XCOM 2 Announced for PC

+
XCOM 2 Announced for PC

[video=youtube;2E_-2wIJIzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E_-2wIJIzQ[/video]

2K Announces XCOM 2 in Development at Firaxis Games

2K and Firaxis Games today announced that XCOM 2, the sequel to the Game of the Year* award-winning strategy title XCOM: Enemy Unknown, is currently in development for Windows-based PC. Developed by Firaxis Games, XCOM 2 transports players 20 years into the future, where humanity lost the war against the alien threat that has established a new world order. The secret paramilitary organization known as XCOM is largely forgotten, and must strike back to reclaim control of Earth and free mankind from the aliens’ rule. XCOM 2 is currently scheduled for release in November 2015. The game will also be coming to Mac and Linux via Feral Interactive.

In XCOM 2, the roles have been reversed, and XCOM is now the invading force. They are hampered by limited resources and must constantly evade the alien threat in their new mobile headquarters. Players must use a combination of firepower and stealth-like tactics to help XCOM recruit soldiers and build a resistance network, while attempting to expose the evil alien agenda and save humanity. XCOM 2 will introduce gameplay features such as procedurally-generated levels, which will make each experience unique to the player, as well as offer a much deeper level of modding support. Additionally, XCOM 2 will offer a variety of new content including five updated soldier classes, increased soldier customization, more alien and enemy types, evolved tactical combat and more.

“Firaxis proved they could reimagine a beloved franchise with XCOM: Enemy Unknown, a Game of the Year award-winning title,” said Christoph Hartmann, president of 2K. “With XCOM 2, the team is breathing new life into the series by adding an epic narrative and challenging players to overcome near impossible odds.”

“The feedback from the passionate XCOM community played an important role in the development of XCOM 2, driving us to push the visual, gameplay and replayability boundaries of what a strategy game can be,” said Jake Solomon, creative director of XCOM 2 at Firaxis Games. “We’re thrilled to implement long-time fan requested features such as procedural levels and modding support, as well as adding more of what makes XCOM great like new aliens, enemies and soldier classes.”

The official site also adds more detail on a few areas of the game.


  • The base is now actually mobile, and it’s a large converted alien supply craft named Avenger.
  • There are five soldier classes, each with its own skill tree, including new class abilities. Momentum is one of these.
  • The state of the world will actually affect the environment of each mission.
  • You can build and configure rooms inside the Avenger.
  • Mission environments include wildlands, alien-controlled megacities and alien installations.
  • Mod tools will allow you to create “your own campaign, tactical gameplay, aliens ands trategy game features” and share them via Steam Workshop.
  • Competitive multiplayer will be supported with mixed squads of aliens and humans on randomly generated maps.

Official Website

















 
Last edited:
Sounds like their blending the premises (and some gameplay features) of UFO:Aftershock and XCOM: Apocalypse.

Also, the look of the alien-controlled cities is a great ref for 2020's CorpZone.
 
Last edited:
We'll see. I liked the new Xcom, but not as much as the old one, or even close. THe new one was, hrm, less robust in features I thought.
 
It was obviously not as detailed as the original, and maybe not as good as the original. The original is one of my all time favorite games, which I do from time to time go back to playing.

But I personally felt that XCOM EU/EW was, and still is, one of the best games during the last 3 years since it came out (heck during the last 5-6+ years to). Was it perfect? Obviously not, but neither is the original really. They both have their own flaws, and the original is probably better then XCOM (depends on who you ask obviously)... I personally do think the original is better... but I really appreciate the new one for what it is, and for what is has done. Because I do believe that the new one showed publishers, and players, that turn-based combat is still viable option for games. So due to that I do feel that XCOM:EU is partly responsible for the success that a lot of these new "old-school" type of turn-based games that have been coming back during the last 3 years since XCOM:EU was released.

I am highly looking forward to XCOM2... and I have a feeling that, if XCOM2 turns out to be at the very least good, XCOM 2 will probably be my favorite game of 2015... just as XCOM:EU was my favorit game of 2012. And that's the year where other games I really liked came out as well, like Far Cry 3, Mass Effect 3 (even though the ending was a bit lackluster, Mass Effect is together with Final Fantasy my all time favorit game IP's), and Torchlight II... maybe a few others I am forgetting.

