 2's plotline. Yes, I was a little be peeved when I learned that the plotline of Enemy Unknown wasn't being continued, but this is basically a "what if" scenario, and as that, it has a lot of potential. An Earth society that is controlled by aliens? XCOM being seen as terrorists? That's really cool! Yeah, we could have gone with the aliens coming back in stronger numbers or something in XCOM 2, or had a plot similar to some of the older games, but this is honestly full of great potential. Hell, some of the Legend of Zelda games, plot wise, come from a timeline where Link is killed off before saving the day in earlier games, and that gave us some good gems.

Oh yeah, OT, everything system wise sounds great.

008Zulu:
I would like to know how the aliens won, considering that Xcom was designed to be won.

You can lose in XCOM. It's a potential route that can occur, and XCOM 2 is following that route.
If you refuse to believe that for whatever reason, consider the fact that the aliens you were battling in Enemy Unknown were just the servants of some greater alien force, which would probably see that the humans were acting uppity, and then send a much greater attack against them.

I don't like the decision to basically retcon XCOM EU/EW, because playing it now feels to me like playing a fan (fiction) game. But I'm one of the guys that trys to be precise with fictional canon. Also, it's so cheap since all they needed to do was to write a scenario where the end sequence, for those who know it, had terrible consequence. The potential was there and is so easy to write with this ending. So that's why I can not understand it.

But the game will be great anyway. Believe it or not, but you can criticize and enjoy it anyway. It's not like.... Let's forget about that.

zombiejoe:
I really don't get why some of you are so upset about XCOM 2's plotline. Yes, I was a little be peeved when I learned that the plotline of Enemy Unknown wasn't being continued, but this is basically a "what if" scenario, and as that, it has a lot of potential. An Earth society that is controlled by aliens? XCOM being seen as terrorists? That's really cool! Yeah, we could have gone with the aliens coming back in stronger numbers or something in XCOM 2, or had a plot similar to some of the older games, but this is honestly full of great potential. Hell, some of the Legend of Zelda games, plot wise, come from a timeline where Link is killed off before saving the day in earlier games, and that gave us some good gems.

Oh yeah, OT, everything system wise sounds great.

Like I've said before, I don't have a problem with XCOM 2 starting from the game over scenario. I take issue with how its being implemented. You're expected to lose in XCOM (quite often if you want to achieve and Ironman/Impossible victory) and its from those failures that you learn and grow, making your victories more satisfying. Now, here's Firaxis scripting their sequel from the standpoint that you are a failure for losing your first game and you gave up trying to achieve victory. It hurts the player immersion and, in my opinion, the potential story possibilities for the sequel.

Now, that's not to say I'm not hyped as hell for XCOM 2. Far from it. I'm following the news feeds, working to finish my Long War I/I campaign, I even read the shoddy novel they made to "bridge the gap" between the two games. (Spoiler alert! Its pretty bad and only provides vague hints of what happened to cause the loss scenario).

Point is, I'm psyched to see what XCOM 2 will offer, but I'm worried Firaxis is taking two large steps forward in terms of gameplay features, but potentially one step back in terms of world-building and player investment. Yeah, those of us who beat EU/EW know what the alien's end-goal is and had hints of something far more threatening on the horizon, but now those achievements are being reversed to keep us fighting a similar gallery of xeno scum. Granted, our foes are looking more challenging and varied this time around, but if we're stuck fighting the same Ethereal foes and their lackeys for another game, I worry boredom is going to set in.

Don't be afraid to let humanity start fighting some new foes with the tech they gain from their victories, Firaxis. I'm not the only one who would like to see how mid-to-late game weapons and armor hold up against TFTD's Lovecraftian nightmares or Apocalypse's trans-dimensional invaders. Let humanity and XCOM continue to grow instead of finding reasons for them to re-tread the same path.

The whole resistance thing is incredibly cliche in this game environment. I honestly could not count how many games I've played in the past decade where I've been part of a group called "The resistance" or "the rebels" all ways for saying not "The Man".

I sort of feel that the X-Com games always had that specific quality where it was the only game where a coalition and collection of government resources actually created something worthwhile.

