Xcom 2 ?

[Irwin John Finster]

Yes. Pretty much. It's my personal preference, and I am pleased to hear that you can actually disable it. I've seen it in gameplay videos, and I find it very very iritating. But like I said, that's me. It would totally frustrate me in the game.

Yea that is disabled in the options menu however I have not actually tried it. They clearly put some thought into making features of the game OPTIONAL. For example, if you don't like the voice of your characters, you can choose among many options in several different languages. If you don't like the characters presented to you, you can change them entirely including writing their own biography. There are already mods on Steam Workshop including mods that disable the mission timers if you don't like those (I found them to be reasonable so far).

The graphics options are quite numerous and allow for a variety of settings such that even with the poor launch performance, you should be able to run it in some fashion.

The voice acting and main story seem excellent. It's definitely adequate especially for an XCOM game. I could actually see this series becoming more and more an RPG as time goes on. So far I haven't cringed once at the voice acting or story.

Overall so far I'm very pleased with the game. It's the same XCOM reboot at heart and does not in any way spit in the faces of fans of Enemy Within or Enemy Unknown. As long as the performance improves with patches this game is absolutely excellent so far in my opinion.

Now if ONLY I could say the same for some other games...

 

[ZigzagPX4]

While all kudos for the game development goes directly to the developers at Firaxis, I assume Take-Two Interactive and 2K, the publishers, were a running factor in making it all work, too. After all, the decision to not go through with the XCOM FPS had to come from them, no matter what. From what I've seen of all the business speeches and reports that their chairman and board of directors put in, while they are definitely business-first community-second, their attitude towards consumers is far more favourable than that of, say, Electronic Arts.

Now, no offense, but I know we have a running theme in NMA of hating every big corporation involved in gaming but let me remind you that 2K is the publisher of Civilisation V, the only game that ensures that the top AAA sellers are not dominated solely by action games. Also, Take-Two, the parent company, directly refused buy-outs and partnerships with EA.

They have their fair share of anti-consumer activities, and they do partake in the use of pre-order deals and DLC bullshit, but the fact that they're as big as all the other publishers and still publishes games like XCOM and Civilisation tells me that at least some corporations can make money without being a complete asshole towards consumers about it.

Hopefully, we can take one minute's break from the corporate hate-train long enough to appreciate that at least there still exists publishers who gives developers with risky ideas a chance.

(Major IPs that Take-Two publishes: BioShock, Borderlands, Civilization, Grand Theft Auto, Max Payne, NBA 2K, WWE 2K, Red Dead, and XCOM series.)

 

[Crni Vuk]

Now, I am curious how the tactical choices and gameplay actually compares to Jagged Alliance 2, which I see as one the best turn based games out there. From the gameplay I have seen, it looks at least simpler compared to Jagged Alliance 2. But of course, that's very hard to say without playing the game.

Hope it doesn't turn out like Wasteland 2 in that part. Their idea might have been to recreate this Fallout 1 feeling, maybe. But I have to say, I alaways thought the combat of F1 was it's weakest point. And easily the part that could have been improved the most. Pretty disappointing to hear that Wasteland 2 offers you almost no tactical choices.
For example, you have only two stances, standing and crouching, there are no interruptions during combat. There is no difference for enemy detection between runing, walking or sneaking. I mean it's like a step back from what Jagged Alliance, Xcom and other TB games set as standard.
The last TB game I played which felt like an improvement to JA2 was Silent Storm.

 

[aenemic]

Now, I am curious how the tactical choices and gameplay actually compares to Jagged Alliance 2, which I see as one the best turn based games out there. From the gameplay I have seen, it looks at least simpler compared to Jagged Alliance 2. But of course, that's very hard to say without playing the game.

I don't really see the point in constantly making these comparisons. It sounds like you've pretty much already set your mind on it being inferior to JA2, even though it doesn't even try to be the same type of game.