I really like the idea of that we will essentially have a role reversal with XCOM2, where we now are the attackers instead. Where "we" are the attacker, the ones who choice target and objective, and they have to try and defend them selves, so the whole combat dynamics having changed to more being a guerrilla warfare type of a thing. I have a hard time believing that I will not be having fun when playing XCOM2.
 
I though it was OK. It wasn't much more but a nice little puzzle game, but it managed to entertain me despite the occasional clunkiness.
 
I rather liked Enemy Unknown, but I can readily acknowledge that it sacrificed granular control for streamlining.

Though I prefer the gameplay of UFO Defense to EU, I still enjoyed EU for what it was.
 
I rather liked Enemy Unknown, but I can readily acknowledge that it sacrificed granular control for streamlining.

Though I prefer the gameplay of UFO Defense to EU, I still enjoyed EU for what it was.

Xenonauts. Redge. Xenonauts! Try it out!
 
I really liked XCOM and I am cautiously excited about this news.. (cautiously because while it has the potential to be a great game, it also has the potential to suck in equal measure.)

One thing I really hate about XCOM 2 is how they handled the backstory. You lost the first game by default and aliens invaded. They could have handled that better. They could have just say "you destroyed the alien ship in the first game but 2 years later 2 more arrived and overwhelmed you." or something like that. No need to betray and insult the players by rendering the first game meaningless.
 
I really liked XCOM and I am cautiously excited about this news.. (cautiously because while it has the potential to be a great game, it also has the potential to suck in equal measure.)

One thing I really hate about XCOM 2 is how they handled the backstory. You lost the first game by default and aliens invaded. They could have handled that better. They could have just say "you destroyed the alien ship in the first game but 2 years later 2 more arrived and overwhelmed you." or something like that. No need to betray and insult the players by rendering the first game meaningless.

Heh... I replied to someone on youtube who was having a very simmilar objection about the choice of that the canon outcome of XCOM:EU/EW is that we lost VERY early. So I will just copy, past, and tweek a little, what I said to him/her/it. XD

So here below it is:


But see... part of the reason why Firaxis decided to go this way, with that "we lost", is actually based on "reality". Garth, one of the main guy behind the game had an interview on IGN (and maybe on other places to) where he spoke about this.

As Firaxis was looking at how to start XCOM2, someone eventually took a look at the statistics on Steam about the game, and the people plauing it, and what they found was pretty interesting.

Only 1.1% have managed to win the game on Impossible.

Only 4.8% have managed to win the game on Classic. (Classic being the difficulty said to be simmilar to the difficulty in the original game (UFO: Enemy Unknown, or X-COM: Defence as it was renamed to for the American market)... so "Normal" difficulty in XCOM:EU/EW = easier then "Beginner" in the original game. There is a bug in the original game where no matter what difficulty you pick the game would still be set to Beginner, the easiest difficulty, and nobody noticed for many many years to come... just due to how difficult Beginner was)

Only 1.7% have managed to win the game in Classic or Impossible, with Ironman on.

And finally, only 27% have actually managed to win the game on ANY difficulty! So roughly 21% have managed to finish it on normal or easy... again, difficulties which are easier then Beginner in the original game.

Amongst a lot of other things Garth said this: “To say Impossible Iron Man is canon is perfect. We think that’s basically the experience that XCOM had.”

So on just pure statistics, and what Firaxis sort of consider the canon difficulty to be, the likelihood of XCOM actually winning... is low at best. So going with a scenario where we won would seem somewhat unrealistic.

Just because it might be a possability that you can win, does not have to mean that this is the canon way to go for a sequal. As Garth also said: "XCOM is not a power fantasy. XCOM is a game of struggling against odds and - hopefully - triumph."


Outside of this, I personally find it more interesting to explore the idea that we actually lost the original war... rather than "YAY! We won! Oh wait... that was just the scout force?!" or something. It is a bit of a cliche to go that route, the route of "But wait, theres more" thing... where at the end, of what ever it is (game, movie, tv-series, etc), you see the camera move around to show the audience that the danger is not over just yet, due to what ever it is that the camera shows you.

- - -

In a later reply on youtube I also talked about tech:

Going this route with the story, that we lost, does obviously very easy solve the problem of "But what do we do with the tech progression"... the "why would XCOM once again start with conventional weapons when they had plasma rifles at the end of the previous one". I mean... where do you go after you have plasma weapons after all, or powered armour that can walk through explosions like it was nothing, etc. At best you would get minor changes that in the end would feel really unsatisfying getting, or they would have to go all out crazy with it...

