Xcom 2

[MCerberus]

Hey look what it is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E_-2wIJIzQ

My wanting and longing is infinite.

Those are either sectoid/human hybrids or whatever force the Ethereals were scared of. There's PLOT in this one that needs to be resolved. The mechanics of the Firaxis XCOM seem to be set up as a small, on-the-run force than a global conspiracy itself.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT

[Artanis]

Why you little Ghost Armor-clad Assault. I was posting a thread about this, and decided to F5 the forum just to be sure, and see this. Maybe I should've spent less time working on this:


I must not pre-order
Pre-ordering is the wallet-death that brings total bankruptcy
I must face the pre-order
I must allow it to pass over me and through me
And when I turn my eyes to the money in my wallet come November, there shall be nothing
Only the the pre-order receipt will remain

[Grif]

Mixed feelings. This seems like a significant leap away from the tried and true X-Com formulae. And here I was, hoping for something more like Apocalypse.

[OrcusMcP]

Honestly, this looks pretty great. I think it's much closer to the standard XCOM model than it seems. You still have to build support from around the world. You still have to pick your battles and husband your resources. You still die horribly and constantly(one expects). But recasting XCOM as the resistance rather than the secret defense force? That's cool.

[Hunter Noventa]

I'm looking quite forward to it as well, I doubt i"ll preorder, as that is the path of evil, but I'm excited nonetheless.

[heronbpv]

Still cryed after hearing "Welcome back, comander." :')

DO WANT!

[thorgrim29]

Holy crap, new X-COM. This looks great. I want it. I might squee.

[MCerberus]

Mixed feelings. This seems like a significant leap away from the tried and true X-Com formulae. And here I was, hoping for something more like Apocalypse.

I'm liking the concept of Firaxis' "XCOM as a tabletop campaign" being applied to a setting and plot that are more appropriate to it.

Also, my first playthrough is going to use CYOA-com assuming we don't lose.

[thorgrim29]

Doesn't the trailer sort of imply that canonically X-COM loses? Holy crap imagine what 20 years of resentment will have done to Valen's already almost non-existent moral standards?

[Grif]

Doesn't the trailer sort of imply that canonically X-COM loses? Holy crap imagine what 20 years of resentment will have done to Valen's already almost non-existent moral standards?

From what I gather, I think it refers to the veiled warning from the Ethereals that a bigger, stronger force is coming. So, XCOM wins and downs the Temple Ship, but then loses the war anyway because a new alien mothership or something shows up.

[MCerberus]

Doesn't the trailer sort of imply that canonically X-COM loses? Holy crap imagine what 20 years of resentment will have done to Valen's already almost non-existent moral standards?

No, we won
money's on whatever the Ethereals were weaponizing humanity against show up.

[OrcusMcP]

XCOM held back the assault of a colonial conquistador expecting easy pickings from a primitive race.

Then the actual invasion came.

[Grif]

No, we won
money's on whatever the Ethereals were weaponizing humanity against show up.


XCOM held back the assault of a colonial conquistador expecting easy pickings from a primitive race.

Then the actual invasion came.

Seems familiar...

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/half-life/images/9/90/BME_newspaper_clips.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100325033300&path-prefix=en

[MCerberus]

Seems familiar...

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/half-life/images/9/90/BME_newspaper_clips.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100325033300&path-prefix=en

It really comes down to what the aliens are doing on Earth.

The aliens could go 'standard sci-fi trope #432' and wreck the place. Humanity in chains.
We could be looking at a 'How to Serve Man' situation
Earth could just be another Orwellian cog in the alien empire
XCOM could just be a collection of violent psychopaths inciting violence during a golden age

[OrcusMcP]

I just read a really dense and depressing book about empires and imperialism and how it inevitably needs to extract more and more from its subjects either in resources or labour, generally using local proxies to cast a legitimizing veneer over the whole operation. It inevitably became intolerable, but at least there was that middleman.

As history marched on, empires got better at direct extraction and required the local middle men less. This became intolerable much more quickly, so empires became much shorter lived.

From what we can see in the reveal trailer, it looks like the alien empire is still in the "Local Proxy" stage of imperial extraction, but its becoming intolerable. There are security scans and checkpoints and troops everywhere in the city we see, so resistance is a thing the aliens are worried about. However, we still see people just going about their lives, propaganda is optimistic and there are enough proxies that appear willing that the touch is light enough to not cause revolution. Yet.

Though I wonder if there will be any interesting choices to be made as you get towards the end game about what will replace the alien administration.

[Gamerlord]

So apparently they are returning to the old format of procedurally generated maps. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first) Not sure how I feel about it. It was kind of nice you never knew exactly what the lay out was in the [90s] original, but 90% of it was cabbage fields and sand.

And apparently it is a PC exclusive this time around. Kind of wonder what they have planned to warrant that.

[boomwolf]

Another Xcom...

I'm probably going to need a hair transplant after that one, but it's worth it.

[Derthric]

ME WANT NAO! *Ahem* I dig it. Reminds me of the line from pacific rim "We're not an army anymore, we're the resistance". And with a flying mobile base to boot.

Yeah I am not looking for the steam pre-order right now....nope.

[BRC]

No, we won
money's on whatever the Ethereals were weaponizing humanity against show up.
Nope, Quoth the website

http://xcom.com/#media

Twenty Years have passed since world leaders offered an unconditional surrender to alien forces and XCOM, the planet's last line of defense, was left decimated and shattered".

So the Aliens did win, and our forces are the remnants of XCOM in a salvaged alien supply ship, trying to build a popular uprising.

Edit:
ALthough wait, that dosn't work.

XCOM: EU takes place in 2015, when "Unification" occured. Unless the initial conflict lasted 10 years.
Or the website is a typo.

[thorgrim29]

Oh so X-COM still has 90% of it's resources and personnel? That's not that bad:smallamused:

Decimated has got to be the most abused word after literally, both in French and English

[Divayth Fyr]

Decimated has got to be the most abused word after literally, both in French and English
I'd say immersive also ranks up very highly. Especially in modding communities.

As for the plot
I imagine they could want to retcon our victory to avoid having to justify that XCOM suddenly lost all knowledge of plasma weapons and advanced armor (or having to create even more powerful stuff)

[boomwolf]

Or maybe the temple ship was not the end, but the beginning. You won against it, but lost to the main force later.

Kina like the stargate "apopis was a weakling" deal.

[MCerberus]

Nope, Quoth the website

http://xcom.com/#media

So the Aliens did win, and our forces are the remnants of XCOM in a salvaged alien supply ship, trying to build a popular uprising.

Edit:
ALthough wait, that dosn't work.

XCOM: EU takes place in 2015, when "Unification" occured. Unless the initial conflict lasted 10 years.
Or the website is a typo.


Trailer says 2035, 20 years after unification

Unless XCOM rolled over in 8 months, "Unification" would describe first contact instead of surrender. Or it's the formation of the world government, kind of making the XCOM project itself the first step to the world government being aliens.

[Divayth Fyr]

Trailer says 2035, 20 years after unification

Unless XCOM rolled over in 8 months, "Unification" would describe first contact instead of surrender. Or it's the formation of the world government, kind of making the XCOM project itself the first step to the world government being aliens.
The official site says that 20 years has passed since the surrender, which IMHO makes it rather clear that the "unification" refers to aliens taking over.

[BRC]

Trailer says 2035, 20 years after unification

Unless XCOM rolled over in 8 months, "Unification" would describe first contact instead of surrender. Or it's the formation of the world government, kind of making the XCOM project itself the first step to the world government being aliens.
Derp, cannot do math.
I suppose it's possible that XCOM folded in 8 months. The Avenger is supposedly a captured alien transport ship, implying XCOM got to the point where they could shoot those down, but they've had 20 years as an underground movement to get their hands on one.

I mean, the earlier parts of XCOM are always the hardest.

I'm also seeing some similarities between the Advent symbol, and EXALT's logo.

[OrcusMcP]

The Avenger will probably be some sort of old refurbished supply barge that XCOM got out of a junkyard/desert somewhere after the aliens developed some new hotness. I didn't see the logos for ADVENT, but yeah, I'd expect some callbacks to EXALT for sure.

And 20 years is a long time. That's enough time for people to have been born and become adults knowing no other Earth than one ruled by aliens. Most of the XCOM soldiers will likely be in the early-20s to mid-30s at the oldest. That means they were children when the aliens first arrived. This world sounds juicy and ripe with narrative possibilities.

[Divayth Fyr]

I didn't see the logos for ADVENT
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2015/06/01/2kgmktxcom2screenshotadvent-trooperjpg-926757.jpg

[BRC]

One thing I'm really looking forward to is a wider variety of mission objectives.

While I loved Enemy Unknown, all misisons were either "Abduction" (kill all the aliens), Terror (Save civilians, you don't need to kill all the aliens but you probably will), or UFO recovery (Kill all the aliens with a different set of maps). As the game went on and you got better sat coverage, things increasingly went towards UFO recovery.

Then you had the occasional Council missions, (Rescue VIP, Disable Bombs, or Kill All The Aliens).

[OrcusMcP]

http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2015/06/01/2kgmktxcom2screenshotadvent-trooperjpg-926757.jpg

Hmmmmm, there's a LITTLE similarity....
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140128175527/villains/images/0/04/EXALT_logo.png

[KillianHawkeye]

And apparently it is a PC exclusive this time around. Kind of wonder what they have planned to warrant that.

Damn, and I was just about to get excited about this.... :smallfrown::smallsigh:

The last game played great on the Xbox 360. Assuming this one is still going to be a turn-based strategy game at its core, why do console gamers have to be left out?

[Triaxx]

Seems to take more from the UFO:After series than anything. In theory at least.

[BRC]

Hmmmmm, there's a LITTLE similarity....
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140128175527/villains/images/0/04/EXALT_logo.png
Look at about 1:24 in the trailer (Right when the snakelady shows up), you see some banners in the background in the Gene Therapy clinic that are also evocative of EXALT.

[Artanis]

Damn, and I was just about to get excited about this.... :smallfrown::smallsigh:

The last game played great on the Xbox 360. Assuming this one is still going to be a turn-based strategy game at its core, why do console gamers have to be left out?

I can think of three possibilities.

First, they might not want to have to make a console-friendly UI.
Second, they might not want to deal with console hardware restrictions and distribution channels.
Third, the consoles' companies might be being too uncooperative for it to be worth catering to them.


*shrug* just some thoughts, take them as you will.

[Divayth Fyr]

Fourth: a console version will actually be made later, but now they want to focus on the PC one.

[BRC]

Fourth: a console version will actually be made later, but now they want to focus on the PC one.

They're making a big deal about PC exclusivity, which does not really mean anything. My guess is that they just don't have any plans to release a console version now, and by saying "PC EXCLUSIVE!" they avoid having people ask about/wait for the console release.

[Artanis]

by saying "PC EXCLUSIVE!" they avoid having people ask about/wait for the console release.
If they think that saying "no console version" will keep people from asking about the console version, they must not have been around the internet for very long :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

This whole "humanity loses" is just another transparent excuse to avoid letting us build additional Skyrangers.

[BRC]

This whole "humanity loses" is just another transparent excuse to avoid letting us build additional Skyrangers.

Humanity Lost because we only built one Skyranger.

[MCerberus]

Humanity Lost because we only built one Skyranger.

Official timeline: the Skyranger was destroyed during the base attack, and without a skyranger humanity loses

[KillianHawkeye]

Protoss voice: "We must construct additional Skyrangers!"

:smallwink:

[Zevox]

And apparently it is a PC exclusive this time around.
Well, *censored* . I was quite interested in this, since I liked the previous game, but apparently won't be able to play it, since I'm sure my PC won't be able to handle anything being made these days. That sucks. :smallfrown:

Guess I just hope they make a PS4 version later or something. That or play it years from now, when I finally decide it's time to get a newer PC that may coincidentally be up to playing it.

[Flickerdart]

Well, *censored* . I was quite interested in this, since I liked the previous game, but apparently won't be able to play it, since I'm sure my PC won't be able to handle anything being made these days. That sucks. :smallfrown:
It's a turn based game, even if they don't let you tweak the important settings you should be able to crank the resolution down until you can get 20fps out of it and it'll work alright.

[Sharoth]

We had those damn aliens on the ropes. We were winning. And what went wrong? My strike force decided to play a game of POKER with the damn aliens! They said that they could win. They forgot about the fact that the aliens could read minds and THAT is how we lost the war.

[Gnoman]

A theory I've seen elsewhere is that, after XCOM won the war, they didn't manage to clean up all the infiltrators running around, and those infiltrators used the XCOM victory as an excuse to roll out the red carpet for a second wave, all defense against which was sabotaged.

[boomwolf]

Maybe Dr shen's warning about the floaters went over people's heads, and they simply went too far, to the point of being no different than the aliens, splitting up to "purist" faction and "evolution" faction (who became the rulers)

I refuse to belive incompetent exalt are the ones who won.

[Sean Mirrsen]

In regards to PC exclusivity - apparently they're building the game with full modding support, and Steam Workshop integration. Probably because of what people managed to do with Long War for the original. So it's likely that they just don't want to focus on the console side of things from the get-go. They're still keeping the action-bar menu though, so I doubt it's going to stay PC exclusive for long.

[Silfir]

We only know the first game as the game it could be while console-compatible - it's very possible that they had ideas for it that they ended up having to cut because the console hardware they were building for wasn't up to the task. Including procedurally-generated maps. Depending on the size and nature of the building blocks they use to assemble them, it can take a lot of processing power just to create one. And then, since you don't have static maps that you can test and optimize, but have to have an engine that can handle millions of possible combinations, the graphical hardware of the Xbox 360 or PS3 might simply have been too much of a limiting factor.

Leaving the consoles out of their considerations completely gives the developers the maximum amount of freedom to implement whatever they come up with. As an XCOM enthusiast with a PC, I'm rejoicing, but of course you could cut the bias with a knife.

[Sean Mirrsen]

We only know the first game as the game it could be while console-compatible - it's very possible that they had ideas for it that they ended up having to cut because the console hardware they were building for wasn't up to the task. Including procedurally-generated maps. Depending on the size and nature of the building blocks they use to assemble them, it can take a lot of processing power just to create one. And then, since you don't have static maps that you can test and optimize, but have to have an engine that can handle millions of possible combinations, the graphical hardware of the Xbox 360 or PS3 might simply have been too much of a limiting factor.