Personally, I feel XCOM 2 has some of the best turn-based combat around. It ties in with the rest of the game, and a lot of the strategy is outside of combat - where you choose what equipment to research and build, what squad upgrades to purchase and so on. And the combat itself lands in a close to perfect middle ground between feeling fast-paced (despite being turn-based) and keeping you constantly planning your next move carefully. It's very deep, in the sense that there are so many tricks and tools you can utilize, and there is usually a certain order in which to do things to survive another round. The usual mistake people who find the game hard and unfair seem to be doing is to not plan their entire round, and plan for missed shots, low damage etc, and what might happen the next round. In other words, the game is never as simple as "fire upon the enemies and hope to hit".

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, would you apply the same standard to a shooter? That's why I am ASKING how it compares to each other.
JA2 is simply pretty much some of the best you can get in TB combat. And I see no harm in comparing similar games. Just as how you would compare one shooter to another. Even if they are not 100% exactly the same.
By the way, I havn't said anything about the quality of the gameplay, just that it LOOKS simpler to JA2, not that it is worse.

 

[aenemic]

Well, would you apply the same standard to a shooter? That's why I am ASKING how it compares to each other.
JA2 is simply pretty much some of the best you can get in TB combat. And I see no harm in comparing similar games. Just as how you would compare one shooter to another. Even if they are not 100% exactly the same.

It depends on how the game is supposed to play. There are different types of shooters. I know there's a real hatred for most modern shooters from people who prefer old-school shooters, for example. But I can enjoy both. Why? Because I judge the game on its own merits and what it's trying to be. Just as there are different types of rpg's and I don't compare Fallout to Mass Effect - I love both, both are stand-out rpg's in my opinion. I don't let my love for either tarnish my love for the other.

But of course there's room for comparison, and I didn't mean you should never ever compare. I just get tired when people hold up one or two games as the end-all-be-all of a genre, and anything that doesn't try its hardest to emulate those games is basically crap. Nothing personal, it's a common thing a lot of people to all the time.

But for comparisons sake, JA2 has a lot of strategic depth that XCOM 2 doesn't: you can't train militia to defend areas from being re-taken by the opposition (the aliens don't "retake" anything, but do retaliate). Soldiers don't have any non-combat stats. Soldiers aren't pre-made individuals with attitudes and likes/dislikes. But there are some similarities in how you make contact with new areas and improve your income through them. You get missions to rescue VIP's which end up as engineers or scientists, unless it's one of your soldiers that has been captured in which case you can bring them back. Combat isn't as stealth-based and doesn't have a lot of the micro-management with inventory as JA2. But you do have a lot of choices for items to bring, and can build strategies around those items (you're also very restriced in the amount of items to bring, so you can't use every new toy you come across). Combat in JA2 most of the time comes down to simply firing on the enemy and hoping to hit, until your guys are good enough to set up sniping positions. Combat in XCOM2 is about being confronted with a problem and finding the solution for it. Different enemies have different strategies. Your job is to predict the outcome of a turn as best you can and to minimize the randomness. Take down armor, destroy cover, reduce movement speed, prevent them from using their abilities with fire or poison and so on. It's also extremely high risk/high reward. Putting yourself in a flanking position where you have a close to 100% shot may very well expose you to the next group of enemies. And if the shot doesn't kill, it's your turn to get flanked. JA2 never put me in front of the same type of hard choices as XCOM 2 does.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

just that it LOOKS simpler to JA2, not that it is worse.

I never played JA2 but assuming it is one of those old-school truly hardcore turn-based combat games then you will probably find the XCOM reboot to be "simpler." Some people who played the original XCOM game dislike the XCOM reboot for being too simplified, but I find it to have a good balance between complexity and "streamlining" or whatever you want to call it.

I think it's well done, but I am sure if you're a fan of the REALLY old school turn-based games you MIGHT find it a bit disappointing. In my opinion, the XCOM reboot is an example of how to do a sequel/reboot of a series properly and is the opposite of what Fallout 4 was, which is a spit in the face of all Fallout RPG fans.

There was a first-person shooter XCOM game though, called XCOM: Bureau Declassified. That was pretty much the Fallout 4 of the XCOM series as I understand it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It depends on how the game is supposed to play. There are different types of shooters. I know there's a real hatred for most modern shooters from people who prefer old-school shooters, for example. But I can enjoy both. Why? Because I judge the game on its own merits and what it's trying to be. Just as there are different types of rpg's and I don't compare Fallout to Mass Effect - I love both, both are stand-out rpg's in my opinion. I don't let my love for either tarnish my love for the other.