"Plasma rifle Model 1.0, bog standard --> PRM 2.0, now with twice the power --> PRM 3.0, grenade lancher all night long baby --> PRM 4.0, you want fireworks? We got fireworks! --> PRM 5.0, now with enhanced ergonomic rubber grips, for your comfort --> PRM 6.0, Swiss Army Knife Edition"... at which point it would just end up being rediculous. I joke here a bit of cours.. but you get the idea.

And at the same time, if they had to make the game with the idea that Plasma weapons are the starting point, then the Aliens them selves would also have to become more rediculous, more hitpoints, better protection, etc... and here it can also get pretty rediculouse at that point.

Also, seeing your tech in the game "level up" is one of the fun things with these games. Finally getting your hands on your first laser weapons for example feels like a significant event, or when you finally get your first plasma weapon running in a mission, or better armour etc. They are events that do significant changes to the dynamic of the battles for you, And they often mean that your chance of survival in any given mission will drasticly get better. And I much rather see "big leaps" like this, with going from both visually, and power levels, very different kinds of weapons... rather than minor tweeked looks and powers between the weapons.
 
They need to review their assumptions.

It took 30 seconds for one attack. 30 needless seconds where you would watch a shitty animation that you've seen countless times.

They need to take a cue from the old gameboy trading card games. Or the old chessmasters. Or Jagged Alliance 2.

It's OK to have shit graphics but its NOT ok to have shit UI or 30 seconds long move and attack animations because you want the game to be cinematic, or the lplayer to have a connection to his soldiers or whatnot.
 
Last edited:
They need to review their assumptions.
What assumptions would that be?

It took 30 seconds for one attack. 30 needless seconds where you would watch a shitty animation that you've seen countless times.
Ehm... First of, your clearly exaggerating. It never took 30 seconds. I would guess it at most took 5 or so seconds... and usualy the ones that took the longest was the sniper action cam shots (thats what it seemed like to me).

Also... you do know that it was possible to turn that of... right? It's right there in the options menu, under Gameplay, "Show action cam".

They need to take a cue from the old gameboy trading card games. Or the old chessmasters. Or Jagged Alliance 2.
And what cues would that be?

If anything I feel the game they should take cues from would be UFO: Enemy Unknown... you know... the original game that XCOM:EU is based on.

It's OK to have shit graphics but its NOT ok to have shit UI or 30 seconds long move and attack animations because you want the game to be cinematic, or the lplayer to have a connection to his soldiers or whatnot.
What's wrong with a player feeling connections with their soldiers? If anything that can ramp up the tension in the game so much more when your favorit guy is in real danger of losing their life.
 
I was very fond of my troops!
And I'll freely admit to save spamming a couple times when a favorite died due to bad luck (as opposed to my faulty tactics).
 
What assumptions would that be?


Ehm... First of, your clearly exaggerating. It never took 30 seconds. I would guess it at most took 5 or so seconds... and usualy the ones that took the longest was the sniper action cam shots (thats what it seemed like to me).

Also... you do know that it was possible to turn that of... right? It's right there in the options menu, under Gameplay, "Show action cam".


And what cues would that be?

If anything I feel the game they should take cues from would be UFO: Enemy Unknown... you know... the original game that XCOM:EU is based on.


What's wrong with a player feeling connections with their soldiers? If anything that can ramp up the tension in the game so much more when your favorit guy is in real danger of losing their life.

The idea is very simple: in most turn based games you have a "Fast Turn based" mode which turns off all the bells and whistles.
Xcom lacked one and so it significantly slowed down the gameplay.And no your action cam off doesn't work to speed up gameplay significantly.
 
Heh... I replied to someone on youtube who was having a very simmilar objection about the choice of that the canon outcome of XCOM:EU/EW is that we lost VERY early. So I will just copy, past, and tweek a little, what I said to him/her/it. XD

So here below it is:


But see... part of the reason why Firaxis decided to go this way, with that "we lost", is actually based on "reality". Garth, one of the main guy behind the game had an interview on IGN (and maybe on other places to) where he spoke about this.

As Firaxis was looking at how to start XCOM2, someone eventually took a look at the statistics on Steam about the game, and the people plauing it, and what they found was pretty interesting.

Only 1.1% have managed to win the game on Impossible.