Leaving the consoles out of their considerations completely gives the developers the maximum amount of freedom to implement whatever they come up with. As an XCOM enthusiast with a PC, I'm rejoicing, but of course you could cut the bias with a knife.

I'm mostly hoping that it's not the PC hardware that they're aiming for, but rather the PC as an interface and a design environment. I don't want the XCOM2 graphics to get any prettier. Since my little UMPC-tablet can only run XCOM:EW on pretty much minimal settings and lowered resolution, I don't care for the sharp HD textures, the eight thousand polygons devoted to snake mammaries, the bloom, or the HDR rendering. I want the game to become deeper, more varied and more engaging, as well as more suited to control with a keyboard and mouse. I want the game's file structure to be open and accessible for modification. There are, to me, no other benefits of having a PC over having a console.

[GloatingSwine]

Humanity Lost because we only built one Skyranger.

More to the point, humanity lost because they didn't think detecting all the alien ships and shooting them down was important, meaning that the aliens could launch simultaneous attacks which confounded the one Skyranger as it could only respond to one.

The true lesson of UFO is that you can win as many battles as you like on the ground, but you win or lose the war in the skies.

[Ailurus]

Including procedurally-generated maps. Depending on the size and nature of the building blocks they use to assemble them, it can take a lot of processing power just to create one. And then, since you don't have static maps that you can test and optimize, but have to have an engine that can handle millions of possible combinations, the graphical hardware of the Xbox 360 or PS3 might simply have been too much of a limiting factor.


I'm mostly hoping that it's not the PC hardware that they're aiming for, but rather the PC as an interface and a design environment. I don't want the XCOM2 graphics to get any prettier. Since my little UMPC-tablet can only run XCOM:EW on pretty much minimal settings and lowered resolution, I don't care for the sharp HD textures, the eight thousand polygons devoted to snake mammaries, the bloom, or the HDR rendering. I want the game to become deeper, more varied and more engaging, as well as more suited to control with a keyboard and mouse. I want the game's file structure to be open and accessible for modification. There are, to me, no other benefits of having a PC over having a console.

If it is hardware issues, its almost certainly not GPU based. But I do hope they're aiming for PC hardware, in terms of RAM and CPU. (spec discussion spoiler)

RAM limitations on consoles have been a major issue at least since the original XBox (classic example is the Elder Scrolls games - console RAM limitations are why all the cities needed to be gated by loading screens in Skyrim and Oblivion, since the consoles simply couldn't hold that much information in memory), and while the PS4 and Xbone are better than they're predecessors they've already fallen sadly behind the curve in terms of amount of available memory as they're 8 GB shared between system and GPU. Just about any PC built within the past several years will have 8 GB of RAM minimum, plus another 2+ GB of dedicated video RAM. And, ironically, it looks like background processes may be hurting the consoles worse than PCs as well in the memory department with both of them seemingly using 3+ GB for background tasks and the OS while Windows only uses 2 GB). Net result is the PC will be running with a mimum of 6 GB RAM and 2 GB VRAM while the consoles will be sitting about 5 GB combined for both.

Why does the RAM and CPU potentially matter in this case? Because of the procedural generation. Honestly, some of the most memory-intensive games out there are things like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, both of which have very little in terms of graphics restrictions. But, they need lots of memory to store everything, which is why the PC version has potential map sizes which are orders of magnitude larger than any of the console versions. Now, granted, XCOM maps aren't going to be anywhere near the size of Minecraft maps, but if cutting the consoles loose means we can get bigger and more interesting procedurally generated maps, I want them to go for it.

[5ColouredWalker]

I think I might need to change my pants...
And it's coming out this year.

I just...
*Drooling sounds*

[Zevox]

It's a turn based game, even if they don't let you tweak the important settings you should be able to crank the resolution down until you can get 20fps out of it and it'll work alright.
I'm not sure I could do even something like that - my PC is old and not in the slightest intended for gaming, just more general-use stuff. And I'm not sure I'd want to, given the last time I tried to do something like that, I was not very pleased with the results. (That being when I played Empire: Total War on basically minimum settings. It worked, sort of, but looked awful and still dropped frames left and right. Not an experience I'm eager to repeat, even with a presumably better game.)

[BRC]

So it looks like the PC exclusivity was necessary for the procedural map generation.

Also, the classes are now

Sharpshooter: Sniper, but they can apparently also specialize in pistols?

Grenedier: The new Heavy, uses grenade launcher.

Ranger: The new assault, has melee weapons

Specialist: The new Support, has a drone buddy and can hack things remotely.

Plus another class that they won't talk about yet (Psychic specialists?)

Another big thing will be stealth. They're taking away Aliens Scattering into cover when spotted, so you get to sneak around and lay ambushes to get the first strike.

Also, they mention looting will be a thing now, which may be why Melee is a bigger deal. You get resources by looting enemies you drop, with melee types being right there.

[Silfir]

I don't think there was a single thing in the article I didn't go "Hell Yeah" about. But then I'm not that hard to please.

My money regarding the fifth class is on it being a "stealth" class of some kind. Maybe with an ability that allows it to remain undetected within alien detection ranges in the pre-engagement phase for an additional turn, or do sneak attacks, or lay traps, or hack with greater odds of success. In any case, the fifth class should represent a combat role that you would find in a resistance movement, but not modern militaries, which informed the doctrines XCOM started out with; they were a combat force first and foremost. The Covert Ops operatives from Enemy Within were recruited from your other soldiers instead of being specifically trained for the job, because XCOM only engaged in covert ops as an exception. Now that they're underground themselves, there'll be a lot more of that sneaky business, and it makes sense for the XCOM fighters to be trained in it.

Or in D&D terms - I'd wager the fifth class is a Rogue.

The shift from a Rocketeer to a Grenadier makes sense; rocket launchers and rockets are too cumbersome and hard to manufacture compared to, perhaps, a grenade launcher. The sword I could see upgraded into much more lethal variants with alien tech. The Sharpshooter's pistol prowess seems to be an expansion on the Gunslinger thing perhaps keeping in mind that the sniper entrenched in a secure position isn't really something that XCOM can afford; the troops have to stick fairly close together so they can be extracted quickly, but that means there'll be more close combat, and that makes the sidearm to the sniper rifle all the more crucial.

[YossarianLives]

*Squee*

I hope they incorporate some of the intrigue and diplomacy elements of Apocalypse into the game.

As for the story of how the aliens took over? I imagine that XCOM successfully defeated the aliens but they became corrupted, and used the aliens technology for ill as Shen was worried about in Enemy Unknown.

[BRC]

Maybe the fifth class will be an "Infiltrator", who dresses in ADVENT gear to ambush and mislead advent/alien soldiers.

Or, with all the talk of gene modding going on, XCOM agents who use stolen gene mods to turn themselves into living weapons. They dress in civilian clothing (Allowing them to infiltrate/scout out Advent locations) and can't carry anything heavier than a pistol, but have a variety of inbuilt biological weapons.

Going with the whole guerilla warfare theme, they are powerful while they can use their abilities, but all their nifty toys are on cooldowns, so you need to deploy them strategically. They might have some sort of adrenaline booster/super muscle thingy that lets them crack an Advent helmet open with a punch, but once they do that they're down to a pistol for a few turns.


As for the story. The interview was careful not to say "XCOM lost"...but it sounds a lot like XCOM lost. They DID say that XCOM never got the advanced technology.

It looks like the world governments folded but XCOM never stopped fighting.

[NEO|Phyte]

As for the story of how the aliens took over? I imagine that XCOM successfully defeated the aliens but they became corrupted, and used the aliens technology for ill as Shen was worried about in Enemy Unknown.

It's sounding like they're going for an alternate timeline 'XCom was doing poorly early, world decided to give up, XCom kept fighting as an underground resistance'

[boomwolf]

To be fair, losing horribly due to early-mid game overwhelming is the common outcome,at least in higher difficulties.

[Kittenwolf]

I am SO freaking excited about this! I'm actually doing a Lets Play of Enemy Within right now, with plans to try Long War again after I finish.

The "You actually lost" timeline is a bit annoying, but hey, clearly in universe they stuck with the commander who got most of their squad killed in the Tutorial rather than getting Player Commander on side immediately afterwards ;)

I do wish they had more than five classes, and I hope we start getting MEC classes, psionics, gene mods and all those other things later.

From the looks of the world stuff the Aliens have won, and then moved in and promised to make things *better* for the masses, eliminating disease and building awesome, technologically advanced megacities for the population, so I daresay public opinion will be that the aliens are benevolent and the security scans and semi police state are a small price to pay for health, wealth and happiness.

Up until XCOM starts exposing whatever sinister motive they've got anyway.

[Vitruviansquid]

I actually like how Xcom 2 will assume you lost the last campaign, because the ending of Xcom 1 if you won was stupid.

[GungHo]

I'm not sure I dig on the idea of expansive melee considering that the only thing that was even sort of a melee enemy absolutely destroyed you, even in a mech suit unless you rocket punched it first. I mean, I guess you could have fun rock-bottoming sectoids, but Cryssalids didn't exactly cuddle and Thin Men had pretty bad BO. Also, the idea of running up to punch a Cyberdisc or beat it with a baseball bat when you know it's going to death blossom doesn't seem to be a smart move. Maybe if it's presented as a way to stun baddies and capture them without having an Arc stunner it might work, but otherwise... you have a gun. Shoot it.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Might make sense in early-game when you're mostly fighting lizard-people and sectoids though, like they show in the trailer.

[GloatingSwine]

Melee's always been a thing in UFO. Whether it was stun sticks in the first one or using mad drill weapons on Lobstermen in TFTD.

You just have to be careful what you try and use it on.

[YossarianLives]

I suppose the snake thing we saw is a re-boot of the old snakeman from the original game.

[boomwolf]

I'm not sure I dig on the idea of expansive melee considering that the only thing that was even sort of a melee enemy absolutely destroyed you, even in a mech suit unless you rocket punched it first. I mean, I guess you could have fun rock-bottoming sectoids, but Cryssalids didn't exactly cuddle and Thin Men had pretty bad BO. Also, the idea of running up to punch a Cyberdisc or beat it with a baseball bat when you know it's going to death blossom doesn't seem to be a smart move. Maybe if it's presented as a way to stun baddies and capture them without having an Arc stunner it might work, but otherwise... you have a gun. Shoot it.

If long war thought me anything, is that the counter to cryssads is ironically getting CLOSER.

Shotguns and framers are hard counters to them. I took 4 shotguns to the fishing village once, it was a breeze.

But yes, melee is awesome.
Now just wait for the dual-pistol mod that is bound to come up a week after the game.

[MCerberus]

Theory: the alien gene experiments will end up merging children with aquatic creatures, making Splatoon part of the XCOM timeline

[Vitruviansquid]

Dr. Shen: That hulk of kid and squid troubles me. What do we risk with our own investigations into the melding of kids and squids? Will we see a line in the sand and refuse to cross it?

[BRC]

There are two possibilities
Either we are Squids
Or we are Kids
Both are equally terrifying.

[MCerberus]

He who plays with the devil's roller will be squished by it

[Muz]

Just heard about this game. Watched the trailer. AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! :smallbiggrin: XCOM 2!!!
Also: SNAKEMEN!!!
Also: AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

...Um, I'm excited. :smallredface:

[Surrealistik]

Canonically, X-Com lost due to Long War I/I and some terrible RNG; we've been paying the price ever since.


Have to admit, I was hoping for something more like X-Com Apocalypse too.

Yes, I'm sure the antags will probably involve the great threat the unascended Ethereals spoke of, even if they're not the initial opposition, or they're relegated to an expansion. I'm assuming the Sectoid/human hybrid is another Ethereal experiment aimed at creating the ultimate species/masterrace (this may even be true of the Snakeman).

My biggest regret about all this is that there will probably not be a Long War mod for it, which is what made Firaxis' remake _truly_ worth playing.

Very excited about procedurally generated maps if done right. I hope there's also a map editor and balanced multiplayer.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, I'm sure the antags will probably involve the great threat the unascended Ethereals spoke of, even if they're not the initial opposition, or they're relegated to an expansion.
I kind of hope they don't do this - to me, "hey, we're doing all this for the greater good of beating an even more dangerous race" is more of a philosophical/ethical quandary. If these aliens do come, then you have to beat them, either by augmenting your guys to the gills (and thus proving the ethereals right) or being able to win despite not doing it (and thus proving the premise was false). Neither is very satisfying as far as conclusions go. They also have to be simple "shoot them til they're dead" type guys, whereas the whole "ascended psionic being" thing leaves the possibility of an enemy that's more existentially threatening than dudes with guns.

[Grim Portent]

Yes, I'm sure the antags will probably involve the great threat the unascended Ethereals spoke of, even if they're not the initial opposition, or they're relegated to an expansion. I'm assuming the Sectoid/human hybrid is another Ethereal experiment aimed at creating the ultimate species/masterrace (this may even be true of the Snakeman).

What great threat? I've been looking through the Uber Ethereal's monologue and the only time it mentions great threats is when referring to floaters and mutons.

[BRC]

I mean, the idea was that the Ethereals were trying to pressure humanity into evolving, to make sure humans were tough enough to be recruited into their armies and take on whatever threat is out there. We just got TOO good and beat them before they finished conquering us.

I think with XCOM 2, humanity folded, and the "Gene Therapy Clinics" are the Alien's way of experimenting on humans until we can take on the big nasties.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think the Ethereals were hoping that uplifting another species would allow them to become transcendent.

[Grim Portent]

I mean, the idea was that the Ethereals were trying to pressure humanity into evolving, to make sure humans were tough enough to be recruited into their armies and take on whatever threat is out there. We just got TOO good and beat them before they finished conquering us.

I think with XCOM 2, humanity folded, and the "Gene Therapy Clinics" are the Alien's way of experimenting on humans until we can take on the big nasties.

Thing is, the Ethereals at no point mention needing more soldiers, if anything they imply that they've been looking for a replacement for themselves, or possibly new bodies to live in. They mostly talk about ascension, themselves being failures, and how each other race was a failure as well.

[Surrealistik]

What great threat? I've been looking through the Uber Ethereal's monologue and the only time it mentions great threats is when referring to floaters and mutons.

It's mainly this line: "We who were cast out. We who were doomed to feed on the Gift of lesser beings… as we sought to uplift them… to prepare them… for what lies ahead."

