Is this a furry mod of XCOM 2

[Ghazghkull]

?

[Rabble]

What a dumb post.
Not everything featuring anthropomorphic animals are furries stuff.
I remember a time when Redwall was quite popular and no one spoke of furries.

[werdry]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Rabble:

What a dumb post.
Not everything featuring anthropomorphic animals are furries stuff.
I remember a time when Redwall was quite popular and no one spoke of furries.

Damn right, bro! Ducks dont have fur, so they aren't furries!

[General Titmouse]

Yes

[Carl Brutananadilewski]

MYZ dates back to the 80s, look it up, it largely centers around mutated humans but there is a supplement/oneshot that adds in new classes and feats and stuff involving animal testing labs and ♥♥♥♥ and this just seems to be after Genlab Alpha was integrated, those two are literally the only animals on the Ark, they mention as much.

[Spindles]

its not turn based and is pretty short. so no

[Rabble]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Spindle:

its not turn based and is pretty short. so no

It IS turn based.
The combat at least.

[werdry]

Tons of games have turn-based combat, but i woudn't say that Heroes of Might and Magic or Fallout are XCOM-like games. Phantom Doctrine is XCOM-like, Invisible Inc is XCOM-like, this one is not.

[jep]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ƙσʂƙҽυʂƙσ:

Tons of games have turn-based combat, but i woudn't say that Heroes of Might and Magic or Fallout are XCOM-like games. Phantom Doctrine is XCOM-like, Invisible Inc is XCOM-like, this one is not.

I disagree. For me, the core similarities to XCOM are:
1) having full and half cover that reduces the enemies chance to hit you (Edit: and destructible cover is pretty crucial)
2) having a hit chance based on range, cover and height differences
3) having a squad of soldiers that you position to tactical advantage
4) which each have skills (from a skill tree) with cooldowns (one of the first of which is Run and Gun, for Pete's sake)
5) and use two actions per turn, though actions that inflict damage end your turn immediately
6) with movement where you can move for one action or sprint for both

Yeah, there are ways it's different, but to me it just hits the core of the tactical part of XCOM. For some people, the base building and research are a much more important part of XCOM. To each their own. For me, the battles are the core of XCOM and this feels more like them than anything non-XCOM (I'm excluding OpenXcom in that since it tries to clone X-COM) I've played.

I love XCOM and have hundreds of hours in it going back to 1994, but I have almost zero interest in games with turn-based battles that don't implement the majority of those points above. Well, maybe not zero but for me those are completely different games and if I like them it has nothing to do with the XCOM itch.

[werdry]

For me, XCOM is:
1) Game is missions-based insted of exploration based. This one? Nope.
2) Base management, time magement, resources management. This one? Not really.
3) Squads management based on situation. This one? Maybe i missed something?..

There's TONS of games with points you listed. What now, Shadowrun is XCOM-like?

[jep]

3) Squads management based on situation. This one? Maybe i missed something?..

In any vanilla XCOM (meaning non-LW mod) before the XCOM2 War of the Chosen DLC, there's no fatigue. So apart from the occasional injury, my teams have always been the same small group of people. Sometimes I might equip them slightly differently depending on what they were going up against (as I do with MYZ - bots vs meat). This allows you to get godlike soldiers much more quickly. But I found I could take out pretty much anything with the same squad.

The main exception to that is when you get psy abilities. Then you have to swap some psy people in when you find out your super-soldiers are totally ungifted. :D

There's TONS of games with points you listed. What now, Shadowrun is XCOM-like?

There's TONS of games with a two or maybe three. But I wouldn't say tons with the majority of those points. And yes, I would say Shadowrun is an XCOM-like. It comes up in almost every thread where people ask for games that are like XCOM. I played them but eventually didn't finish them because I just didn't feel like they were good enough games. This has been true of actual XCOM games as well (never did finish Terror From the Deep).

Note, I'm totally not saying you're "wrong"! We just have different opinions of what makes XCOM XCOM. :)

[Powellinho.72]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Spindle:

its not turn based and is pretty short. so no

the combat is turn based.