XCom asside, what I am talking about though, is removing features that kinda became a standard of sort. Where you have to ask your self, how that is exactly supposed to be an improvement.

There is a difference between simplification, which I think for it self can be actually a good thing. And dumbing a system/gameplay down, for the sole purpose that it's now easier to be gobbled up by those that are not the so called hardcore fans.

Just saying. Without the intention to attack you, XCom or anything. But way to often a reboot these days is nothing more but a dumbed down version of the original. Made in a way that the masses, or at least a much larger number of players, can now enjoy it. While it is at the same time a watered down experience for the original fans. And in such cases, I sometimes wonder, why bother? Why not making something completely new without the name thrown on it. Particularly if the intention is, as how they often claim, to recreate this old feeling just with modern technology or something like that.
Again! I am NOT saying the newest XCom is a bad game or not a faithfull recreation of the previous game, just to make this clear.

 

[whirlingdervish]

As someone who played xcom & tftd when they were brand new in the 90s I was a bit disappointed at first with the last reboot (EU) because it was quite a bit simpler than the originals, but with the expansion and the long war option I was a lot happier with it. The added options for MECs instead of the silly SHIV units which I never used, the lengthier campaign and the added enemies all brought enough difficulty and variety to make me happy.
I still don't like some of the changes they made like the switch from TUs to a 2 move turn, and the way enemies seem to spawn in when spotted then get a freebie turn, but I can live with them.

Compared to other things on the market, it is still closer to the old xcoms than anything recent.

The new one really feels even less dumbed down than the previous, in terms of the learning curve and the variety of strategies you can employ. They seem to have done away with the aliens spawning-in thing in favor of them really moving around independent of your team, and the stealth mechanic makes the fog of war matter for both you and the aliens so the feeling that you are on a level playing field in terms of how combat works is back.

I may never like the 2 move turn because you don't get the overall movement benefits of training your guys up to badasses, but the rest of the combat and even the micromanagement at the geoscape level feels fiddly enough and varied enough to call it a solid Xcom game.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

So for Rangers...Implacable or Bladestorm?

I took Blademaster at the lower level so Bladestorm looks good...but so does Implacable.

Both seem good...and XCOM 2 is great. I can easily see myself playing this game for an embarrassing amount of time.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Going off-topic for a bit... I find it astounding how refreshing it was to finally see a game community react to a criticism post with fairness and positivity. A nice change of pace after reading Bethesda fan responses to any form of complaints.

Back on track.

So for Rangers...Implacable or Bladestorm?

I took Blademaster at the lower level so Bladestorm looks good...but so does Implacable.

Implacable might be the smarter choice. Bladestorm seems pretty good for CQC emergencies (especially with Lancers) but Implacable combined with grenades can pretty much turn the tides at any point. I haven't actually seen Bladestorm in action in my game yet though, so my advice is probably not very solid.

Compared to other things on the market, it is still closer to the old xcoms than anything recent.

Uh... Xenonauts?

 

[aenemic]

So for Rangers...Implacable or Bladestorm?

I took Blademaster at the lower level so Bladestorm looks good...but so does Implacable.

Both seem good...and XCOM 2 is great. I can easily see myself playing this game for an embarrassing amount of time.

I found Implacable to be really useful, even on my Ranger with Blademaster. The ability to move to safety or position yourself better after a kill is big. Granted, I never tried Bladestorm but I never let enemies come that close to begin with, so...

 

[eissa]

i'm now confused between choosing deadshot vs lightning hand

extra damage from pistol is awesome if you can get the range, but the half increase of main damage is much needed if your enemy is well armored

 

[SuAside]

So for Rangers...Implacable or Bladestorm?

In my first playthrough, I had Bladestorm, and it saved my char spectacularly a few times.
But I feel the Implacable from my second playthrough was a lot more useful since you used it all the damn time.

i'm now confused between choosing deadshot vs lightning hand
extra damage from pistol is awesome if you can get the range, but the half increase of main damage is much needed if your enemy is well armored

I'd suggest Lightning Hands. Very useful.