Ominous, though the meaning of that clause is admittedly uncertain. The most popular interpretation, especially post Bureau, is that there are other, worse threats out there, and the Ethereals also potentially have good intent, besides the obvious selfish motive of wanting to find new worthy hosts/ubermensch to facilitate their ascension.

[NEO|Phyte]

My biggest regret about all this is that there will probably not be a Long War mod for it, which is what made Firaxis' remake _truly_ worth playing.

Considering that improved mod support is one of their aims for XCom2, why exactly is there probably not going to be a Long War for it?

[Surrealistik]

Considering that improved mod support is one of their aims for XCom2, why exactly is there probably not going to be a Long War for it?

Because the LW team will almost certainly not be working on X-Com 2 and apparently are trying to launch their own game. I very much doubt that there will be a successor of quite the same calibre, though I guess we will see.

As an aside, while I wish them the best on their new venture, JohnnyLump needs to learn how to take balance and gameplay feedback a lot more proactively from the people who know his mod/outputs far more intimately than he does from a first hand perspective, tone down his emphasis on needless RNG in what is ostensibly a strategy/tactical game and let Amineri call more of the shots. Amineri is by far the most reasonable member of his dev team and often has great/sensible ideas, and is far more accepting of feedback as a rule, though she's constantly cowed into submission and overruled by JL.

[Ailurus]

Because the LW team will almost certainly not be working on X-Com 2 and apparently are trying to launch their own game. I very much doubt that there will be a successor of quite the same calibre, though I guess we will see.


In most game series, even if one good team leaves another one usually takes it's place. So even if we don't see long war itself, I'd be stunned if we don't see people making high quality mods for XCOM-2, especially since Firaxis is trying to make it easier to do so.

[Rodin]

I'm really hoping they do some different stuff with this X-COM. Enemy Unknown was a remake of the first X-COM, and it really showed. Halfway through playing it I got this feeling of deja vu...I've played this game before. The graphics weren't as good, but the actual gameplay is darn near identical. Great for feelings of nostalgia, but the reason I stopped playing the old ones is that I had played the ever-lovin' crap out of them and finally gotten bored and moved on.

While you obviously can't change too much, I would like to see some more depth to both the tactical and strategic levels of the game.

[NEO|Phyte]

From the concept alone, it's sounding like there's gonna be plenty different.

Instead of being Mankind's last line of defense against the alien invaders, you're the rebel alliance, fighting to overthrow the evil empire.

Then there's the stuff like stealth mechanics have been brought up in articles about it.

[Aotrs Commander]

*skulldesk*

See, this is what I get for using Rafale Fancieheire as the token sacrifi- um chosen one, isn't it? I'm taking his posthumous Saved The World Despite Being Most Offensively Steriotyically French Medal away! (Lesson learned, next time I'm using Hopereaver!)

Right, clearly Colonel Commadore "Nova" Bleakbane is going to have to go out and save the world again...

Mr Incredible was right, Earth; what I am, your maid?

[shadow_archmagi]

Why PC Exclusive? (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/05/why-xcom-2-had-to-be-pc-exclusive)

Looks like you were right; procedurally generated maps mainly, and a general company atmosphere of "We didn't want to develop for console because that's not what we're good at so maybe we'll get around to it"

[Artanis]

Why PC Exclusive? (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/05/why-xcom-2-had-to-be-pc-exclusive)

Looks like you were right; procedurally generated maps mainly, and a general company atmosphere of "We didn't want to develop for console because that's not what we're good at so maybe we'll get around to it"
In a way, this makes me feel exactly how I felt about many things in the first* XCOM: they took something that the classic version did well and modernized it. The plot system worked amazingly well for city settings (e.g. terror missions) and alien bases, and was absolutely PERFECT for base defenses since it gave YOU control over the battlefield (I have fond, fond memories of aliens having to walk through lasery apocalypse to get past the chokepoint between the hangars and the rest of the base :smallamused: ). Hell, even the "nine grass-filled boxes" of the farm missions weren't that bad. Now they're taking that and improving on it.

I had no idea it was possible for me to become even more excited for this :smallsmile:


*Now that there's another of the new series, we really need to come up with a term for it beyond "the new one". "NewCOM", maybe?

[Yana]

Nex(t)-com?

[shadow_archmagi]

Map Making explained (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first)


Interesting. I feel very clever that the "Quilt" method of procedural generation is exactly what I intuited they'd do. True randomness looks dumb, so you'd need to randomly place artistically designed chunks.

[Grif]

Map Making explained (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/04/xcom-2s-procedurally-generated-maps-ign-first)


Interesting. I feel very clever that the "Quilt" method of procedural generation is exactly what I intuited they'd do. True randomness looks dumb, so you'd need to randomly place artistically designed chunks.

Ah. The Torchlight way of constructing random maps. I approve. It keeps the aesthetics, but allows for randomness. (Although with time, you get to see patterns as well.)

[GungHo]

My biggest regret about all this is that there will probably not be a Long War mod for it, which is what made Firaxis' remake _truly_ worth playing.
What makes you say this?

[Flickerdart]

In a way, this makes me feel exactly how I felt about many things in the first* XCOM: they took something that the classic version did well and modernized it. The plot system worked amazingly well for city settings (e.g. terror missions) and alien bases, and was absolutely PERFECT for base defenses since it gave YOU control over the battlefield (I have fond, fond memories of aliens having to walk through lasery apocalypse to get past the chokepoint between the hangars and the rest of the base :smallamused: ). Hell, even the "nine grass-filled boxes" of the farm missions weren't that bad. Now they're taking that and improving on it.

I had no idea it was possible for me to become even more excited for this :smallsmile:


*Now that there's another of the new series, we really need to come up with a term for it beyond "the new one". "NewCOM", maybe?
Wait, base defenses? Was that in Enemy Within? I never got around to replaying with that one.

[Silfir]

There is a base defense mission in XCOM: Enemy Within, yes. Saying anything more would probably spoil the surprise!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Wait, base defenses? Was that in Enemy Within? I never got around to replaying with that one.

I think he's talking about the original 90s oX-Com version? I don't think they had farm missions in nXCOM either.

[Grif]

I think he's talking about the original 90s oX-Com version? I don't think they had farm missions in nXCOM either.

There is farm missions, actually. It's one of the new UFO crash landing ones, and it's probably a homage to the typical farm missions you get in X-Com: EU.

[boomwolf]

And for some reason the farm is ALWAYS coincidently when a brutal new tier of enemies show for the first time. ALWAYS.

[Artanis]

Wait, base defenses? Was that in Enemy Within? I never got around to replaying with that one.


I think he's talking about the original 90s oX-Com version? I don't think they had farm missions in nXCOM either.

Correct, I was referring to the missions in the original.

[MCerberus]

And for some reason the farm is ALWAYS coincidently when a brutal new tier of enemies show for the first time. ALWAYS.

That nice couple that old dogs get sent to have some dark secrets.

[Surrealistik]

Ah. The Torchlight way of constructing random maps. I approve. It keeps the aesthetics, but allows for randomness. (Although with time, you get to see patterns as well.)

Actually the original way X-Com handled map generation, hailing way back to its 1994 incarnation.

[Rodin]

I do like that they're going to have truly randomly generated connecting tissue. It should help remove the "quilted" pattern that old XCOM maps had.

[boomwolf]

I'd also dare give an optimistic hope that the mod support will include the ability to add new objects to the tissue and more tiles for the quilt, making the mod community technically build up even more map versatility.

[BRC]

I could see them going the Valve route, fully embracing mod support for maps and cosmetic features, such that fan-made maps and cosmetic stuff gets incorporated into the base game.

[super dark33]

I could see them going the Valve route, fully embracing mod support for maps and cosmetic features, such that fan-made maps and cosmetic stuff gets incorporated into the base game.

Fan made campeign that starts after Xcom victory in the first one is probably going to be one of the first things modded :smalltongue:

[ImperiousLeader]

Don't have much to add, except: Want!

[Silfir]

I'd also dare give an optimistic hope that the mod support will include the ability to add new objects to the tissue and more tiles for the quilt, making the mod community technically build up even more map versatility.

From what I understand reading the articles, that's not just an optimistic hope; that's pretty much what they're promising. At this point, as long as everything works technically, XCOM 2 will get sold even if the single player campaign turns out to be pants, simply because of the mods that can be made for it. (I think the guys at Firaxis won't mess this up too badly, though.)

[shadow_archmagi]

Fan made campeign that starts after Xcom victory in the first one is probably going to be one of the first things modded :smalltongue:

Nah, the FIRST thing will be a poorly made Fallout Tactics remake.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Actually, I can see why they are going at it this way, several reasons.

First, everyone loves an underdog. Star Wars being a classic example, the Rebels are the good guys, the Empire is the evil conquers.

Second, it gives you a MUCH more realistic reason why you are hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered. I never understood why they wouldn't fire up Hubble and figure out where these UFO's were coming from in the first place to intercept them as they hit atmo. Also why you couldn't try to shoot down the ships before they landed. This gives you a believable reason why.

Third, X-Com has always been a rather 'nintendo hard' merciless TBS game. This plotline can go back to its roots hardcore. Congratulations, not only are you hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered, no one is particularly interested in helping you. Good luck, commander.

I'd have also said an appropriate resolution would be 'X-Com beat down the original mothership. Which was the signal for the other couple dozen nearby that there was something worth plundering here. So they went in with overwhelming force and simply curbstomped all the things.

Also, am I the only one who saw the stealth guy decloak in the shadow in that one scene? I'm betting that's the fifth class right there. Probably some kind of psi unit, possibly gene-modded as well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also, am I the only one who saw the stealth guy decloak in the shadow in that one scene? I'm betting that's the fifth class right there. Probably some kind of psi unit, possibly gene-modded as well.

I'm preeetty sure that was the sectoid thing.

[Silfir]

Reading the newest article on IGN I think it's likely that the Ranger is given abilities that emphasize stealth as well as the mobility and close combat prowess it inherited from the Assault, which leaves me fresh out of clues about the fifth class. Kind of exciting!

[shadow_archmagi]

Who are we kidding, it's obviously a Collateral Damage Engine mecha class. They wouldn't give us that and then take it away.

[5ColouredWalker]

Yes they would, it's called saving things for DLCs :smallsmile::smallannoyed::smallyuk:

Also, MEC + Stealth? :smallconfused: Are you mad? At least SHIVs and drones make sense, they're relatively small and could be quiet, but huge mechs made out of steel/alien alloy shouldn't be quiet.

[lord_khaine]

It might be a psionic agent of some sort, it is something that the aliens have been experimenting a lot with, to try and instill that atribute into humanity.

[shadow_archmagi]

Yes they would, it's called saving things for DLCs :smallsmile::smallannoyed::smallyuk:

Also, MEC + Stealth? :smallconfused: Are you mad? At least SHIVs and drones make sense, they're relatively small and could be quiet, but huge mechs made out of steel/alien alloy shouldn't be quiet.

You're right. The idea of robots in disguise is crazy. :smalltongue:



You've got a point though. It could be a psi-ops class. They already said Dronebro would have hacking skills, right?

[thorgrim29]

The MECs are big and stompy because that's what's needed, why wouldn't they be able to have a stealth suit with Adam Jensen (protagonist of the Deus Ex prequels) like abilities for the stealth missions and a big stompy one for when subtlety is not needed?

[Surrealistik]

Nah, the FIRST thing will be a poorly made Fallout Tactics remake.

You mean the multiplayer that's already included with the game? :smalltongue:

That said, would absolutely love to see balanced point buy multiplayer for this game.

[5ColouredWalker]

The MECs are big and stompy because that's what's needed, why wouldn't they be able to have a stealth suit with Adam Jensen (protagonist of the Deus Ex prequels) like abilities for the stealth missions and a big stompy one for when subtlety is not needed?

I got an implication that big and stompy was the best of what they were capable of [Ignoring the non-frame, given how it was treated as non-combat usable.], though it's entirely possible we might be able to make Jensens now... OF course, Jensens are very different from MECs.

[Inyssius Tor]

I'm really hoping they do some different stuff with this X-COM. Enemy Unknown was a remake of the first X-COM, and it really showed. Halfway through playing it I got this feeling of deja vu...I've played this game before. The graphics weren't as good, but the actual gameplay is darn near identical. Great for feelings of nostalgia, but the reason I stopped playing the old ones is that I had played the ever-lovin' crap out of them and finally gotten bored and moved on.

Huh? Enemy Unknown (let alone Enemy Within) is thematically almost identical to UFO Defense, sure, but the actual gameplay is hugely, hugely different from it in basically every way! Limiting squad size to 4-6 instead of 14-26 by itself makes your tactics by necessity pretty much completely different, as does the way aliens cannot fire on you until detected, the inability of most soldiers to fire beyond their personal sight radius, the lack of free-aiming, the way inventories work totally differently, the way actions work totally differently, the entirely game-defining importance of flanking and taking cover behind terrain according to mechanics that UFO Defense did not possess, and the way your squad members' value and tactical options are totally defined by an experience-and-class-based system that UFO Defense did not have.

I mean, I could go on for a lot longer and in more detail in this vein, here. There are essentially no good tactics in UFO Defense that can be ported directly to Enemy Unknown and still be remotely good tactics, except perhaps in the absolute most basic common-sense terms, like "be cautious". Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to personal taste (I personally like it this way a lot more), but it's pretty bewildering to hear someone assert that it isn't a thing at all, and I've never heard anyone else do so.

[MCerberus]

Huh? Enemy Unknown (let alone Enemy Within) is thematically almost identical to UFO Defense, sure, but the actual gameplay is hugely, hugely different from it in basically every way! Limiting squad size to 4-6 instead of 14-26 by itself makes your tactics by necessity pretty much completely different, as does the way aliens cannot fire on you until detected, the inability of most soldiers to fire beyond their personal sight radius, the lack of free-aiming, the way inventories work totally differently, the way actions work totally differently, the entirely game-defining importance of flanking and taking cover behind terrain according to mechanics that UFO Defense did not possess, and the way your squad members' value and tactical options are totally defined by an experience-and-class-based system that UFO Defense did not have.

I mean, I could go on for a lot longer and in more detail in this vein, here. There are essentially no good tactics in UFO Defense that can be ported directly to Enemy Unknown and still be remotely good tactics, except perhaps in the absolute most basic common-sense terms, like "be cautious". Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to personal taste (I personally like it this way a lot more), but it's pretty bewildering to hear someone assert that it isn't a thing at all, and I've never heard anyone else do so.