Sure, this does let them explore different mechanics in the series, but those mechanics are necessarily mechanics that are already showcased in like eight other games where you play as a rag tag bunch of resistors fighting against the oppressors. TFTD felt like a B-movie sequel with harder mechanics, X-Com2 looks like Red Faction:UFO Afterlight.

I'm sure they'll do it really well, Firaxis always does, but when I heard you were "The Resistance" I groaned so hard, so hard. How many games do you play as the resistance?

GARforGunman:

zombiejoe:
I really don't get why some of you are so upset about XCOM 2's plotline. Yes, I was a little be peeved when I learned that the plotline of Enemy Unknown wasn't being continued, but this is basically a "what if" scenario, and as that, it has a lot of potential. An Earth society that is controlled by aliens? XCOM being seen as terrorists? That's really cool! Yeah, we could have gone with the aliens coming back in stronger numbers or something in XCOM 2, or had a plot similar to some of the older games, but this is honestly full of great potential. Hell, some of the Legend of Zelda games, plot wise, come from a timeline where Link is killed off before saving the day in earlier games, and that gave us some good gems.

Oh yeah, OT, everything system wise sounds great.

Like I've said before, I don't have a problem with XCOM 2 starting from the game over scenario. I take issue with how its being implemented. You're expected to lose in XCOM (quite often if you want to achieve and Ironman/Impossible victory) and its from those failures that you learn and grow, making your victories more satisfying. Now, here's Firaxis scripting their sequel from the standpoint that you are a failure for losing your first game and you gave up trying to achieve victory. It hurts the player immersion and, in my opinion, the potential story possibilities for the sequel.

Now, that's not to say I'm not hyped as hell for XCOM 2. Far from it. I'm following the news feeds, working to finish my Long War I/I campaign, I even read the shoddy novel they made to "bridge the gap" between the two games. (Spoiler alert! Its pretty bad and only provides vague hints of what happened to cause the loss scenario).

Point is, I'm psyched to see what XCOM 2 will offer, but I'm worried Firaxis is taking two large steps forward in terms of gameplay features, but potentially one step back in terms of world-building and player investment. Yeah, those of us who beat EU/EW know what the alien's end-goal is and had hints of something far more threatening on the horizon, but now those achievements are being reversed to keep us fighting a similar gallery of xeno scum. Granted, our foes are looking more challenging and varied this time around, but if we're stuck fighting the same Ethereal foes and their lackeys for another game, I worry boredom is going to set in.

Don't be afraid to let humanity start fighting some new foes with the tech they gain from their victories, Firaxis. I'm not the only one who would like to see how mid-to-late game weapons and armor hold up against TFTD's Lovecraftian nightmares or Apocalypse's trans-dimensional invaders. Let humanity and XCOM continue to grow instead of finding reasons for them to re-tread the same path.

I don't know, man. I mean I can see why you were be worried in some aspects, I would hate it too if it turned out we were just retreading old ground when it came to the aliens that we were fighting, but from what I've seen there are some really interesting and new looking xenos to go up against, even if we need to battle a few of the old classic aliens along the way too. And let's be honest with ourselves here, the way that the Ethereal's revealed their "master plan" in EU/EW was pretty messy. "We're trying to find a great race, so we like that you're fighting us and are disappointed when you lose, but also how could you kill us this wasn't part of the plan." Exploring a path where the aliens take over gives us more room to explore just what that "master plan" actually entailed, and what their next step would be. I also can't feel whatever loss of immersion you're feeling, because to me, this is a separate timeline than my victory in EU/EW. This isn't "you know that victory you fought so hard to get? Yeah, well, that's pointless", it's "you know that victory you fought so hard to get? Well here's what would have happened if you lost. It's a separate path, and I don't think it hurts potential possibilities for the sequel, because an Earth run by xenos is actually really cool. There's a lot of world building potential in that. Though it may sting that you won't be able to see a stronger, more advanced XCOM, a weaker, resistance force XCOM seems just as cool to me.

Silentpony:
Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"

Where could they POSSIBLY take the plot, though? Congratulations! You beat back the alien invasion and won the last game! Time to repel another alien invasion, but because you were so OP at the end of last game we took away everything you had so you have to start over. Or they reboot it and say the events of the last game never happened at all and THIS is the new XCOM, bigger and shinier but pretty much just the same game. This is actually a really good idea for a sequel.

