Why is people so upset if a teammate dies?

[Landlord Hyree (alla pengar)]

And restarts?

There is something wrong with people. They seem to get so frustrated if they have to abandon a mission or take losses that they whine on forums even though the whole point of the game is that you cant save all people.

Is it that people didnt know this when they started the game.

I mean the psychology of there is something wrong with me because i cant save all people or have to abandon a mission and get frustrated and restarts or turn the game off when a person dies. I dont get it at all.

Whats the point of winning the game if you had restarted?

What would a World cup win for a country be worth if they restarted unitl they won?

The whole reason a game like this is fun is to deal with loss and get stronger and move on. And for it to be difficult. Especially on the hardest difficulty

[Fel]

I think it comes from games like Fire Emblem and other games like that where perma-death is a thing.
For the most part, those games offer you to control "unique" characters rather than fodder, and a limited quantity of it, and you really don't want to lose the characters you spent time and resources training.

In XCom, it's slightly different, in that none of the characters actually matter individually, but you still want to keep your levelled up people and their gear, because losing them can definitely make things slightly harder in short term.
In long term, it really doesn't matter much, but it's still not that easy to get over it, even more so because it's your decisions that killed them, and in most cases you could have done things differently and saved everyone.

Added to that, there is the "rating" at the end of the mission, and even in single player games, people like to try to get to the "perfect", even when it doesn't reward anything past not losing someone and not having them in the sick bay for days.

At least that's how it is for me.

[Landlord Hyree (alla pengar)]

Originally posted by Fel:

I think it comes from games like Fire Emblem and other games like that where perma-death is a thing.
For the most part, those games offer you to control "unique" characters rather than fodder, and a limited quantity of it, and you really don't want to lose the characters you spent time and resources training.

In XCom, it's slightly different, in that none of the characters actually matter individually, but you still want to keep your levelled up people and their gear, because losing them can definitely make things slightly harder in short term.
In long term, it really doesn't matter much, but it's still not that easy to get over it, even more so because it's your decisions that killed them, and in most cases you could have done things differently and saved everyone.

Added to that, there is the "rating" at the end of the mission, and even in single player games, people like to try to get to the "perfect", even when it doesn't reward anything past not losing someone and not having them in the sick bay for days.

At least that's how it is for me.

i understand i just feel like people want the watered down ego boosting challengeless games that aaa studios created 2004-16 i just feel that people get so angry at failure and cant deal with it that they voice their concern and hardcore gamers get games that is super hand holdy and easy

[Fel]

At the end of the day, it's a personal choice, the ones that want the hardcore experience can up the difficulty and enable iron man mode, while those that just want a satisfying experience without it being too strict can play on easier difficulties and save scum when they want.
At least the game offers the tools for everyone, so that's nice.

[Včelí medvídek]

Because its drawback.

If nothing else you lose time (experience) of trained soldier. But you also lose resources (recruitment cost and sometime even valuable gear) that are scarce.

My gemplay style usualy led me to "perfection" - even in old ufo:defense I rather reloaded game million times than even get hit single time (even in games like Jagged alliance)

Now I play Ironman and it is new experience that teach me get over it - still it is "heartbreaking" and I am filled with fear a bit that I will miss my dead soldiers later with more dangerous enemies. Also "only" 4 fresh recruits come for cost of major weapon upgrade or perhaps new building in Avenger..

Though at the end of day I agree this "accept of lose" is maybe good thing for game experience.

Just with very, very bad luck (or stupid mistake/misclick) where you lose half of your top squad-- man I need to quit and breath deeply for some time.. Hopefuly I will evenetualy finish the game without need of another restart anyway:-)
(you will never find me complain about it.. I just like my "orgiginal perfect" playstyle too much:-)

[Landlord Hyree (alla pengar)]

Originally posted by Včelí medvídek:

Because its drawback.

If nothing else you lose time (experience) of trained soldier. But you also lose resources (recruitment cost and sometime even valuable gear) that are scarce.

My gemplay style usualy led me to "perfection" - even in old ufo:defense I rather reloaded game million times than even get hit single time (even in games like Jagged alliance)

Now I play Ironman and it is new experience that teach me get over it - still it is "heartbreaking" and I am filled with fear a bit that I will miss my dead soldiers later with more dangerous enemies. Also "only" 4 fresh recruits come for cost of major weapon upgrade or perhaps new building in Avenger..

Though at the end of day I agree this "accept of lose" is maybe good thing for game experience.

Just with very, very bad luck (or stupid mistake/misclick) where you lose half of your top squad-- man I need to quit and breath deeply for some time.. Hopefuly I will evenetualy finish the game without need of another restart anyway:-)
(you will never find me complain about it.. I just like my "orgiginal perfect" playstyle too much:-)

If all people were like you then AAA gaming would not look the way it looked 2005-16 and i would not need to write this post

[easytarget]

You're amusing for a couple reasons:

1. you think your post and this thread matters in any way whatsoever
2. you're completely wrong

if the game design were created that allowed for mistakes, lost missions, entire team wipes, that would be fine

the problem is, this is a puzzle game design, meaning if by mid-campaign you don't have an entire team of completely ranked up troops you by definition lose

[twopointfour]

Different strokes for different folks

[Stridswombat]

Because on higher difficulties you need that extra power that comes with having a skilled crew. Losing them and having to replace them with rookies will make it harder thus result in more losses and never giving you the chance to train up a good team again. Once you've taken those losses the game is most likely lost anyway as it will only snowball from there.