Firaxis' vision was 'XCOM as a board game', so for better or ill, you are correct that this is fundamentally different. Its strength and appeal comes from the thematics indeed matching but both the strategic and tactical mechanics being built nearly from scratch.

So newcomers aren't bogged down by the density of certain 90s game dev trends and returning fans don't have the experience of it just being XCOM but wrong. It's somewhat remarkable that few have mused that this is the right way to do a reboot.

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm really hoping they do some different stuff with this X-COM. Enemy Unknown was a remake of the first X-COM, and it really showed. Halfway through playing it I got this feeling of deja vu...I've played this game before. The graphics weren't as good, but the actual gameplay is darn near identical. Great for feelings of nostalgia, but the reason I stopped playing the old ones is that I had played the ever-lovin' crap out of them and finally gotten bored and moved on.

While you obviously can't change too much, I would like to see some more depth to both the tactical and strategic levels of the game.

I completely missed the surreal nature of this post. Congrats on being the only person who thinks they're the same!

So apparently on the 2k boards there's a lot of grumbling about "SWORDS DON'T BELONG IN SCI FI" nevermind that melee has been a high-risk high-reward move in XCOM for ages.

Speaking of the old games, does anyone remember how soldiers would equip themselves at random in the old game, so that if you had 14 men and 14 laser pistols, you'd inevitably discover one guy trying to sneak into battle dual-wielding laspistols with two more in his backpack, and then four guys who didn't get pistols so they just crammed grenades into every pocket all over their body.

[GloatingSwine]

I mean, I could go on for a lot longer and in more detail in this vein, here. There are essentially no good tactics in UFO Defense that can be ported directly to Enemy Unknown and still be remotely good tactics, except perhaps in the absolute most basic common-sense terms, like "be cautious". Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to personal taste (I personally like it this way a lot more), but it's pretty bewildering to hear someone assert that it isn't a thing at all, and I've never heard anyone else do so.

Yeah, but all the good tactics in UFO were cheesy nonsense like everyone in your squad staying more than 20 squares away and firing super long range shots at whatever the tank sees (because no range penalties and enemies won't reaction fire), flattening the map with as many explosives as you can carry, giving the lowest psi defence guy a pistol so he can't hurt anyone when he inevitably soaks up all the mind control because the aliens can see your stats, farming reaction shot training by sitting outside a door until turn 20 when the aliens all charge out, etc.

The core of actual tactics like "don't go into the unknown without spare TUs to get back out again" and "isolate the aliens and concentrate fire to reduce their ability to act in their turn" are still all present and correct, even if the specifics of implementation are different, the only thing that's really missing is aliens patrolling on their own turn as much.

[shadow_archmagi]

To be fair, "explode everything all the time" is hardly cheese, it's common sense that's applicable to everyday life.

[Artanis]

I always felt that while NewCOM had a significantly different process than OldCOM, you actually wound up with effectively the same end result.

How did you build an OldCOM team? Somebody to scout ahead for vision (a tank or a few rookies), a couple guys with rocket launchers to blow things up, and a bunch of dudes to sit back and snipe from across the map. How do you build a NewCOM team? A mix of classes with various capabilities...which had the option (if you so desired) of being a SHIV and/or Assault to scout ahead for vision, a Heavy to blow things up, and a bunch of Squadsight Snipers to sit back and kill things from across the map.

What was the usual (albeit not always) "best way" to end a turn in OldCOM? Kneeling behind as much cover as possible with enough TUs for reaction fire. What is the usual (albeit not always) "best way" to end a turn in NewCOM? Behind heavy cover with an Overwatch action for reaction fire.

Did you run out of ammo in OldCOM? Occasionally during a firefight if you neglected to reload during a lull in the action*, and you never ran out of reloads if you equipped your squad remotely properly**. Do you run out of ammo in NewCOM? Occasionally during a firefight if you neglected to reload during a lull in the action*, and you never run out of reloads**.

How did you capture live aliens in OldCOM? Isolate them and then very very carefully weaken them before bumrushing them and praying that your ultra-short-range stunners got the job done. How do you capture live aliens in NewCOM? Isolate them and then very very carefully weaken them before bumrushing them and praying that your ultra-short-range stunners get the job done.

I could continue if people like :smallsmile:



...yes, I HAVE been waiting a very long time to post something like this. Why do you ask? :smalltongue:



*To answer the inevitable reply about infinite-ammo lasers: OldCOM lasers were broken and you know it. That's why their equivalents were nerfed to need reloading in every single other X-Com game ever. And don't get me started on the damage numbers...

**Rocket Launchers could - and did - run out of ammo very very easily. But they do the same in NewCOM as well.

[The Hellbug]

To be fair, "explode everything all the time" is hardly cheese, it's common sense that's applicable to everyday life.

I always loved that one of the first things a new player hears in X-Com is Dr. Vahlen telling them a good way to lose squad members unnecessarily.

[GloatingSwine]

I always felt that while NewCOM had a significantly different process than OldCOM, you actually wound up with effectively the same end result.


I dunno, you can't pass the parcel grenades across the map in NewCom, nor can you mind control an alien, make it drop all its weapons and mind control the next one off its vision and make it etc.

Nor is the best way to open doors "a guy you just hired holding only a live grenade".

[Surrealistik]

The best OldCom was clearly Apocalypse whose tactical gameplay was not so much the explosive spam fest in the earlier ones; yeah, you could blow everything up, but explosives were limited and significantly weaker or had limited range and you can bet that the organization whose building you've raided wouldn't at all appreciate having its interior decimated. Meanwhile by the time the aliens get personal shields, there's usually better ways to get the job done.

Beyond that, Psi was actually balanced!

EDIT: Also there was no Blaster Launcher or equivalent. Dimension Missile Launcher was powerful but not _broken_.

[Rodin]

I always felt that while NewCOM had a significantly different process than OldCOM, you actually wound up with effectively the same end result.

How did you build an OldCOM team? Somebody to scout ahead for vision (a tank or a few rookies), a couple guys with rocket launchers to blow things up, and a bunch of dudes to sit back and snipe from across the map. How do you build a NewCOM team? A mix of classes with various capabilities...which had the option (if you so desired) of being a SHIV and/or Assault to scout ahead for vision, a Heavy to blow things up, and a bunch of Squadsight Snipers to sit back and kill things from across the map.

What was the usual (albeit not always) "best way" to end a turn in OldCOM? Kneeling behind as much cover as possible with enough TUs for reaction fire. What is the usual (albeit not always) "best way" to end a turn in NewCOM? Behind heavy cover with an Overwatch action for reaction fire.

Did you run out of ammo in OldCOM? Occasionally during a firefight if you neglected to reload during a lull in the action*, and you never ran out of reloads if you equipped your squad remotely properly**. Do you run out of ammo in NewCOM? Occasionally during a firefight if you neglected to reload during a lull in the action*, and you never run out of reloads**.

How did you capture live aliens in OldCOM? Isolate them and then very very carefully weaken them before bumrushing them and praying that your ultra-short-range stunners got the job done. How do you capture live aliens in NewCOM? Isolate them and then very very carefully weaken them before bumrushing them and praying that your ultra-short-range stunners get the job done.

I could continue if people like :smallsmile:



...yes, I HAVE been waiting a very long time to post something like this. Why do you ask? :smalltongue:



*To answer the inevitable reply about infinite-ammo lasers: OldCOM lasers were broken and you know it. That's why their equivalents were nerfed to need reloading in every single other X-Com game ever. And don't get me started on the damage numbers...

**Rocket Launchers could - and did - run out of ammo very very easily. But they do the same in NewCOM as well.


Sums up my original intent better than I could have done, thank you.

I'll expand that to the strategic layer - you start building buildings, and wait for aliens to show up. You either get a downed spacecraft or a terror mission (NuXCOM added abduction missions, which were downed spacecraft without the downed spacecraft). Eventually, you invade the alien base and capture the leader, then invade the mothership/alien home base.

It all felt very familiar. As to the old crazy tactics from the first game, I never actually employed those because they never occurred to me. Cause you know, they're crazy. :smalltongue:

I played the first game very much like I played the last game...at least up until the Blaster Launcher, where all my time was spent making the bombs do 360 degree spins around the aliens before rocketing up into the stratosphere and then plummeting down directly on top of their heads.

[Tvtyrant]

At least this time the low budget will make more sense. The idea of the world governments slashing your budget because you can't stop attacks with your meager allotment never made any sense to me. "What, you invented incredibly advanced weaponry and psionic powers? We are slashing your budget to spend it on more traditional m16s rather than giving you a trillion dollars and a few corps of soldiers to outfit in super weapons."

[BRC]

At least this time the low budget will make more sense. The idea of the world governments slashing your budget because you can't stop attacks with your meager allotment never made any sense to me. "What, you invented incredibly advanced weaponry and psionic powers? We are slashing your budget to spend it on more traditional m16s rather than giving you a trillion dollars and a few corps of soldiers to outfit in super weapons."

A lot of things make more sense this time around.

The Aliens are vulnerable to conventional weapons, so why is XCOM sending in four man squads? Where is the air support from local military? The Mortar Strikes?

Even if we assume that the XCOM starting weapons are the best available on earth, ordinary bullets and grenades should be useful. At the very least the locals could use drones, helicopters, and aircraft to scout the area.

[Tvtyrant]

A lot of things make more sense this time around.

The Aliens are vulnerable to conventional weapons, so why is XCOM sending in four man squads? Where is the air support from local military? The Mortar Strikes?

Even if we assume that the XCOM starting weapons are the best available on earth, ordinary bullets and grenades should be useful. At the very least the locals could use drones, helicopters, and aircraft to scout the area.

Rescuing army guys with automatic rifles who then flee the battlefield missions :smallmad: I know the opponents get tougher and the army has the same weapons you started with, but come on. They could at least throw grenades.

[GloatingSwine]

Sums up my original intent better than I could have done, thank you.

I'll expand that to the strategic layer - you start building buildings, and wait for aliens to show up. You either get a downed spacecraft or a terror mission (NuXCOM added abduction missions, which were downed spacecraft without the downed spacecraft). Eventually, you invade the alien base and capture the leader, then invade the mothership/alien home base.


Yeah, but in the original UFO those things were more procedural and not gated by completing certain missions, and you reached the point where you could stop terror missions, whereas XCEU would always have those "pick one of three" events and the council missions where you couldn't try and stop the aliens from reaching the ground.

That was the real problem I had with XCEU/EW. The geoscape level wasn't quite as unique each time.

I like the tactical layer, but the strategic layer doesn't do it. (Xenonauts does things a lot better at that level, and is basically "UFO with lots of QoL improvements")

[Sean Mirrsen]

(Xenonauts does things a lot better at that level, and is basically "UFO with lots of QoL improvements")
I would agree, except for one thing. Air combat. Great idea in theory, but...

The thing I dislike most about how interceptors work in XCOM is that it's like a minigame. Ticking timer, consumable powerups, and you don't get to have much choice in anything because your interceptor only has the one weapon.

The air combat in Xenonauts kept the variety, but turned it into a somehow even worse minigame. The best way to fix it would be to strip the player of direct controls, only allowing him to set the speed, and select different weapons. Instead you have a minigame called "dodge the missile", where you have to not only time the combat rolls of your fighter craft precisely, but you also have to use the keyboard shortcuts for it, so that you can actually tell your craft to combat-roll in a meaningful direction rather than directly into the alien ship's secondary guns range. It's just... the last thing I want to be doing when playing a strategic game, is button mashing. And no, the autoresolve isn't much better an option.

[GloatingSwine]

I would agree, except for one thing. Air combat. Great idea in theory, but...

The thing I dislike most about how interceptors work in XCOM is that it's like a minigame. Ticking timer, consumable powerups, and you don't get to have much choice in anything because your interceptor only has the one weapon.

The air combat in Xenonauts kept the variety, but turned it into a somehow even worse minigame. The best way to fix it would be to strip the player of direct controls, only allowing him to set the speed, and select different weapons. Instead you have a minigame called "dodge the missile", where you have to not only time the combat rolls of your fighter craft precisely, but you also have to use the keyboard shortcuts for it, so that you can actually tell your craft to combat-roll in a meaningful direction rather than directly into the alien ship's secondary guns range. It's just... the last thing I want to be doing when playing a strategic game, is button mashing. And no, the autoresolve isn't much better an option.

True, the air combat wasn't perfect, but it was a reasonable attempt. (PS you could activate the combat roll whilst paused, it was a lot better to pause to order)

[Tvtyrant]

Wouldn't air combat make more sense if it simply worked like everything else? Add three height statuses "Low, medium, high" to the game. A low altitude flyer can be shot at by ground units (helicopters), then medium which can be shot at by low and medium altitude but cannot shoot ground (fighters) and then bombers which can only attack ground but can only be attacked by fighters. Then make them turn based like everything else.

[Rodin]

Yeah, but in the original UFO those things were more procedural and not gated by completing certain missions, and you reached the point where you could stop terror missions, whereas XCEU would always have those "pick one of three" events and the council missions where you couldn't try and stop the aliens from reaching the ground.

That was the real problem I had with XCEU/EW. The geoscape level wasn't quite as unique each time.

I like the tactical layer, but the strategic layer doesn't do it. (Xenonauts does things a lot better at that level, and is basically "UFO with lots of QoL improvements")

Definitely second this.

Some stuff that I would like to see back from old X-Com:

Bring back spaceship AI. Small and very small ships vary between scouting and abduction. Scouts tend to fly fairly fast and consistently - abductors will fly fast to a location and do a slow trawl. Medium ships have supply ships that will make a beeline for an alien base. Finding the alien base can rely on shadowing the supply ships. Other mediums can be cattle abductors, research ships, troop transports, etc. Large ships are mainly terror ships, and the very-large class is where you get your boss aliens, base assault ships, base landers, etc.

Make the base assault missions contingent on the aliens finding you. A great way to expand on this from the original would be to give high and low profile search techniques - low profile is sending out interceptors to scout, using passive scans from satellites, etc. High profile would be lighting up with radar and going active on the feeds from the satellites. Make the base missions dependent on how you built your base - building a room layout to allow your troops chokepoints could be important, as well as stopping the aliens from going in and blowing up all your reactors.