[jep]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von chris:

Well it's easier just to consider this game as XCOM-lite. It's true that a lot of what is in XCOM isn't in MYZ, but it's also true there isn't really anything in MYZ that isn't in XCOM (other than some characterisation, which is being vastly overstated by everyone who talks about it).

If you could draw a Venn diagram, the MYZ circle would be almost entirely inside the XCOM circle.

And no, this game doesn't have a better story the XCOM. The story in both is very minimal.

Hah, well, I totally disagree with that as well (shock!) :D

To me, they did some really interesting things with the stealth in this game. It feels way more natural and satisfying to me than the stealth phase they added in XCOM2. It also ties in with how they made the exploration map and the battle map tie together seamlessly. XCOM feels very "game-y" in that sense to me, but MYZ feels much more fleshed out and real. This includes sneaking past stronger enemies in some areas and coming back to them later when you are better equipped to deal with them. It gives much more of a feeling of making your own choices rather than things happening to you.

I also found the cooldowns not resetting until a set number of kills (in Very Hard this even carries over from battle to battle) to be a fantastic innovation that keeps you from just spamming the same skills every time. In XCOM, you can generally just dig in and waste some time until the cooldowns are ready again. It makes you pick and choose the order you do things in sometimes so you can have these abilities ready for tougher foes rather than just always taking a target of opportunity.

The max squad size of three also makes it significantly different than XCOM for me. Those squad sizes are the exception rather than the rule in XCOM. Yes, you can do it in XCOM but the game isn't tuned around it, and tuning can make all the difference.

And then, of course, there are the vastly different stories. If the story doesn't matter much to you, then of course that won't make much of a difference.

So when you're talking about Venn diagrams, I feel like there's a decent chunk of MYZ outside of the overlap. There's MORE of XCOM outside the overlap, because it is a much larger AAA game that cost twice as much. So that's kind of to be expected.

[jep]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. To me, the limitations (choosing skill loadout) are something that makes it more interesting. If I have all the skills all the time, it's just easy. I've been playing on Very Hard and I just avoid getting caught sneaking. It's really not that difficult once you get the hang of it. Just enough risk to be exciting but not frustrating.

As far as none of the perks not being in XCOM... Corpse Eater? Spore Cloud? Hog Rush? Stone Skin? Joker? I'm sure I'm forgetting about one of those being in XCOM (there are a LOT of XCOMs by now, after all), but that's just one character's skills.

[jep]

I didn't disagree that there were some copies. I disagreed with your statement that there was probably not a single one that wasn't in XCOM. You agree that was a pretty outlandish assertion, I hope.

[jep]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von chris:

It's not "outlandish". I am not saying none of the perks are different,

But, you did.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von chris:

The perks themselves are also pretty uninspiring. Again, I don't think there is a single one that isn't in XCOM, and some even take the same name (e.g. run and gun).

You're not saying that now, because I pointed out that you were totally incorrect on it. Now you've shifted the goalposts to saying, "well, they just suck." And then you say more outlandish things like "Hog rush is your basic melee attack from XCOM 2", even though you finish the sentence with how it's different.

And even then, you're once again wrong. The melee attack in XCOM 2 is just a regular attack from a distance of one square away. You move up to the enemy and can pick any side of them to be on, then do an attack from your square into an adjacent square. In MYZ, you can only hog rush in a line from where you are to the enemy, because you're running full out to hit them. It's also a low damage attack, with its main benefit the stun. It is almost completely unlike a melee attack.

(I also don't know why MYZ is obsessed with stun locks).

Because it is a different game, with different tactics and different features, even if it shares a lot with XCOM. Your attitude about it seems quite weird. You start off by just saying things that are outright and provably wrong. And then you change it to "well, it's pretty much the same." But when there's anything that's actually different, there's always some reason why it has to be dumb or suck in your judgment. It's like you have a real hardon for not letting any praise whatsoever be given to this game.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong. I hope so. Because that's a really unfortunate attitude to be coming at a game from, and it seems a bit of a waste of your time to try to go onto the forum for the game and convince everyone that they should stop enjoying it.