Only 4.8% have managed to win the game on Classic. (Classic being the difficulty said to be simmilar to the difficulty in the original game (UFO: Enemy Unknown, or X-COM: Defence as it was renamed to for the American market)... so "Normal" difficulty in XCOM:EU/EW = easier then "Beginner" in the original game. There is a bug in the original game where no matter what difficulty you pick the game would still be set to Beginner, the easiest difficulty, and nobody noticed for many many years to come... just due to how difficult Beginner was)

Only 1.7% have managed to win the game in Classic or Impossible, with Ironman on.

And finally, only 27% have actually managed to win the game on ANY difficulty! So roughly 21% have managed to finish it on normal or easy... again, difficulties which are easier then Beginner in the original game.

Amongst a lot of other things Garth said this: “To say Impossible Iron Man is canon is perfect. We think that’s basically the experience that XCOM had.”

So on just pure statistics, and what Firaxis sort of consider the canon difficulty to be, the likelihood of XCOM actually winning... is low at best. So going with a scenario where we won would seem somewhat unrealistic.

Just because it might be a possability that you can win, does not have to mean that this is the canon way to go for a sequal. As Garth also said: "XCOM is not a power fantasy. XCOM is a game of struggling against odds and - hopefully - triumph."


Outside of this, I personally find it more interesting to explore the idea that we actually lost the original war... rather than "YAY! We won! Oh wait... that was just the scout force?!" or something. It is a bit of a cliche to go that route, the route of "But wait, theres more" thing... where at the end, of what ever it is (game, movie, tv-series, etc), you see the camera move around to show the audience that the danger is not over just yet, due to what ever it is that the camera shows you.

You gave this reply and they replied you back with some solid points, but you apparently ignored their replies or simply didn't care..

First of all, it doesn't matter if some players lost the game.. First version was buggy, anyway.. Also, it is insulting to the most of the players for two reasons, we lost the first game by default and first game didn't matter at all. I won my first game without losing a single soldier like Suhiira, what about that?

They could have made it so that we had options on the start.. We could pick that if we won or lost the first game. They could have made in game references to this like "we chop off one head and two more arrived". Also tech problem could be easily fixed. (I will answer that below.)

So on just pure statistics, and what Firaxis sort of consider the canon difficulty to be, the likelihood of XCOM actually winning... is low at best. So going with a scenario where we won would seem somewhat unrealistic.

Are you kidding me? What is the point then? If possibility of winning is unrealistic with all of the world supporting the XCOM, what chance does a bunch of rebels have in XCOM 2? It is not only unrealistic, but impossible to win then.. Don't even launch the game.. Why bother?

In a later reply on youtube I also talked about tech:

Going this route with the story, that we lost, does obviously very easy solve the problem of "But what do we do with the tech progression"... the "why would XCOM once again start with conventional weapons when they had plasma rifles at the end of the previous one". I mean... where do you go after you have plasma weapons after all, or powered armour that can walk through explosions like it was nothing, etc. At best you would get minor changes that in the end would feel really unsatisfying getting, or they would have to go all out crazy with it...



"Plasma rifle Model 1.0, bog standard --> PRM 2.0, now with twice the power --> PRM 3.0, grenade lancher all night long baby --> PRM 4.0, you want fireworks? We got fireworks! --> PRM 5.0, now with enhanced ergonomic rubber grips, for your comfort --> PRM 6.0, Swiss Army Knife Edition"... at which point it would just end up being rediculous. I joke here a bit of cours.. but you get the idea.

And at the same time, if they had to make the game with the idea that Plasma weapons are the starting point, then the Aliens them selves would also have to become more rediculous, more hitpoints, better protection, etc... and here it can also get pretty rediculouse at that point.

Also, seeing your tech in the game "level up" is one of the fun things with these games. Finally getting your hands on your first laser weapons for example feels like a significant event, or when you finally get your first plasma weapon running in a mission, or better armour etc. They are events that do significant changes to the dynamic of the battles for you, And they often mean that your chance of survival in any given mission will drasticly get better. And I much rather see "big leaps" like this, with going from both visually, and power levels, very different kinds of weapons... rather than minor tweeked looks and powers between the weapons.