I'd rather cut my losses and start anew with a game I might actually win than waste time playing a game where I will most likely lose one way or the other anyway. Losing a soldiers isn't a short-term loss, it's very much so long term.

[Treyen]

why do you give a ♥♥♥♥ what other people do in a single player game?

[Adeptus Stark]

Playing on Commander Iron Man and I've lost about a dozen guys this run so far lol. Havn't failed any mission though. Tier 2 armor and weapons and killed first archon boss, and about to do Spark mission.

Only have one block left before timer starts though. Engineers have been scarce...

Was going to restart as it's been awhile since I've played but want to see how far I can get with basically two leveled guus and noobs that keep friggen dieing.

[Včelí medvídek]

Originally posted by StridsWombat:

Because on higher difficulties you need that extra power that comes with having a skilled crew. Losing them and having to replace them with rookies will make it harder thus result in more losses and never giving you the chance to train up a good team again. Once you've taken those losses the game is most likely lost anyway as it will only snowball from there.

I'd rather cut my losses and start anew with a game I might actually win than waste time playing a game where I will most likely lose one way or the other anyway. Losing a soldiers isn't a short-term loss, it's very much so long term.

Have to agree sir, I had exactly this in my yesterday session - my two experienced soldiers died, some other were injured and I was forced take 2 rookies on next VIP missions.. which was disaster (well, part of disastser was forgot give them mimic beacon... ♥♥♥♥ happens). After realize I am somewhere midgame with mostly rookies I realized th resatrt game is in place.

So yea, lose of good soldier can be actually start of snowball that lead to lose game.

[Landlord Hyree (alla pengar)]

Originally posted by Treyen:

why do you give a ♥♥♥♥ what other people do in a single player game?

Because its only the most important thing you can care about. Because what people whine over and how people play the game only affect exactly everything in what the next x com becomes and since this is a difficult strategy game and stands out what path games will take in the future.

And it affects the whole gaming landscape the data that devs get from how players play their game and what people complain about.

Havent you thought about that?

[Landlord Hyree (alla pengar)]

Originally posted by Včelí medvídek:

Originally posted by StridsWombat:

Because on higher difficulties you need that extra power that comes with having a skilled crew. Losing them and having to replace them with rookies will make it harder thus result in more losses and never giving you the chance to train up a good team again. Once you've taken those losses the game is most likely lost anyway as it will only snowball from there.

I'd rather cut my losses and start anew with a game I might actually win than waste time playing a game where I will most likely lose one way or the other anyway. Losing a soldiers isn't a short-term loss, it's very much so long term.

Have to agree sir, I had exactly this in my yesterday session - my two experienced soldiers died, some other were injured and I was forced take 2 rookies on next VIP missions.. which was disaster (well, part of disastser was forgot give them mimic beacon... ♥♥♥♥ happens). After realize I am somewhere midgame with mostly rookies I realized th resatrt game is in place.

So yea, lose of good soldier can be actually start of snowball that lead to lose game.

Fair point. The problem is that possesive tantrum filled people today that whine developers into creating a non loosable game makes it impossible to create a game that evolves around losses and death because they dont want to invoke feeling of frustration in gamers. Leading to bad games with no challenge or risk because of people.

Thats my biggest gripe

[Cahos Rahne Veloza]

Losing RANDOM teammates, ergo playing a totally non-Character Pool centered playthrough,
should NEVER bother anyone. But it's a totally different story when you're playing with friends and family member (and enemies in the form of Dark VIPs) designed characters.

Seriously, wouldn't you feel upset if your wife's in game representation suddenly dies because of a stupid move you made?

[joebruce185]

Good discussion - the true ethical dilemma of the xcom games: do I reload my save or forge ahead after the tough loss?

I prefer to forge ahead, but more often than I want I end up reloading if something goes terribly wrong. Especially with those custom characters - someone mentioned "what if you get your wife's avatar killed?" and I have totally had that happen (and my best friend's, and my dad's...). Even though it is totally fake and just a video game avatar, that's a hard thing to accept.

Something else that causes me to reload is when xcom pulls its infamous BS on you. Enemies spawning or waking up when they normally wouldn't, missing that 96% shot when you really needed it to land. However, those are also just quirks of the game, and I prefer to deal with them. (This is why I like the auto-save feature of xcom2: you can play one or two more turns to see how things go, but still reload if you really want to.)

I've frequently found I can deal with the "xcom BS" by just slowing down and considering all my decisions. Also, if a soldier misses an 80%+ shot and then gets killed, well that is just their fault; you should have made that shot if you wanted to come home. When things go wrong, yes it is the commander's (your) fault, but since it's just a game the commander (you) can still blame their tools (soldiers).

With ironman, you take the reload factor out of the game. It took me several tries to beat ironman on commander difficulty, and when I did I had 20+ casualties. (I did play it all the way to defeat once, trying with every opportunity I had but losing mission after mission.)

For my ironman win, only one of my original 9 soldiers lived to the end of the war. I had my squad wiped early on my first assault of the black site. I had my squad wiped AGAIN in August but I forged ahead and won (still had 2 colonels in med-bay). My troops were surrounded and bleeding out on the final turn, but I won. One casualty can send you down a rabbit hole of untrained troops, but it is possible to pull yourself out. Every month a trained soldier or two is available for "purchase" and that can make all the difference.

Xcom has always been harsh and unforgiving; that is part of its appeal. While I relate to the sentimentality and utility of trained, custom troops, I also feel that if you can't deal with the loss and setbacks this game throws at you, maybe it just isn't for you.