And bring back the old Interceptor music! That song was ridiculously catchy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdRt_c8nfY)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I will say I was surprised that UFO's that were able to be taken down by aircraft equipped with conventional missiles could stand a chance in heck against the anti-aircraft capabilities of most of the first world nations, particularly China, Russia, and the USA. And surprised that there was no way to provide artillery support, or at least mortar support, and at the very least air support, to your team. After all, an aircraft capable of shooting down a UFO should also be capable of providing fire support. Dropping one of those Avalanche Missiles at the door of the downed UFO ought to dramatically reduce the number of threats you have to deal with, at least.

The way X-COM2 is shaping up, you at least have a legitimate reason why you don't... you're a rebel group, probably labelled a terrorist organization by the installed regime. Your resources are limited at best, you don't have nations of any stripe supporting your efforts. Think less S.H.I.E.L.D. and more A New Hope.

I do hope they start giving you the opportunity to do some irregular and guerilla warfare tactics, which is about what you'd HAVE to do at that point.

[Grif]

Apparently Impossible Ironman is the canon story. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/11/xcom-2s-bleak-future-why-impossible-iron-man-mode-is-canon-ign-first)

Well, we all know how Impossible Ironman goes.

[Flickerdart]

How does Impossible Ironman go? I've never tried either; I'm assuming everyone dies in the opening mission and the Commander is forced to take to the field with a single handgun all by himself.

Shame that we won't see anything of the promised enemy even the Ethereals were afraid of.

[Rodin]

Apparently X-COM was wiped out before managing to do any research beyond conventional weapons. While that's a stretch based on the gameplay, it does answer my main burning question about how you would make a sequel to X-COM and still have research progression that makes any kind of sense. X-COM never DID any research because they never completed any missions, never captured any aliens...yada yada.

[Silfir]

Shame that we won't see anything of the promised enemy even the Ethereals were afraid of.

What makes you so sure? The absolute last thing Firaxis is going to reveal in a preview is end-game plot twists or the content of to-be-made DLC or expansion packs. That the game begins with the goal of toppling Alien leadership and reclaiming Earth for humanity doesn't mean it ends there.

[NEO|Phyte]

Apparently X-COM was wiped out before managing to do any research beyond conventional weapons. While that's a stretch based on the gameplay, it does answer my main burning question about how you would make a sequel to X-COM and still have research progression that makes any kind of sense. X-COM never DID any research because they never completed any missions, never captured any aliens...yada yada.

Nitpick, XCom was never wiped out, they simply performed poorly enough that the world's governments opted to surrender to the alien menace.

[Aotrs Commander]

Apparently Impossible Ironman is the canon story. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/11/xcom-2s-bleak-future-why-impossible-iron-man-mode-is-canon-ign-first)

Well, we all know how Impossible Ironman goes.

The statistics are interesing. Even if you generously assumed that the 25% of players who apparently bought the game but never gained any achievements had actually played to completion off-line or something (as opposed to presumably some mix of "played offline/disabled achievements/hated game so much they quit after five minutes/couldn't get it to run), that would still even suggest that only 50% of players played to completion at the absolute outside. (I would be interested to know the true number of completed games including the missin percentage; unless 25% of people who bought X-Com really never actually played it...?) The evidence is certainly is for the modal result being X-Com failure.

So, huh, finally a purpose for achievements for "complete game" - really for developers to see how many people [that don't screw with achievements] actually bother to finish a game...!

[Ailurus]

The statistics are interesing. Even if you generously assumed that the 25% of players who apparently bought the game but never gained any achievements had actually played to completion off-line or something (as opposed to presumably some mix of "played offline/disabled achievements/hated game so much they quit after five minutes/couldn't get it to run), that would still even suggest that only 50% of players played to completion at the absolute outside. (I would be interested to know the true number of completed games including the missin percentage; unless 25% of people who bought X-Com really never actually played it...?) The evidence is certainly is for the modal result being X-Com failure.

So, huh, finally a purpose for achievements for "complete game" - really for developers to see how many people [that don't screw with achievements] actually bother to finish a game...!

Actually, XCOM is one of the few games that will actually record offline achievement progress - it will sync up the achievements next time you bring steam online (or maybe the next time you launch xcom with steam online, can't remember exactly). But, the 20-25% of players with no achievements is really not surprising for PC games. In Skyrim, >25% of the people never got to level 5. Almost 30% of Civ V players never built a second city. And so on.

Even if we just look at the people who got 1 or more achievement, though, the world is still doomed. 77.3% is the highest achievement percentage (complete a mission without losing a soldier). Humanity's Savior (win on any difficulty) is 27.9%. So, among people with achievements only 36% finished. Earth First (win on classic or higher) is 4.9% completed, or only about 6% of those who got one or more achievements. Regardless of which way you slice it, we failed and horribly.

[Aotrs Commander]

The mind boggles.

It just astounds me that that many people will buy a game and not play it for even, like, an hour or something...

[GloatingSwine]

Man, do you even Steam?

Most people have played less than half of the games they own on Steam. This is why Valve are able to offer stupidly deep discounts in the sales, because they know people will just give them free money for games they'll probably never even download, let alone play.

Based on the data from Trueachievements.com, the ratios for completion of Earth First and Don't Look Back (ironman classic or impossible) are 7% and 4% on Xbox, though maybe slightly lower for the population at large because it's only registered users on that site and they are slightly biased towards completionism.

[Triaxx]

Humble Bundle not helping things in the slightest. That said, I've got games on disc I haven't played yet.

[shadow_archmagi]

Actually, XCOM is one of the few games that will actually record offline achievement progress - it will sync up the achievements next time you bring steam online (or maybe the next time you launch xcom with steam online, can't remember exactly). But, the 20-25% of players with no achievements is really not surprising for PC games. In Skyrim, >25% of the people never got to level 5. Almost 30% of Civ V players never built a second city. And so on.

Even if we just look at the people who got 1 or more achievement, though, the world is still doomed. 77.3% is the highest achievement percentage (complete a mission without losing a soldier). Humanity's Savior (win on any difficulty) is 27.9%. So, among people with achievements only 36% finished. Earth First (win on classic or higher) is 4.9% completed, or only about 6% of those who got one or more achievements. Regardless of which way you slice it, we failed and horribly.

Wait, are you just- You can't just multiply percentages like that because- Well, I guess it's safe to assume that "people who beat the game" also managed at least ONE loss-free mission at some point during their game.

You got lucky this time punk, but I'll be back to check for statistical consistency in future posts! ;p


Man, do you even Steam?

Most people have played less than half of the games they own on Steam. This is why Valve are able to offer stupidly deep discounts in the sales, because they know people will just give them free money for games they'll probably never even download, let alone play.

Based on the data from Trueachievements.com, the ratios for completion of Earth First and Don't Look Back (ironman classic or impossible) are 7% and 4% on Xbox, though maybe slightly lower for the population at large because it's only registered users on that site and they are slightly biased towards completionism.

Yeah I've barely managed to keep my ratio below 50% by actually organizing my steam library into "PLAYED" and "UNPLAYED" Most of my unplayed games are cheap bargain bin ones though, like when I got all the old star wars games. I can't imagine picking up a 60 dollar game and not playing it. Someday I"ll finish Star Wars Dark Forces though. Someday.



How does Impossible Ironman go? I've never tried either; I'm assuming everyone dies in the opening mission and the Commander is forced to take to the field with a single handgun all by himself.


It goes about the same way as the rest of the game, only exaggerated. If you can survive the first few missions, you'll probably win the game. Hilariously, the game just throws extra aliens at you without lowering their rewards, so you end up rolling in XP and weapon fragments much earlier on. If you can survive until mutons show up, you probably have colonels with tons of fancy abilities and you'll be just fine.

I wonder if XCOM 2 will have that same difficulty cliff where it's very difficult to lose post lasweapons, or if there'll be massive difficulty spikes you have to be ready for. Like at month five they triple the guards and bring out Mutons to boot.

[Ailurus]

Wait, are you just- You can't just multiply percentages like that because- Well, I guess it's safe to assume that "people who beat the game" also managed at least ONE loss-free mission at some point during their game.

You got lucky this time punk, but I'll be back to check for statistical consistency in future posts! ;p


Well "completed one research project" and "built one item" are both at 76.5% (versus 77%) so the numbers won't change much even if I redid them (unless there's people who have pulled off classic or impossible with no gear and only the ballistic guns).



It goes about the same way as the rest of the game, only exaggerated. If you can survive the first few missions, you'll probably win the game. Hilariously, the game just throws extra aliens at you without lowering their rewards, so you end up rolling in XP and weapon fragments much earlier on. If you can survive until mutons show up, you probably have colonels with tons of fancy abilities and you'll be just fine.


That's why I think classic is almost easier than normal, once you're used to the game mechanics - not only do you get more stuff, but you can also be a lot more liberal with explosives since if you lose out on some fragments here or there it's no big deal.

IMO, the biggest hurdle with impossible is the thin men. On classic, they only have 4 HP, so a shotgun or sniper rifle has a decent shot of taking them out. On impossible, they bump to 6 HP, which means you need at least two guys (likely more) to take them out reliably, which makes some of the early missions (particularly council ones) a pain. But if you can survive the thin men you should be in a decent state.

[Aotrs Commander]

Man, do you even Steam?

No.

Not in the typical sense, apparently.

I don't buy a game unless I'm planning to play it if not immediately, then very shortly afterwards (and even then I often give it an hour or so anyway.)

In my entire games library, there are only three games I that have not played for at least an hour or so (World Ends With You I more or less forgot I had until I unearthed it one day, and Persona 4 and one of the Digital Devil Saga and those because since we had the dining room telly pinched a year or so back, we haven't replaced it and I've not touched my consoles.) EVERYTHING else, no matter how crap it was, I have at least played. (And even my "played to completion" ratio is actually fairly marginally above 50%, just about.)

[KillianHawkeye]

We had those damn aliens on the ropes. We were winning. And what went wrong? My strike force decided to play a game of POKER with the damn aliens! They said that they could win. They forgot about the fact that the aliens could read minds and THAT is how we lost the war.

The lesson: Never go "all in" when the whole planet is at stake.

[Artanis]

77.3% is the highest achievement percentage (complete a mission without losing a soldier).
It occurs to me...don't you lose virtually everybody in the tutorial mission whether you like it or not? So I imagine that a large number of people fired it up, started a game, and were immediately greeted by their first experience with the game being a horrible, horrible slaughter. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people gave up right then and there, before they had a chance to discover that that was not how things typically went (especially on the difficulties that a tutorial-using-level player would actually select).

[Derthric]

It's surprisingly easy to get a steam library filled up with games you may not have touched. Bundles and sales sneak up on you. I have all the original X-com games that I bought in a bundle but have only played UFO defense.

And then there are also people like me who use steam sales as a way to buy other people games as presents based on their wishlists . I've done this with EU specifically for my brother. I think he has maybe 10 hours in. And people could have just got it to play multiplayer, not that I think XCOM has a robust multiplayer community but it is a possibility.

[Ailurus]

It occurs to me...don't you lose virtually everybody in the tutorial mission whether you like it or not? So I imagine that a large number of people fired it up, started a game, and were immediately greeted by their first experience with the game being a horrible, horrible slaughter. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people gave up right then and there, before they had a chance to discover that that was not how things typically went (especially on the difficulties that a tutorial-using-level player would actually select).

Only 74% got the tutorial completed achievement.

[Tvtyrant]

Only 74% got the tutorial completed achievement.

"One of my guys died on the very first turn. Maybe this game isn't for me..."

[Grif]

It's surprisingly easy to get a steam library filled up with games you may not have touched. Bundles and sales sneak up on you. I have all the original X-com games that I bought in a bundle but have only played UFO defense.

And then there are also people like me who use steam sales as a way to buy other people games as presents based on their wishlists . I've done this with EU specifically for my brother. I think he has maybe 10 hours in. And people could have just got it to play multiplayer, not that I think XCOM has a robust multiplayer community but it is a possibility.

Indeed. There are actually instances where I thought buying a bundle was cheaper than buying the game I wanted. (Specifically, the 2k and THQ bundle last time.) Even at risk of cluttering my Steam library.

[Slayn82]

Well, I have the new x-com on steam and never played, my Intel graphics notebook can't support it, but still bought because I loved the three originals
games that I never paid for, and I enjoyed many Let's play videos of the remake on YouTube.

Even if I could play it right now, I probably already would have finished with it. There are people nowadays who buy games to be part of the community. Specially we 30 something's with work and relationships to keep us busy.

Now, if the game were less niche, something I could talk with a few buddies and get started easily, then it would be different. FIFA, Call of Duty, or funny enough, League of Legends and DotA.

[Volthawk]

Humble Bundles are the bane of small tidy steam libraries.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, Sectoids can resurrect the dead. That's a thing now.

[Surrealistik]

So, Sectoids can resurrect the dead. That's a thing now.

Not if you explode them. :smallamused:

[5ColouredWalker]

O.o
What?
Really?
-.-

Also, I'm not imagining the snakes to be reverse sneekers, instead of going after you then crushing you to death, she brings you to her and crushes you to death...

That should make for awesome multiplayer, set up a killbox with your other aliens, then have your snake ladies steal the enemy. Come and save him, if you dare!

[shadow_archmagi]

I tried checking the 2k forums, and WOW those guys are grumpy and seem to believe that Xcom is or should be hard science fiction, rather than a collection of arbitrary sci-fi tropes thrown whimiscally together. I'm so weirded out by them. Who plays a game that has chestbursters AND psions AND "lasers" AND... and then thinks "Swords are really what is going to make this too unrealistic"

[5ColouredWalker]

I get it from a stealth standpoint, I still think that clubs/maces would be better, unless the aliens suddenly forgot to use their stupid tough alloys for their armor.

[Dragonus45]

Well personally I think that melee and X-com won't work well together.

[BRC]

Well personally I think that melee and X-com won't work well together.

Why not? It's the same principle as shotguns, just more so. A high-damage attack that requires considerable risk (Getting close)

[Dragonus45]

Why not? It's the same principle as shotguns, just more so. A high-damage attack that requires considerable risk (Getting close)

I just think that unless they come with an ability that lets them survive being instagibbed they wont have much relevance late game.

[Gnoman]

I just think that unless they come with an ability that lets them survive being instagibbed they wont have much relevance late game.

