Playing Xenonauts after 100 hours of XCom2, kinda brings game flaws to the surface

[GenSpaceCake]

I could never bring myself to play original xcom due to graphics and UI, but Xenonauts seems like a decent enough approximation with the same mechanics.

In Xenonauts, even high ranking soldiers can get insta gibbed by many aliens, and I'm losing people on many missions, and I'm ok with that. Some terror missions have a lone survivor.

In XCom2, losing that many captains would mean either save scumming or campaign restart. You can't afford to take losses in a game built around losing people.

The sense of danger doesn't even compare - after plate/power armor in XCom2 I frequently have soldiers in the open, who cares if they lose 12 out of 18 hp? The sense of danger is gone.

Xcom2 has shot percentages quickly reaching 95% even win rifles at mid range (after cover is blown), and people complain of 80% shots missing. In Xenonauts I find myself taking 11% snap shots or 45% aimed shots.

I realized just how restrictive 2-3 equipment slots are. I could bring 2 scouts with ~10 blocks of C4 in Xenonauts and play with destructible terrain the way I want. Removing cover is significantly more difficult and basic grenades only explode at the end of your turn - a brilliant mechanic.

Cover feels like paper in XCom2- a sneeze would blow up a 5 foot hole in a building, shots collapse floors. Compare this to Xenonauts where instant cover destruction is rare and expensive.

Then there are "cheesy" tactics like overwatch crawl or blitz with explosives, which are fun, but nowhere near predecessors - say xcom or jagged alliance.

I followed xcom2 development closely, even reading interviews with Jake Solomon, and I see the game he was trying to create, and I realize why he's so conflicted about this creation... Xcom2 is flashy, but is not quite the planetary defense simulator that was the predecessor :(

Anyone else feels short changed by the new release? I feel it's like RPG devolving into action RPG. Big on flashy graphics and animations but short on actual enduring gameplay?

Is this tactical RPG devolving into action tactical RPG?

[drake_hound]

It is about getting more people to enjoy TBS games. I love all the management stuff.
But if I want that i play Jagged Alliance 2 v1.13 with Aimnas. which has even more micromanagement.

It isn´t that I don´t understand why they did it. infact I applaud them for doing it.
Cause they brought back TBS from the brink of death.
When publishers and others didn´t want TBS games anymore. cause way too difficult to understand. people new to the gernre got information overload.
And way too long waiting for AI to do his thing. (especially in this age of childeren lacking patience)

So Xcom EU/EW and Xcom 2 does something it still showcase the tactical fun of TBS games with multiple soldier control. while limiting the information overload on people.

And presenting challenges in a different way, while maintaining that soldier simulator.
(soldier simulator is what in the end you play XCOM for once you finish it one time)

[PhilkIced]

It's not "devolving", this is not worse than what it was before, it's just different, I love Xenonauts and I also love XCOM 2, they're better on different things, they have different focus and playstyles and mechanics, imagine how boring if every game was the same, they're simply different, appeal to different people and are both fun to their respective audiences.
I would maybe go as far as saying they're almost different genres.

[Apoc]

The original XCOM (And clones like Xenonauts) and Firaxis XCOM are two different series. They share the name and the basic concept (Alien invasion!) but bring different things to the table.

I honestly prefer Xenonauts and the original concept of the game but Firaxis also bring an interesting way to play, if both were too similar it would get old but instead you can play both game and enjoy them.

I guess that Firaxis aim for a more "simple" gameplay to gather to more people while the original bring more micro-managing but also offer more strategy.

[Exarch_Alpha]

Complexity isn´t depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU

Anyway for the third XCOM I think they can change concept a bit and at least make ships relevant (all the juice that could be done from a "Earth-only" game" is already extracted) and also try to put bigger squads as the fight gets bigger. Warhammer 40k Epic is a good basis to expand upon.

[GenSpaceCake]

Definitely good points about TBS genre dying off.

There was a lot of mentioning of gameplay fun vs depth in those Jake Solomon interviews, and I guess it's stunning to see when it is actually happening.

Maybe it's nostalgia, as sometimes I pick up those older games and can't play them for long. Too much information and micromanagement, plus nothing really new to see or do.

[Dorok]

Play 100 hours of Xenaunots and come back arguing, Xenaunots is far to be exemplary, all missions feel the same.

[DailyFrankPeter]

Interesting topic. I also feel there's less of a soldier simulator in XCom2.

I actually got to call this the 'SWAT moments' (tight teamwork, good planning and no bravado!) - and I had more of them in vanilla XCom: EU (the remake). The earlier in the game the better, because you had only like 3 simple tools of the trade and consequently if was more about the special tactics part. You bought a bullet when clearly you made a mistake or weren't disciplined enough.

Agreed that it didn't hurt that the controls were simplified. I really think they managed to somehow distil the right ingredients. I need to try it with a controller someday.

Then these moments got already more scarce in XCom:EW, particularly later on, when half of my team was invisible and the other half mechanised an exempt from cover. No longer do you die when your tactical plan is bad, but you gradually wear each other down with the enemy.

I think XCom2 continues this trend. Now I feel that 'SWAT' completely doesn't apply as a comparison any more. Instead you command a team of wizards who are casting spells. The more spells they learn, the more powerful they become and the higher the chances of victory.
Now, I know this is a simplification - I know the first game had deus ex machina moments too. But I'm just trying to describe the core idea (the feeling) that I think would be worth somehow distilling and emphasising again rather than drowning in feature creep.

EDIT: Also note how the spells are derived from certain 'elemental' categories - pistol spells, sword spells, psionic, etc. They don't seem to have all happened as a result of the Avenger scientists reacting to what we might actually need in the field - e.g.:
- would like to see someone make a freaking disruptor for Codexes cloning because that's what I could use, I can't counter this with AOE or some psionic bullet
- Mindshield, Hazmat vest are examples of a reactive item (something your troops might actually ask for) which you are however discouraged from using! (compete for space with grenades).
- Xenonaut's shield, on the other hand, is an example of a working solution to an actual field problem
- Mindjack is an awkward product of some deranged scientist who was never in the field, because the last thing a soldier wants is to go uppercut someone in a firefight
- timed mission are a tactical problem for which it could actually make sense to research a solution - because it would make a hell of a lot more difference to be undiscovered - such as with silencer attachments or subsonic ammo (can make it psionic if you wish!) - than to destroy MECs a tiny bit quicker with anti-mec rather than standard ammo
All these make it a nice fantasy, but no soldier simulation.

[Empiro]

I liked Xenonauts and played a decent amount of it, but I got tired of it very quickly.

It doesn't have the charm of the original X-Com which I still love and still play, and it doesn't have the slickness of the new XCOM games.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Exarch_Alpha:

Complexity isn´t depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU

Cool that's interesting, many interesting points, but I have the feeling the subject has been simplified. For example, pure diversity, is linked to the subject and isn't exactly complexity.

It's something that was a high focus on games of the 90's and it's linked to the learning curve which is superficially evoked in this video.

Another example is depth is evoked as pure emergent gameplay when it can becomes quickly pure complexity because of the difficulty. It's rather common in mobile games, a common arguing is quick to learn and difficult to master, they are deep games based on few rules easy to learn, but they are definitely complex. So that's another point not directly evoked in the video, emergent gameplay. And it's linked in my opinion.

[Mountain Man]

So... what the OP is saying is that Xenonauts and XCOM 2 are different games with different rules and different play mechanics?

Fascinating...