Thats easy, we had only ONE base, right? You could have had hangars anywhere in the world, but you had only a single base. I also don't remember having any options for stashing high grade weapons anywhere.. You didn't really share the tech with the rest of the world either.. When you think about it, if more alien ships arrived, where would they attack first? Your base of course! (If I remember it correctly, they did try to do that in the first game but failed, so aliens know the location of your base already.) Almost any tech you had would have been gone. Whatever that is left would be dust in 20 years of occupation.. Any Psionic soldiers and tech you had would be hunted down to extinction by aliens. Anyone who would survive that, would go into hiding and wouldn't appear until the middle of the game.. (I even imagine we would have a "Find Allies" mission or something like that. To find soldiers from the previous game.) So, what would you do if everything, every single advantage, resource and tech you had was gone? You would go into hiding.. It just makes sense. Having options on the beginning would work. Just a few references here and there..
 
The idea is very simple: in most turn based games you have a "Fast Turn based" mode which turns off all the bells and whistles.
Xcom lacked one and so it significantly slowed down the gameplay.And no your action cam off doesn't work to speed up gameplay significantly.

"Most turn based games" is again an exaggeration. Some do, some do not.

And aah... from your previous post it did not come across that you ment all of the animations and what not... came across as you meaning just the action cam thing. But none the less... I doubt you would gain all that much time in the end anyway.

There are certain animations I can agree with that they are a bit to long, or that it is annoying that to an extent you are locked to that character as they are doing it (although it is possible to change soldier as they are doing certain things by pressing the next/previous soldier keys)... like re-loading their weapons when they are standing out in the open (when they are in cover they do it much faster).

But in the end you still have to move the people around, choice actions/skill, choice target, etc... and as such I believe that is where most of the time consuming stuff comes from, rather than the animations them selves (even if they do have some effect on time obviously).

Of course, the original game did have the option to speed up a lot of different parts of the game (both in missions, and on the geoscape). But I tended to keep the in mission speeds close to base speeds, possibly slightly higher for my own guys... where as I never increased the speed of the aliens at all, if anything I might have slowed them down a step or two on both movement and shooting speed. Because I liked to have a chance to get an idea of where an alien moved or took a shot at me from. To fast speed and I would not have had a chance to get an idea of from where it came.

I mean I can understand that some might think that things take to long and what not. But I think that has more got to do with a persons patience, then anything else. Some people have it, and others do not... I just happen to have it, and huge amounts of it to. And you seem to have less of it... or... well... at least less of it then me, that is. I am sure you have more patience then most, seeing as you do seem to enjoy playing turn based games after all.
 
You gave this reply and they replied you back with some solid points, but you apparently ignored their replies or simply didn't care..

I did get one reply back from the person I replied to. And I did not feel that anything this person said was wrong really. But just because I did not outright say "your right" or "I see your point" or what ever, does not mean that I somehow ignored or did not care about the persons opinion. I did of course write another reply to the person, an unnecessary one really since it was left over stuff I had wanted to say in the first one but did not since I tried to scale it down as best as I could (the post you replied to would have been 50% bigger if I had included the other half of the particular youtube comment I write whereI talked about tech at the end).

It's a flaw I have, where I write to much, write completely unnecessary things, and even things that does not matter at all to the current topic (but that can to me matter a lot for the topic, details tend to be very important to me, on top of that I have a problem with sifting out the unnecessary things)... it is a flaw I do try to do something about, like spend a lot of time trying to make my posts smaller and what not... I can spend hours on one single post (this particular one has taken me over 5.5 hours to write XD ), and when I am done it is usually MUCH smaller, but still usually to big.

So trying to claim that I do not care, or ignore what people say, is false.

I might forget that someone said a certain thing do... just due to the amount of stuff I write. XD

If I did not care I would never put the amount of time I do on my posts, spend all this time trying to make them smaller, make them more on topic and on point, and what not... because I do it for the benefit of all of "you" (as in anybody who is not me). Because... if I did not... and never went into "must make post somewhat readable for others"-mode... and just posted my original raw versions of my posts, the way I would really want them to be... Nuffle help you all... I would probably accidentally summon some ancient horror or something... and you would all probably flee in terror... instead of just avoiding reading many of my current posts due to size. "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and um, screaming." comes to mind... XD

The size of the posts you have seen from me so far are relatively small compared what you would get. Most would probably be about 50% bigger, but it would not be unusual for you to encounter posts that would be double or triple the size of the biggest posts you have seen from me on this forum... you all have not seen nothing yet when it comes to my ability to text-walling the hell out of things. What your seeing is me restrained. XD

I am aware of that reading one of my posts can be... daunting, but I have already done what I can to get it somehow manageable. And as much as it might be a chore for people here (as in online) to read my stuff due to the size... by the time any else can read it I have already read through every single thing at least 2-3 times, but it is not uncommon that I have re-read everything 4-5 times befor I finally post it (due reading it all again after editing it)... and then usually another time after I posted it as well. So if it is any kind of a consolation, I put my self through the wringer as well. XD

So trust me... I care. ;)

First of all, it doesn't matter if some players lost the game.. First version was buggy, anyway.. Also, it is insulting to the most of the players for two reasons, we lost the first game by default and first game didn't matter at all. I won my first game without losing a single soldier like Suhiira, what about that?