The more I hear about this game, the less I like it, honestly.

I don't love the "the humans lost" angle, sure, but I can live with it. But the whole thing seems so unrelievedly grim, and the first game wasn't exactly a bowl of cherries to begin with. If you're going to be staging a rebellion, that ought to open your options up; instead, it seems like they're keeping to the "Do this or this, either way you're losing out on something" format of the last game. There's so much emphasis on what you're losing- failing a mission, losing a soldier, losing a resource, missing an opportunity. Everything I've read so far emphasizes human collaborators, not the possibility of creating new cells of human resistance. And now your one aircraft is also your base, and can just be shot out of the sky for a flat-out game over; am I supposed to applaud that? No, thanks, I think that's a crummy idea.

But we can personalize our personnel so we can be that much more bummed when they miss their 95% shot and get nailed with auto-fire. [dripping sarcasm]Awesome[/sarcasm].

The original X-Com wasn't exactly innovative in good ways in where it went after the first entry: Underwater (more or less the same game, now tinged blue), a space station, various action-oriented quasi-tie-ins. But I can definitely think of other ways this could have gone. (What about the other planets the invasion has culled from? What happens to all that alien tech that ends up on Earth's black markets?)

If this sounds like your cup of tea, fine; I won't deny that some of it sounds intriguing (broader procedural generation is definitely a plus). Your mileage may vary, more power to you. I'm still waiting to hear something waiting to hear something that makes me think I'd actually enjoy this experience. It sounds like an abusive relationship simulator.

Callate:
The more I hear about this game, the less I like it, honestly.

I don't love the "the humans lost" angle, sure, but I can live with it. But the whole thing seems so unrelievedly grim, and the first game wasn't exactly a bowl of cherries to begin with. If you're going to be staging a rebellion, that ought to open your options up; instead, it seems like they're keeping to the "Do this or this, either way you're losing out on something" format of the last game. There's so much emphasis on what you're losing- failing a mission, losing a soldier, losing a resource, missing an opportunity. Everything I've read so far emphasizes human collaborators, not the possibility of creating new cells of human resistance. And now your one aircraft is also your base, and can just be shot out of the sky for a flat-out game over; am I supposed to applaud that? No, thanks, I think that's a crummy idea.

But we can personalize our personnel so we can be that much more bummed when they miss their 95% shot and get nailed with auto-fire. [dripping sarcasm]Awesome[/sarcasm].

The original X-Com wasn't exactly innovative in good ways in where it went after the first entry: Underwater (more or less the same game, now tinged blue), a space station, various action-oriented quasi-tie-ins. But I can definitely think of other ways this could have gone. (What about the other planets the invasion has culled from? What happens to all that alien tech that ends up on Earth's black markets?)

If this sounds like your cup of tea, fine; I won't deny that some of it sounds intriguing (broader procedural generation is definitely a plus). Your mileage may vary, more power to you. I'm still waiting to hear something waiting to hear something that makes me think I'd actually enjoy this experience. It sounds like an abusive relationship simulator.

Some of your information is off, you don't get shot down then get a game over, you get a chance to defend your base and then if you lose that it's a game over. There are also human allies, they show the overworld map in one trailer emphasizing how your missions inspire the human populace to rise up and resist the aliens.

Your complaints about soldier customization just sounds pointlessly cynical, are you really trying to spin it as a negative because you get more attached to your soldiers and thus work harder to keep them alive? Sure you get that soldier that misses a dumb shot and gets crit slaughtered the next turn, but you also get your team of customized badasses that survive all odds and win the final mission, rather than being a bunch of faceless mooks only differentiated by their class and weapon load out.

Xcom has always been really grim, the first game ends with mass devastation to most countries, the second gets the whole world destroyed in the aftermath so that the third takes place in one of the few surviving areas not destroyed by the aliens.

While there are likely ways they could have continued the plot and made it work, your idea of just going to alien planets to fight seems less interesting than what we've currently got, and deemphasizes the earth defense aspect from the most popular of the early Xcoms as well as running the risk of just turning the units into generic space marines. I don't care about alien planets involving the species from the first game, none of the individual species were ever that interesting that I'd want to see what their planets looked like bar maybe the ethereals and snake men.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here