It's already very easy in EU/EW to position your Assault directly next to an enemy for a shotgun blast.

[Maquise]

In IGN's article on the Ranger class (the one with the sword) they said that one of the upper-level abilities is to move after a successful hit.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/09/meet-the-xcom-2-ranger-ign-first

[Ailurus]

I get it from a stealth standpoint, I still think that clubs/maces would be better, unless the aliens suddenly forgot to use their stupid tough alloys for their armor.

Actually, that depends on the type of armor the aliens are using. If it's primarily designed as an anti-ballistic armor, blades made of the same fancy alien alloys could presumably cut through it, just like modern blades can penetrate modern ballistic armor if used correctly. Of course, in order for the modern blades to penetrate the blade (generally) has to be used in a thrusting manner rather than slashing so the so-called machete-sword would likely be totally useless.

As for maces and such, they do have an advantage vs. armor since they just squish what's underneath, and would probably be great on human troops and sectoids and the like. But, they'd almost certainly break down versus mutons and robot enemies. For them, I'd go with a warhammer instead of a mace - the muton may well think you're just tickling him with a mace, but he'll almost certainly notice when you drive an alien-alloy spike into his brain.

[snowblizz]

As for maces and such, they do have an advantage vs. armor since they just squish what's underneath, and would probably be great on human troops and sectoids and the like. But, they'd almost certainly break down versus mutons and robot enemies. For them, I'd go with a warhammer instead of a mace - the muton may well think you're just tickling him with a mace, but he'll almost certainly notice when you drive an alien-alloy spike into his brain.

Technically speaking most maces were designed with flanges or spikes to penetrate armour and/or better transfer shock force into the target.

[shadow_archmagi]

I just think that unless they come with an ability that lets them survive being instagibbed they wont have much relevance late game.


It's already very easy in EU/EW to position your Assault directly next to an enemy for a shotgun blast.

^This, pretty much. Shotgun assaults, and let's not forget that Enemy Within added PUNCH ROBOTS who attack exclusively by PUNCHING (okay, they had a gun, but it wasn't as powerful as their PUNCHES)

Perfectly normal encounter in Enemy Within:
Ethereal with a pair of honor guard mutons?

Heavy fires a rocket that softens them. Sniper headshots one. Assault runs up and double-barrels the other. MEC runs up and punches the ethereal in the face. Etheral mind controls the assault. MEC punches the ethereal two more times on its turn. Day saved, plenty of melee.

[lord_khaine]

Yeah.. and apocalypse also had Plasma swords, who worked wonders for both cutting though walls and the skeletoid standing on the other side.

[Magentawolf]

Only 74% got the tutorial completed achievement.

Pft, Tutorial? I just jumped into the game. That locked achievement *is* starting to annoy me, though...

[Artanis]

Only 74% got the tutorial completed achievement.
The vast majority of the remaining 26% probably just skipped it like Magentawolf did*. Hell, I would've skipped it if I hadn't been so eager to start my first game that I neglected to look for the check box, and I'm a coward who plays on Normal difficulty :smalltongue:

The tutorial's body count wouldn't do much to affect the skilled veterans. The worst it would do to the old hands is trick a few into thinking the death toll wasn't scripted and thus that they should knock off the rust with a few missions at a lower difficulty than they originally intended. However, the kind of player who would want - or who would need - to play a tutorial, the players who are new to the series or who could only beat the originals on the easiest difficulties, are exactly the players who would be shocked into giving up right then and there when they lose 75% of their team in the very first NewCOM mission they ever play.



*My thanks to Magentawolf, whose post helped me remember the circumstances around my one tutorial run. My memories of it had gotten a bit blurred by time and by numerous playthroughs that all started with me making sure that I had turned it off.



Actually, that depends on the type of armor the aliens are using.
The slow blade penetrates the shield :smallwink:



Pft, Tutorial? I just jumped into the game. That locked achievement *is* starting to annoy me, though...
Eh, just go ahead and do it. Takes like ten minutes or something. Maybe it'll even be good for a laugh :smalltongue:

[5ColouredWalker]

Yea, the tutorial sucked. I had played the demo before so skipped, and then out of interest tried it.

Damn that thing starts you on the wrong foot. Playing the Tutorial is something no one should ever do.


Yeah.. and apocalypse also had Plasma swords, who worked wonders for both cutting though walls and the skeletoid standing on the other side.

Yea, I could buy cutting an heavily armoured alien up with a lightsaber. Modern katana? Not so much.

-snip-
Let's compare:
-High speed punch with a heavy MEC behind it.
-Modern blade swung by a human.

I think there's a bit of a difference in the usefulness of those... I also equiped my MECs with flamethrowers instead, it's funny watching Chryssalids run for their lives.

[Anarion]

The mind boggles.

It just astounds me that that many people will buy a game and not play it for even, like, an hour or something...

Combination of gifts, bundles, and relative lack of interest. As an example, I've been sitting on LA Noire for years. I look at it, think about how I'd like to play it and would enjoy a bunch of it, then think about how much I'd need to commit to actually get into it, how little time I have on an average night, and all the other things I could be doing, like playing pen and paper games, watching shows that interest me playing a different game that intrigues me more, or socializing and end up not committing to it. If I got more than, say 5 hours into it on some weekend, I'd probably be hooked enough to finish, but it has never happened.

More on topic, I'm feeling silly proud of myself after reading all those stats for completing an ironman impossible run. Still though, I think I tried and failed the first two missions (no tutorial, mind, just the regular starter mission and then the first abduction) ~10 times for every run that I made, and I failed 5 extended runs before I got the ironman impossible run that actually stuck. Almost all extended runs were lost to a bomb mission in the first couple months: turn-limited all thin-men before you have a gun that can 1-shot them or a squad member that can withstand them effectively ends a run.

I'm personally excited for the new game though. I like the idea of stealth, especially if there are better ways to scout so that correct gameplay is something other than taking 20 turns to carefully advance a couple squares at a time while the rest of the squad played follow the leader.

[shadow_archmagi]

Yea, I could buy cutting an heavily armoured alien up with a lightsaber. Modern katana? Not so much.

Let's compare:
-High speed punch with a heavy MEC behind it.
-Modern blade swung by a human.

I think there's a bit of a difference in the usefulness of those... I also equiped my MECs with flamethrowers instead, it's funny watching Chryssalids run for their lives.


First off, it's a machete, not a katana. None of that weeaboo nonsense. :smallwink:

Second off, it's super, super easy to assume that the unupgraded melee will deal, say, 3-4 points of damage, and then you'll research something something science words (monomolecular? Ionized vibro-edge? Plasma conduit magnetic reciprocating field trip?) that makes it more damaging. Or you'll get genemods and cyberware or something to put force behind it.

Third off, it looks cool and it works for gameplay and XCOM has always been random tropes welded together with lore written afterward to desperately struggle to justify it.

[Surrealistik]

More on topic, I'm feeling silly proud of myself after reading all those stats for completing an ironman impossible run.

LW I/I I feel to be the true test of X-Com fortitude; the problem with I/I in the base game is that, at least in EW, you could cheese the tacticals far too easily with squadsight + mimetic skin spotter, and there was the flank paralysis AI bug before that. Granted the early game and especially the bomb missions were a royal PITA.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I don't see why Melee can't be a thing. Even in modern day, special weapons teams are issued knives for when you don't want to give away your position with gunfire. Sneak up behind someone, slit their throat, move on. Start with conventional blades which are enough to deal with unarmored or lightly armored targets, upgrade to Vibroblades then to Lightsabre Plasma Cutter for more cutting power. Plus other various upgrades to do more damage in melee. MEC with the right upgrades can dish out a heinous amount of punishment in a round with a double crit punch (guaranteed with one of the unlockable options).

[Maquise]

And we have gameplay footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E

[shadow_archmagi]

That's fine, I didn't need to go to bed tonight

EDIT: Wow. That's some intense stuff. I'm really liking the look of the new game. I'm assuming that the scenario in the trailer and all the events were chosen explicitly to show off features so they'd mesh together nicely. Graphics are presumably an earlier version, but still looking good enough for xcom.


My only concern is whether the hair comes back.

[Cikomyr]

Graphics are damned fine. Whats the problem here?

Gameplay looks interesting. I hope the game will throw you some special missions that requires special team composition (like 3 Rangers and 1 Hacker).

The turret gimmick seems.. I dont know. Too exploitable a mechanic? Why wouldnt you ever not hack them? In fact, seems like Advent would be providing YOU guns on the field that way.

Reinforcements are cool. I like the fact that there is an invisible clock ticking at you.

Since we are no longer able to salvage everything on the field, how the heck will we capture technologies?

Also. I could get that 10, 20, 30 scientists with million dollar funding are able to research and crack alien tech. But who will do the research in this one? And where? Vahlen the back of the skyranger, with no ressources?

Am i the only one who got a massive feeling of Half-Life 2 deja vu? You are the Resistance, fighting against the unholy alliance of Human, Machine and Alien. Rename the Advent the "Combine", and just make it Half-Life 3!

Although a mod that turns the Advent soldiers into Combine soldiers would be awesome

[GloatingSwine]

The turret gimmick seems.. I dont know. Too exploitable a mechanic? Why wouldnt you ever not hack them? In fact, seems like Advent would be providing YOU guns on the field that way.


Looks like you still need to get quite close to hack them, so y'know, sometimes by the time you can get your specialist close enough to hax0r them you've already solved the problem.

Or you might just not have time given the reinforcement thing, spend a turn sending your specialist over there to hack the turret and they're out in the open when reinforcements arrive.

Also, I bet in the early game you can only turn them off anyway, and alien stuffs will have harder hacks limiting your options.


Since we are no longer able to salvage everything on the field, how the heck will we capture technologies?

I'm p. sure you'll have to carry them home if you want them. They showed carrying a casualty back to evac, but if you want alien toys or corpses to research you have to pick them up and carry them.

[shadow_archmagi]

Graphics are damned fine. Whats the problem here?


That first fountain area; all the scenery seems to just be clusters of white polygons that're awkwardly shaded, like the lighting isn't quite doing what it should yet. It's not a real issue for me because I'd play the game if they took out the graphics and just had the word "XCOM TROOPER" move along a grid.




Gameplay looks interesting. I hope the game will throw you some special missions that requires special team composition (like 3 Rangers and 1 Hacker).


Agreed!



The turret gimmick seems.. I dont know. Too exploitable a mechanic? Why wouldnt you ever not hack them? In fact, seems like Advent would be providing YOU guns on the field that way.


Presumably the gameplay footage isn't 'real' gameplay footage, in that they loaded the dice so everything worked as well as possible. There's probably a failure chance, and the immobility of the gun could be a drawback.



Reinforcements are cool. I like the fact that there is an invisible clock ticking at you.


This might be part of why turrets aren't OP; there's no guarantee that they'll stick around for more than one fight, given that fights can be anywhere.



Since we are no longer able to salvage everything on the field, how the heck will we capture technologies?

Also. I could get that 10, 20, 30 scientists with million dollar funding are able to research and crack alien tech. But who will do the research in this one? And where? Vahlen the back of the skyranger, with no ressources?


I assume you pick up new techs the same way you did in the old game if you retreated; you just grab them on your way out. I look forward to having to choose between hauling off a sectoid corpse for my first autopsy and saving a wounded rookie. There's so much we could learn, and so much we could lose!



Am i the only one who got a massive feeling of Half-Life 2 deja vu? You are the Resistance, fighting against the unholy alliance of Human, Machine and Alien. Rename the Advent the "Combine", and just make it Half-Life 3!

Although a mod that turns the Advent soldiers into Combine soldiers would be awesome


I have no objections. I'm sure that'll be one of the first mods.

Heck, antlion guards already look a lot like lids, could use the same animations. Sectoids as vortigaunts... this is really shaping up.

[Cikomyr]

Half-Life 1's Grunts could be Mutons

[SlyGuyMcFly]

The gameplay footage has me very excited for the game. I'm really loving all that environmental destruction! :smallbiggrin:



My only concern is whether the hair comes back.

I'm sure Firaxis will deliver.

[Artanis]

The turret gimmick seems.. I dont know. Too exploitable a mechanic? Why wouldnt you ever not hack them? In fact, seems like Advent would be providing YOU guns on the field that way.
According to one of the articles somewhere, the way that they did it in the video is the absolute most optimal way to do it. The only reason it's so easy is because of the Gremlin bot - which is specific to the Support class - being able to go over there, plus Supports being by far the best at hacking stuff. In return, that class is really sub-par at actually fighting. It's kinda like the NewCOM 1 Support in that it's really f****** useful, but you need other stuff to do the actual killing.

At least, that's the impression I got from the article I read.

Also, as shadow_archmagi pointed out:


Presumably the gameplay footage isn't 'real' gameplay footage, in that they loaded the dice so everything worked as well as possible. There's probably a failure chance, and the immobility of the gun could be a drawback.
One look at the health bars told me that those were some seriously leveled-up XCOM troopers fighting against (mostly) low-level enemies. I think that the dice weren't rigged (or were only minimally so if they were), but the mission parameters (XCOM soldiers' strength, enemy strength, map layout, etc.) was clearly heavily tilted - and moderately scripted - to get exactly the results shown.

[BRC]

The way they were talking after the fact made it seem like that entire video was pretty heavily scripted. They occasionally gave double-activations to the Advent forces.

[Avilan the Grey]

To repeat myself from the ME thread... I was really excited about this until the new that it assumes you lost the first game.
I just lost 99% of my interest in this. Because no, I didn't. Period.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Makes a better game than assuming you won. I mean, "you lost and are now the resistance" is a better story and premise then "you won but GUESS WHAT AN EVEN BIGGER INVASION IS COMING", which is just... a bit of a stretch for me.

[Avilan the Grey]

Makes a better game than assuming you won. I mean, "you lost and are now the resistance" is a better story and premise then "you won but GUESS WHAT AN EVEN BIGGER INVASION IS COMING", which is just... a bit of a stretch for me.

Well, still not interested. Because as I said I bloody well didn't. Now, a sequel where we invades THEM, that would be fun.

[Cikomyr]

Well, still not interested. Because as I said I bloody well didn't. Now, a sequel where we invades THEM, that would be fun.

Ah. So you never failed a single play through? Never reloaded a game? Suceeded on your first try at maximum difficulty?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, still not interested. Because as I said I bloody well didn't. Now, a sequel where we invades THEM, that would be fun.