They could have made it so that we had options on the start.. We could pick that if we won or lost the first game. They could have made in game references to this like "we chop off one head and two more arrived". Also tech problem could be easily fixed. (I will answer that below.)

"Some players"? I would not call ~73% of players "some players"... that right there is the majority of players on Steam, almost 3/4th of all players on Steam. You would put someone in power of a nation with those kinds of numbers.

And blaming it on the bugs? Really? I mean sure... bugs can effect games, on various levels... but most do not make games unplayable, or unwinnable (and the ones that do do get patched out of a game... usually at least)... and I did not feel I found any in XCOM that made the game somehow unplayable or unwinnable or what ever. I do tend to find it a bit funny when people say things like "It's the bugs faults", and then later on say "But I still managed to win!"... because if that is the case, then clearly the claimed bugs was not standing in that particular persons way.

For a game like XCOM I really do not feel that you have to stick with the best possible story scenario at the end, as the starting point for another game. Winning is just one way to go in that game... "Failure is always an option" to quote a certain Mythbuster. And in a lot of sense as I have said previously, I do think the story is somewhat secondary to everything else in XCOM. The struggle and fighting the odds etc is the more important one. It's nice that it is there (the story), but in the long run it does not matter to much, in my mind at least. And even though I can see the problems with making such a choice as Firaxis has done about the story between XCOM 1 and 2, I don't think it is something that is so important that it actually matters in the end. And if anything, it is a story choice that does interest me more at this point in time then the other option of "they sent a lot more ships after that". They are games, and games do not always have to make sense after all.

I mean I do understand your concern about it. That there can becomes a pretty large disconnect between XCOM 1 and 2 due to it. But does that really diminish your previous enjoyment of XCOM 1? Does that, in any way shape or form, somehow make the fact that you might have liked the previous game, null and void? Does the fact that you have to start over from the start of mankind in Civilization games, for example, somehow diminish the enjoyment of the previous games in that series? Will you from now on look back at your enjoyment of XCOM 1 and go "You know what... even though I was really enjoying my self when I played it back then, bugs withstanding... I now see that I was not... no it is clear to me now, since XCOM 2 came about, that I was having a really bad time playing XCOM 1 actually!"? I would assume not.

And so what that you managed to win your first game? Does that make your opinion more valid then anybody else's opinion on the matter? No matter if they won or not? I also managed to win my first game (do not recall if I lost any of my soldiers though, since it was such a long time ago... I would not be surprised if I did though, because sometimes I get a bit impulsive and do some stupid move to put my self in unnecessary risk... like run'and'gunning an assault to far to ensure I flank and kill an alien, which might then of course open up more alien squads leaving my assault in a vulnerable position). Of course, since I do feel that no ones opinion is really more valid then anyone else's (it does of course depend on the situation, and the importance and nature of the thing spoken about)... this also means that I do feel that my opinion is no more valid then anybody else's. With that said, I do still feel it is important to speak ones opinions.

If I do seem... I don't know... overbearing, or like I am trying to convince you or anyone else that what I say is the only true one, then I apologize, that is not my intention. It sometimes comes across that way in my walls of text, and I try to get rid of it when I tamper with my text, but I don't always catch all of it.


Are you kidding me? What is the point then? If possibility of winning is unrealistic with all of the world supporting the XCOM, what chance does a bunch of rebels have in XCOM 2? It is not only unrealistic, but impossible to win then.. Don't even launch the game.. Why bother?

It's a game. And I play games to have fun, enjoy my self, and have interesting challenges and experiences... and it is also where I can focus on just that one thing, playing the game, and not everything else that might be going on. It does not matter to me what canon in the game and/or game series might or might not be.