 

[aenemic]

I build both snipers and gunslingers, mostly staying in one tree with either but with a few exceptions. Lightning Hands is so versatile so I tend to take it on my snipers as well. Deadshot is not at all bad, but the chance of extra damage doesn't outweigh the aim penalty until way into the game when your aim is way up there. Lightning Hands is useful even for a sniper since sooner or later you will have to move her/him and it is a free shot that can dish out decent damage, free up overwatches and so on.

Tbh, I much prefer gunslingers in most cases. Snipers aren't as underpowered as a lot of people seem to think - they need a few levels but can be great when speed isn't essential. For timed missions I'd rather take a gunslinger. Lightning Hands + Quickdraw + Fan Fire can deal some of the best damage in the game. Put them in a Wraith Suit and give them extra dodge pcs's and they are great scouts that don't mind getting close and personal.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Just had my first flawless mission, it was so very satisfying to see Overwatch/Killzone/Implacable and all the other upgraded characters work perfectly together and hit every shot.

 

[eissa]

eventually i'm choossing lightning hand, which i'm realize no more useful if you put your sniper in behind line (and since there's no enemies such as seeker like in EW). my gunslinger build might be prosper in earlier part, but once sectopod and avatar coming you need to have a high damaging shot to bypass armor

 

[SuAside]

Just had my first flawless mission, it was so very satisfying to see Overwatch/Killzone/Implacable and all the other upgraded characters work perfectly together and hit every shot.

Once you master the game mechanics, flawless missions should generally become the norm, rather than the exception. Unless you're in a very high difficulty or have a very risky playstyle.

eventually i'm choossing lightning hand, which i'm realize no more useful if you put your sniper in behind line (and since there's no enemies such as seeker like in EW). my gunslinger build might be prosper in earlier part, but once sectopod and avatar coming you need to have a high damaging shot to bypass armor

That's what you have explosives & "shredder" for.

And no, Lightning Hands is handy, even on elevated overwatch snipers.

 

[aenemic]

eventually i'm choossing lightning hand, which i'm realize no more useful if you put your sniper in behind line (and since there's no enemies such as seeker like in EW). my gunslinger build might be prosper in earlier part, but once sectopod and avatar coming you need to have a high damaging shot to bypass armor

I try to make it a habbit not to try "bypassing" armor. It needs to be shredded first, or you're wasting shots. Or use armor piercing ammo.

 

[Ilosar]

i'm now confused between choosing deadshot vs lightning hand

extra damage from pistol is awesome if you can get the range, but the half increase of main damage is much needed if your enemy is well armored

Lightning Hands is ridiculously versatile. Have an annoying 1 or 2 Hp enemy and don't want to waste a stock shot? Want to fire your pistol 3 or even 5 times in a turn with a gunslinger? Need to apply your poison/burning ammo effect on an enemy? The ability has got you covered.

Deadshot is highly situational. I only use it when I have at least 95% chance on normal shots, and the bonus damage will actually change something. Which happens rarely. It's basically only useful against Sectopods since they are a huge target.

Combine LH with AP ammo, or Bluescreen rounds against the enemies it works against (turret, MEC, Codex, Sectopod, Gatekeeper) and it will give you more returns at lesser risks than Deadshot ever will IMO. A colonel gunslinger with LH and bluescreens can literally kill a sectopod from full HP if you toss an acid bomb at it first.

Also, Mimic Beacons are ridiculously OP. Not only because it gives you a 12 HP meatshield that you can put in heavy cover, but because enemies prioritize attacking it above all else. That Gatekeeper who could slap 4 of your soldiers with a 8-9 damage AoE and ressurect any ADVENT soldier in a huge area as zombies in one action? Nope, he's going to move right next to the decoy and fire its low accuracy laser at it instead. That Sheildbearer who could put on 5 extra HPs on three pod's worth of enemies? Gonna fire his dingy 5-6 damage gun instead. Chryssalids and their annoying ass poison? denied!

It gets to the point I only equip one per mission, if I don't the game becomes too easy.