Was your first game started on Classic Ironman, and did you win it? If not, then you've lost the war, like the rest of us.

(If it was, and you did - then congratulations! :P But you'd be in the vanishingly small minority then.)

[Avilan the Grey]

Ah. So you never failed a single play through? Never reloaded a game? Suceeded on your first try at maximum difficulty?

Was your first game started on Classic Ironman, and did you win it? If not, then you've lost the war, like the rest of us.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you two because of the big strawman that fell on me.

[Cikomyr]

Sorry, I couldn't hear you two because of the big strawman that fell on me.

Geez. You are so right. Luckily for everyone we have saves and reload in real life. This is how we won WW2, did you knew that?

Guess what. You failed. You went back in the past and made sure you won the game, but in the original timeline, you failed.

And this new game is basically "what happens if we lived with the consequences of failure" rather than "lets savescum to never lose anything".

[Anarion]

It's totally irrelevant whether any one individual player beat the game or not. The point is that Firaxis wants to tell a story where XCOM never had the chance to capture a bunch of aliens, steal their tech, and turn into psionic gods of war that took down the alien mothership. They want to tell that story because playing as a resource limited resistance operating with small stealth teams in enemy territory seemed like a pretty fun premise for a game to them. I happen to agree with them too, as do most other people here, it seems. They haven't foreclosed the ability to make some other game based off the winning storyline, either. They're just making this one now.

[Avilan the Grey]

Geez. You are so right. Luckily for everyone we have saves and reload in real life. This is how we won WW2, did you knew that?

Guess what. You failed. You went back in the past and made sure you won the game, but in the original timeline, you failed.

And this new game is basically "what happens if we lived with the consequences of failure" rather than "lets savescum to never lose anything".

...Ah.

I see now.
The option to reload games are for CASUAL gamers, you know, those who don't deserve to play anything but farmville hay day and no REAL gamer ever reloads a game because it is worse than failing. Also "Normal" is for losers, REAL gamers only play on the highest difficulty and if you don't like it, or can't beat it you have FAILED.

In other news, since I have never played football in Real Madrid I have never played football.
Also, since I didn't immediately could ride a bicycle as a small child it means I never learned to to ride a bicycle, even if I ride one every day. Because I FAILED.

...Seriously, Your original argument is just not valid.


It's totally irrelevant whether any one individual player beat the game or not. The point is that Firaxis wants to tell a story where XCOM never had the chance to capture a bunch of aliens, steal their tech, and turn into psionic gods of war that took down the alien mothership. They want to tell that story because playing as a resource limited resistance operating with small stealth teams in enemy territory seemed like a pretty fun premise for a game to them. I happen to agree with them too, as do most other people here, it seems. They haven't foreclosed the ability to make some other game based off the winning storyline, either. They're just making this one now.

I never argued it's wrong for them to tell this story. I have argued that nope, I have no interest in playing it.

[Knaight]

Well, still not interested. Because as I said I bloody well didn't. Now, a sequel where we invades THEM, that would be fun.

It doesn't assume that you lost the first game. It takes place in a future wherein the first game was lost. That's really not the same thing. Sure, it prevents there from being one cohesive timeline where the games take place further and further along, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Avilan the Grey]

It doesn't assume that you lost the first game. It takes place in a future wherein the first game was lost. That's really not the same thing. Sure, it prevents there from being one cohesive timeline where the games take place further and further along, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Again, it just makes me feel like beating the first game is pointless.
It's like having ME4 "assume" that your Shepard died in ME1 and ME2 and ME3 never happened.

[Anarion]

I never argued it's wrong for them to tell this story. I have argued that nope, I have no interest in playing it.


Again, it just makes me feel like beating the first game is pointless.
It's like having ME4 "assume" that your Shepard died in ME1 and ME2 and ME3 never happened.

Your reason for lacking interest (and posting that reason publicly rather than simply ignoring the topic) suggests that you believe it's wrong for them to tell this story.

[Rodin]

I was slightly annoyed at first, but then it occurred to me that this is literally the only way they can do a sequel.

Let's say you won. You start the next game with a full set of tech, super Psi soldiers, a full set of experienced troopers.

...Now what?

You're already better than the aliens. Were the aliens just sending their lowest level grunts to fight you, even at the end? Doubtful, so that means you have to have an entirely new alien threat.

That does nothing for the second problem. Your troops are already top class experts at alien fighting. What, are they going to send rookies in to fight the new threat? You would be starting with a full set of Psi troops, and with full complicated equipment from the first game. All your troops would have a full set of skills.

There's no way to sensibly have the first game follow on from the second while still keeping the tech level of X-Com at "Earth level" unless you assume that the aliens won, and won easily.

[Cikomyr]

Again, it just makes me feel like beating the first game is pointless.
It's like having ME4 "assume" that your Shepard died in ME1 and ME2 and ME3 never happened.

Ah..

Well, in that case, we could perhaps arrange a refund? All those hours of funs have clearly been wasted, now that the story outcome turned out to be irrelevant. Mind giving us a credit card number we will send the money?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Put it this way: would you play the game if it was called "The Resistance," was identical in every way, but didn't claim to be a sequel to XCom?

Let's take some older games as example. In Knights of the Old Republic, you get the opportunity to create a character, male or female, and decide whether to take them down the road to the Dark Side of the Force and become the Dark Lord of the Sith reborn, or the Light Side and redeem yourself and save the galaxy.

Later games and novels assume that you created a male character and took the Light Side choices. This doesn't make playing the game as a dark side female character "pointless". If you have fun playing a game, it has a point. I had just as much fun doing a "canon" playthrough as I did playing a "noncanon" playthrough. You can by all means play XCom 1 right after playing XCom 2, win, and still have fun.

Now, if you think that playing XCom 2 would cancel out all the fun you had playing XCom 1, then it would be "pointless". But the point of XCom isn't and never was to save the world. The point was and still is to entertain you. If it does fail to do that now, then you're right, XCom 2 makes XCom 1 "pointless". If you can still have fun in XCom 1 despite your playthrough not being "canon", then it's not "pointless".

[Knaight]

Again, it just makes me feel like beating the first game is pointless.
It's like having ME4 "assume" that your Shepard died in ME1 and ME2 and ME3 never happened.

I don't see why that would be a problem. The first game is a self contained game with a self contained narrative, and it's quality isn't really going to be affected by anything later (though there are edge cases where foreshadowing set up in early games that pays off in later games can make them better when contextualized). The second one uses a somewhat different timeline, and also looks like it's going to be a pretty well self contained game with a self contained story.

To use a non-video game example, consider certain fictional culture heroes t hat come up again and again in different plots. In this one, King Arthur gets the round table together and successfully defends Britain. In another, set later, King Arthur got the round table together and it exploded into feuds complements of Gawain and Lancelot before the story started. Or, in this version of the Sherlock Holmes story he triumphs against Moriarty, and there's a later retelling that focuses largely on Sherlock Holmes after failing to deal with Moriarty and faking his own death. These second versions hardly invalidate the first. The presence of the first versions don't invalidate the premise of the second. They're just different stories told from the same broadly familiar cultural elements.

In the XCOM case, the same thing is true. Sure, some of the cultural elements are replaced with the elements of the XCOM IP, but it's not like XCOM didn't pull really heavily from popular alien depictions. XCOM 1 and 2 just recombine them in somewhat different ways, with one being about an elite multinational organization that beats back an invading alien force by turning their own technologies against them, and the other being about the shadowy remnants of a failed defense organization rising back up to put right what they did wrong. Both are totally valid stories, both work well within the IP, and neither somehow makes the other pointless.

[Artanis]

I think everybody is talking past each other regarding whether or not the ending matters.

It seems to me that Avilan greatly enjoys sequels where there is carry-over from the previous game. "It matters" is probably a poor choice of phrase because of how absolute its connotation is. I think a better wording would be that he wants the events of the first game to affect the circumstances of the next in the series. Granted, the dictionary definitions are basically identical, but the latter has a less absolute connotation, and thus may get the idea across better because English sucks.

Unfortunately, there is very little that can be carried over a gap of twenty years besides who won the first war. Since that is an extremely binary choice, leading to two utterly different settings, Firaxis has to pick one of them. Since having the player's actions - rather than developer fiat - determine which side won appears to be what Avilan is interested in regarding sequels, not having that effect that leaves him nothing to be interested in.

Meanwhile, people are responding to "does/doesn't matter" with arguments regarding whether or not it should matter. I generally agree that declaring, "I/I was canon, XCOM lost" is probably the best option* that Firaxis could have gone with. However, if that locks out what somebody wants in a game, then it locks out what that somebody wants in a game. There's nothing wrong with being uninterested in something that doesn't provide what you want, it just means that you're uninterested.


Does that sound about right, or have I misunderstood everybody and made an ass of myself again? :smallsmile:




*Basically, Firaxis had three choices: include two completely different settings to use depending on the player's success in the first game, declare that XCOM lost and make what they're making now, or declare that XCOM won and figure out some way to take away all their guns a la TFTD.

[Flickerdart]

...Ah.

I see now.
The option to reload games are for CASUAL gamers, you know, those who don't deserve to play anything but farmville hay day and no REAL gamer ever reloads a game because it is worse than failing. Also "Normal" is for losers, REAL gamers only play on the highest difficulty and if you don't like it, or can't beat it you have FAILED.
Nobody is saying this except for you, which is funny because you're the one accusing people of strawmanning. In fact, you seem to be the only one having an issue with the idea that it's okay to lose.

[Cikomyr]

Thing is, there are three choices from which we can start XCOM 2:

- Reboot the story. Basically make it a new itteration of X-Com, not related in any way. While it has potential, it would waste the possibility of continuing the story and further developing the characters we established.

- Have a follow up of the story after we won. In that case, you either have to explain why we are back at near-grade 0, or actually start back at fulltech. Plus, you need to make up new ennemies. If you go back to 0-tech, then why? You got wiped by an invader? Basically forcing a fiat-defeat despite being fully equipped to defeat another invasion. And if you got defeated by these invaders at yiur height of power, why should you able to defeat them when you are back to square 1?

The alternative, starting up full-teched, would go against the very essence of a X-Com game, would it not?

- Make a sequel to the first game's defeat. In that case, you can reuse old alien concepts, you dont have to explain how you lost all the techs.

[Anarion]

You could theoretically reset the baseline level. Mechanics and technology level don't have to perfectly match up. So, for example, if everyone were psionic after the end of XCOM, XCOM2 could have had all the starting troopers have glowy armor and a green plasma gun, but still give them only a tiny number of HP bars and make them barely even with the starting enemy aliens. The problem there is that means that they'd have to massively step up the power scale, so that doing that over another game would probably end with each character being some kind of walking god or something.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You could theoretically reset the baseline level. Mechanics and technology level don't have to perfectly match up. So, for example, if everyone were psionic after the end of XCOM, XCOM2 could have had all the starting troopers have glowy armor and a green plasma gun, but still give them only a tiny number of HP bars and make them barely even with the starting enemy aliens. The problem there is that means that they'd have to massively step up the power scale, so that doing that over another game would probably end with each character being some kind of walking god or something.

MECs could get the ability to interface with and transform spaceships, and their kinetic strike modules would be replaced with drills. Rockets would be upgraded with probability-warping technology (so that they FINALLY have 100% accuracy!). :smallwink:

[Silfir]

Perhaps Firaxis should have chosen a way of formulating the premise that was more flattering to the ego? Instead of saying "XCOM 2 is the future of a game of XCOM:EU you lost" it would have been just as close to the truth to say "XCOM 2 is the future of a game of XCOM:EU in which Your Great Commandiness wasn't around to lead, and the schmuck who replaced you, lacking your immaculate brilliance, managed to FUBAR everything before the end of April".

It's much better to do it like Firaxis did, at any rate, than to go "Remember when you beat the Aliens in EU? That was just the first wave of a much bigger invasion and you lost anyway!", which would strike me as much less respectful of the player's achievements in the first game. Our triumph in the first game is not diminished - we DID win, now we just explore another timeline in which we also win, just much later and after more hardship (and possibly reloading of saves).

It's either that, go through the massive contortions and handwavings the original games undertook to set XCOM back to square one in Terror from the Deep, or create a game that begins with psi powers and plasma weapons and somehow escalates from there while still being XCOM.

[shadow_archmagi]

Personally I'm really thrilled with the canonical losing. It makes perfect sense for the franchise. I mean, this is the game whose main draw is watching your favorite soldier die and not being able to do anything; it makes sense it'd slap you and go "WHOOPS YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS DIDN'T HAPPEN!" and then you're okay with the slap because it takes you to a cool rebel alliance place. I love it. I question what game people were playing if they expected anything other than an enduring sense of being robbed.

[Cikomyr]

Hmm.. I guess i forgot an alternative.

Basically go full-Dr Shen's fears. Have X-Com become the new villains of your sequel. They have become effectively the most powerful entity in the world, but they lost their humanity. They traded their corpses, DNA and minds for more power, and now Humanity has to face their Best and Brightest to avoid being dominated by what they beggot.

[ryuplaneswalker]

To repeat myself from the ME thread... I was really excited about this until the new that it assumes you lost the first game.
I just lost 99% of my interest in this. Because no, I didn't. Period.

Because the overall plot should be catered directly to your specific play through as opposed to what they view as a much more (and I agree with them) story where you are more of an underdog than in the first game, that does not reek of self entitlement at all.

[huttj509]

Personally I'm really thrilled with the canonical losing. It makes perfect sense for the franchise. I mean, this is the game whose main draw is watching your favorite soldier die and not being able to do anything; it makes sense it'd slap you and go "WHOOPS YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS DIDN'T HAPPEN!" and then you're okay with the slap because it takes you to a cool rebel alliance place. I love it. I question what game people were playing if they expected anything other than an enduring sense of being robbed.

XCOM lost the war and the alien forces took over?

That's XCOM, baby.

Was probably on like a 95% success shot too, knowing my luck.

[5ColouredWalker]

"XCOM 2 is the future of a game of XCOM:EU in which Your Great Commandiness wasn't around to lead, and the schmuck who replaced you, lacking your immaculate brilliance, managed to FUBAR everything before the end of April".

You mean, we were stuck with Central Officer Bradford?

*Looks to the heavens*
Let that be canon!

[shadow_archmagi]

God I hate Bradford. I'm okay with hating Bradford. Every great general hates their secretary.