My brain can be very over active, going full tilt on what ever is going on around me. Where if there is something bothering me, or something really important I have to do, or maybe due to that I did or did not do a certain thing, or what ever... then my brain tends to go in overdrive, a constant loop of going over that one thing, or several things to for that matter since it can jump topic pretty easily to. It can very easily get to such a point where I can just not shut it of very easily. Imagine your own inner voice, the one you use to think about things etc, but that it just refuses to shut up so you can just let your mind rest, that's what can happen with me at times for various amounts of time as well. There are numerous times where I have laid in bed awake the entire night just mulling over something, where I might be working through exactly what I am going to say and talk about during the next day at some meeting or something (often I don't even use it either for that matter), or what ever else my mind might get stuck on mulling over.

So playing games for me (amongst other stuff, like reading books and comics, or watching tv-series movies or youtube, reading and writing on forums like this one, etc), is not just about having fun and enjoying my self and what not... it's a way for me to "shut my brain off". Now of course my brain does not shut off, instead that hyper focused laser, that is my brain and focus, shifts target from "stuff I don't feel like dealing with right now" towards the game or what ever I am using to spend my free time on.

As for what the point is for you? Why you should bother? Those are questions I unfortunately can not answer for you. I can suggest to just play games to have fun and enjoy your self, and enjoy the games for what they are... and not let the small and unimportant stuff, about a certain game or game/series, effect you. But I don't know if that will help you in any way. Unfortunately you your self will be the one who have to figure that one out. I do think it would be a shame if you somehow feel that your experience with XCOM:EU/EW is now somehow diminished due to what XCOM 2 and Firaxis consider to be the canon ending of it.

Thats easy, we had only ONE base, right? You could have had hangars anywhere in the world, but you had only a single base. I also don't remember having any options for stashing high grade weapons anywhere.. You didn't really share the tech with the rest of the world either.. When you think about it, if more alien ships arrived, where would they attack first? Your base of course! (If I remember it correctly, they did try to do that in the first game but failed, so aliens know the location of your base already.) Almost any tech you had would have been gone. Whatever that is left would be dust in 20 years of occupation.. Any Psionic soldiers and tech you had would be hunted down to extinction by aliens. Anyone who would survive that, would go into hiding and wouldn't appear until the middle of the game.. (I even imagine we would have a "Find Allies" mission or something like that. To find soldiers from the previous game.) So, what would you do if everything, every single advantage, resource and tech you had was gone? You would go into hiding.. It just makes sense. Having options on the beginning would work. Just a few references here and there..

That is a good option yes. I am not saying that you, or anyone else saying similar things, or different things either for that matter, are wrong... you are not. Everything you have said (even the things outside of the tech stuff) is all a valid point to one degree or another after all.

I guess in the end it comes down to how much one can take... ones tolerance for certain things, and ones patience with what ever it is. I tend to have a lot of all of that with a lot of things. And the things I am not fine with will usually and eventually fade away to, because in the end what really mattered to me with a game, or a tv-series or book or what ever, was never really that one thing that went against the previous thing or what ever. So the fact that we lost in the previous game according to XCOM 2, or that there might have been other, possibly better (which can be debated) ways to deal with the story line or the tech or what ever... does not really matter in the end.

I can tolerate what they have decided with their story line in XCOM, partly because it does in no way change any of the things that where actually important to me about the previous game, but also because I don't always need things to make perfect sense or that it has to follow a direct line or what ever in a story. Others are clearly not as tolerant about it as I can be.

It did use to show up on similar things like this back in the day though. Where inconsistencies between games, or between source material and stuff made from it and what not, could get me worked up... but I have always been a really calm and layed back type of a person, so somewhere in my late teens to early 20's that "It has to be just this exact way, or else it's not good!"-thing mostly went away from me. I guess that side of me only shows up on rare occasions these days, and for very short periods of time as well before I get over it. The ones where it sticks around these days are usually only on "actually impotent things" instead (as in humanity things and what not).

---------- Updated at 06:34 PM ----------

Boaff. TB is far from my favorite genre for the reason you mentionned -- busywork.
Ah... well... I am very well aware of that turn based games is not for everyone. It does take a certain type of mindset, and patience, etc, to play that kind of game.

I have always liked turn based, and always will... so to me it does not matter if it takes "long" for an action or entire turn to happen. Then I am also used to certain kinds of rpg's where some things take a really long time... like summons in Final Fantasy games for example. XD
 
Top Bottom