I hope twenty-years-later grumpy veteran Bradford is more tolerable though.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I hope twenty-years-later grumpy veteran Bradford is more tolerable though.

Don't worry, given that machete training is now fairly standard, I think that future!Bradford has accepted "CLOSE RANGE?!" :smalltongue:

[MCerberus]

God I hate Bradford. I'm okay with hating Bradford. Every great general hates their secretary.

I hope twenty-years-later grumpy veteran Bradford is more tolerable though.

Mr. Rogers is alright.
I think the canon is that tutorial commander wasn't fired after the first mission went FUBAR

[Anarion]

They said Bradford is still around. Presumably the player taking over in XCOM2 is a new commander that bails the water out of the sinking ship, uprights it, and then turns it into a stealth attack submariine that's eventually armed with nuclear warheads.

...that metaphor got away from me quickly.

[5ColouredWalker]

Yea, because the X-Com commander commandeered it :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[snowblizz]

More importantly... will I be allowed to meaningfully build bases (note plural)... spend months happily shooting down alien ufos and go ransack them, search for alien bases and assault them, or any other of the myriad things that made the original(s) fun.
Seriously, if I was forced to play 24h of XCOM I'd take TFTD over any other.

[lord_khaine]

Highly unlikely, just to start with the X-com base is now mobile because X-com is constantly on the run.

[5ColouredWalker]

I wonder if you'll be able to capture other ships though, either as bases or for other uses.
If you could, it'd make base assaults more possible, because you could lose, and lose only one base's resources.

[snowblizz]

The problem being from the information available is that this is more of exactly the same we already played. And in my case, did not particularly enjoy.

I already played the 15 (or whatever) missions in the first NewCom. This is more of exactly the same cover hugging tactical work. But they already made that game. I'm starting to get the people who complain about the Fallout and TES games' lack of "new stuff". At least I could enjoy the new exploration and narrative aspects. What is NewCom2 going to give me that I wasn't bored of already? It is exactly the same, heck I looked at the game footage and thought I'd played on that map. I honestly can't even see the point of the next game.

Just to compare, they say Fallout4 will allow players to develop the world, settlements and such. That's something I've never been able to and very much wanted to. Exciting! NewCom2, nothing said so far makes me more than shrug.

[Anarion]

The problem being from the information available is that this is more of exactly the same we already played. And in my case, did not particularly enjoy.

I already played the 15 (or whatever) missions in the first NewCom. This is more of exactly the same cover hugging tactical work. But they already made that game. I'm starting to get the people who complain about the Fallout and TES games' lack of "new stuff". At least I could enjoy the new exploration and narrative aspects. What is NewCom2 going to give me that I wasn't bored of already? It is exactly the same, heck I looked at the game footage and thought I'd played on that map. I honestly can't even see the point of the next game.

Just to compare, they say Fallout4 will allow players to develop the world, settlements and such. That's something I've never been able to and very much wanted to. Exciting! NewCom2, nothing said so far makes me more than shrug.

To each his own, but personally "more of the same" is exactly what I want out of the XCOM series. I loved Firaxis tactical cover game and getting a new setup with different classes, abilities, enemies, and maps seems like a wonderful game to me. If you don't enjoy the general XCOM gameplay, you're probably correct that you won't enjoy the second game.

[Artanis]

More importantly... will I be allowed to meaningfully build bases (note plural)... spend months happily shooting down alien ufos and go ransack them, search for alien bases and assault them, or any other of the myriad things that made the original(s) fun.
Seriously, if I was forced to play 24h of XCOM I'd take TFTD over any other.
Building multiple bases is as close to a guaranteed "no" as I am going to get without seeing outright confirmation*. If you couldn't build extra bases in NewCOM 1, where you (supposedly) had the economic and military might of half the planet behind you, then you sure as Hell aren't going to be building more when you're so poor that a mobile base is the only way to keep from being stormed and crushed.

The others seem quite likely though (again, I won't say "will be in" without seeing outright confirmation*). Shooting down and subsequently looting UFOs is so much A Part Of X-Com that there was a game where even tactical mode consisted entirely of shooting down UFOs**. Alien bases are also An Important Part Of X-Com, perhaps not as much as shooting down UFOs, but enough so that the majority of missions in Apocalypse revolved around thwarting and/or exploding the aliens' attempts to turn your next-door neighbors into bases. As for the "myriad other things", I guess it would depend on which things in particular are being talked about.


*I'm really bad at remembering to keep up-to-date on stuff, so it's entirely possible that there is confirmation of such things. If there is, then feel free to toss out the related parts of this post.

**X-Com Interceptor may not have been a good game, but it was A Thing whether we like it or not.

[Rodin]

I am curious as to whether base building will be in. I mean, I assume it has to be, but the mobile base makes that difficult. I guess you can just have upgrades made to the compartments in the mobile base.

Definitely going to wait and see until the game comes out. What the strategic layer looks like is going to be super important. On the tactical layer, if they manage to have enough alternate strategies then I'll probably be interested. It was mainly the "make two man squads, scout for aliens, kill aliens" bit that got me down in the last one. If there are infiltration missions where you want to remain stealthy until right before the objective, hold the line missions, etc., then I can see it holding my interest again. More diversity in the classes would also help.

Oh, and one major thing I really hope they fix: Weapons. Enemy Unknown was kinda boring in the weapons department. Your weapons were basically:

Rifle -> Rifle with better stats -> Rifle with even better stats
Sniper Rifle -> Sniper Rifle with better stats -> Sniper Rifle with even better stats.

And that was true of pretty much all the weapons. There need to be some differences - for example, in oldCom, Laser Rifles could Auto and Heavy Lasers could not, meaning you had to make a choice between the two. In the modern games, that decision is delegated to the classes and leaves the weapon upgrades feeling incredibly empty. Maybe some aliens could be weak to ballistic weaponry, and maybe the Laser Sniper could be the most accurate (being a light speed weapon and all that) but trading off against the plasma in terms of damage.

Having multiple different weapons available for each class would also be nice.

[shadow_archmagi]

I wouldn't mind if they did something like in Apocalypse, where you lasers vs syringes. Poison weapons don't hurt xcom, so no friendly fire, and they also don't tear the place up, so no collateral damage.

On the other hand, sometimes you wanna wreck the place, so it's a neat tradeoff.

[GloatingSwine]

Having multiple different weapons available for each class would also be nice.

They need to avoid making the classic nerd error of having loads of choices with insignificant differences (where one of them is usually clearly the best anyway).

Having a small number of clearly distinct weapon choices is better than having a large number of not very distinct ones.

[Avilan the Grey]

Does that sound about right, or have I misunderstood everybody and made an ass of myself again? :smallsmile:

Right on the nose. :smallsmile:


Nobody is saying this except for you, which is funny because you're the one accusing people of strawmanning. In fact, you seem to be the only one having an issue with the idea that it's okay to lose.

Huh. I am pretty sure someone claimed that unless I won the game on the highest difficulty I had not actually won...


Because the overall plot should be catered directly to your specific play through as opposed to what they view as a much more (and I agree with them) story where you are more of an underdog than in the first game, that does not reek of self entitlement at all.

Uh what?

[Sean Mirrsen]

They need to avoid making the classic nerd error of having loads of choices with insignificant differences (where one of them is usually clearly the best anyway).

Having a small number of clearly distinct weapon choices is better than having a large number of not very distinct ones.

Not for roleplaying/storytelling and customization purposes it isn't.

[Flickerdart]

Huh. I am pretty sure someone claimed that unless I won the game on the highest difficulty I had not actually won...
That's literally the opposite of "losing is not okay." People who play Impossible Ironman lose all the freakin' time.

[Cikomyr]

Huh. I am pretty sure someone claimed that unless I won the game on the highest difficulty I had not actually won...


Actually, not at all.

The claim was that unless you havent reloaded or restarted a game, then you happened to have lost the game at some point.

Since you made such a grandiose declararion that "I didnt lose", we wanted to make sure it was legit.

[Zevox]

Not for roleplaying/storytelling and customization purposes it isn't.
Um for customization purposes a small number of distinct weapons is far better than a large number of ones with insignificant differences. It's the weapons being meaningfully different that allows actual customization to take place at all. Otherwise you get guys whose stat block says they're using different stuff but in practice all play exactly the same.

[Rodin]

Um for customization purposes a small number of distinct weapons is far better than a large number of ones with insignificant differences. It's the weapons being meaningfully different that allows actual customization to take place at all. Otherwise you get guys whose stat block says they're using different stuff but in practice all play exactly the same.

Definitely.

Assuming 4-6 classes, 2-3 distinct weapons for each would be plenty. If there were, say, 6 classes and 2 distinct weapons for each, with meaningful differences between the upgraded weapons (e.g., the Plasma Sniper is NOT just a more powerful/accurate version of the Laser Sniper), then I think I would be pretty happy.

Let me pick the Assault class as an example. You could have 3 choices for their weapon:

Assault Rifle (standard option for all classes)

Shotgun

Sub-machine Gun

The Shotgun would have high firepower, low accuracy. The Assault Rifle would be its usual Mario. And the Sub-Machine Gun would be highly effective with Auto attacks.

In the types, you would get Laser versions (high accuracy, low armor penetration), Plasma (high damage, is blocked easily by shields but eats armor for breakfast) and the basic slug-thrower (low damage, but hard-counters shields to allow you to hit them with your other weapons).

Having different weapons be effective against different aliens would allow an extra option on the strategic layer - if you upgrade better scanners, you can find out what type of aliens you're likely to encounter on the mission, and change your load-out to reflect that. It would also allow a more divergent research tree - continuing to refine laser weapons to get better versions of them, upgrading standard slug-throwers into railguns, getting high-energy plasma...etc.

All of the above would leave you with 14 weapon types (2 class-exclusives for each class, plus Assault Rifle and Pistol) with 3 variable sub-types that are effective in different situations for a total of 42 different weapons. Yes, the variations would be similar but it's still a massive improvement over the 4 classes and only 6 weapon types (with some of those shared!) the first game had. And in that game, once you upgraded there was no reason to ever use older types.

[shadow_archmagi]

Having different weapons be effective against different aliens would allow an extra option on the strategic layer - if you upgrade better scanners, you can find out what type of aliens you're likely to encounter on the mission, and change your load-out to reflect that. It would also allow a more divergent research tree - continuing to refine laser weapons to get better versions of them, upgrading standard slug-throwers into railguns, getting high-energy plasma...etc.




Sidegrades usually don't mesh too well with research trees though; spending points on something that's equivalent to a tool you already have feels like a bad investment to many players.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Assault Rifle (standard option for all classes)

Shotgun

Sub-machine Gun

The Shotgun would have high firepower, low accuracy. The Assault Rifle would be its usual Mario. And the Sub-Machine Gun would be highly effective with Auto attacks.

Shotgun and submachine gun are both short-ranged weapons. As such, the differences are minor at best and pretty much redundant. Plus, SMG rounds are too low-power to be viable against any type of body armor, and they've been almost entirely phased out of military use for exactly that reason. So you've managed to demonstrate the redundancy you were trying to disprove.

[MCerberus]

Sidegrades usually don't mesh too well with research trees though; spending points on something that's equivalent to a tool you already have feels like a bad investment to many players.

Idea, you have weapon types be bases that you can upgrade individually or together.

Say researching plasma weapons lets you upgrade ballistic weapons with magnetic launching components.
Ballistic weapons would research special ammunitions and components. (reaper rounds but not awful)
Lasers could start as more accurate and ammo efficient weapons that you can research into low-recoil weapons with limitless clips (until it overheats)
Plasma would be all about raw damage with the potential to overload or pierce an individual's defenses. Clearing cover and one-shotting mooks
The top of the ballistics tree would be shooting an elyrium railgun shot that pierces through a sectoid only to embed in the one behind him, who then catches on fire because elyrium.

So giving one of those "shoot ALL the things!" assaults rangers a laser shotgun wouldn't work as well, but a more defensively setup trooper this would be good. Meanwhile, a sniper with a railgun would be better at crowd control but plasma is for killing the big guys.


Shotgun and submachine gun are both short-ranged weapons. As such, the differences are minor at best and pretty much redundant. Plus, SMG rounds are too low-power to be viable against any type of body armor, and they've been almost entirely phased out of military use for exactly that reason. So you've managed to demonstrate the redundancy you were trying to disprove.

SMG rounds would be better against heavily armored targets than a ballistic shotgun. Mutons don't look like they bruise much. I can see it work as a low-capacity high-burst weapons. An SMG could spray-and-pray, but a shotgun is going to need reloading less.

Also snipers can have Marksman rifles that give them something similar to snapshot but deal less damage.
Heavies with their new grenade launches could also have their old MGs for more single-target damage and suppression but lacking AoE.

[GloatingSwine]

Shotgun and submachine gun are both short-ranged weapons. As such, the differences are minor at best and pretty much redundant. Plus, SMG rounds are too low-power to be viable against any type of body armor, and they've been almost entirely phased out of military use for exactly that reason. So you've managed to demonstrate the redundancy you were trying to disprove.

The key point is that they are tools that solve the same problem. "There is an alien in short to medium range and I want it dead"

And one of them is always going to be better at solving that problem than the other, so the one that isn't as good is actually useless.

Adding "moar guns" adds complexity but not depth unless there are significant differences in the problems those guns solve.

Whilst this article (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions) is mostly focused on multiplayer games, the same principles apply to single player games where the player is solving problems againt the environment.

[Gnoman]

Adding "moar guns" adds complexity but not depth unless there are significant differences in the problems those guns solve.


I'm going to disagree pretty heavily with you on this in general if not with regards to Xcom specifically. Even without getting super crunchy, decisions like "This rifle has 30 shots and has good burst accuracy; but is less accurate at range and does less damage, while this other rifle does more damage, and is better against distant targets; but loses a lot of accuracy in rapid fire and only has 20 shots" add quite a bit. Both of the two guns solve exactly the same problem -making something die at moderate ranges-, but there's a fair bit of difference between the two.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm going to disagree pretty heavily with you on this in general if not with regards to Xcom specifically. Even without getting super crunchy, decisions like "This rifle has 30 shots and has good burst accuracy; but is less accurate at range and does less damage, while this other rifle does more damage, and is better against distant targets; but loses a lot of accuracy in rapid fire and only has 20 shots" add quite a bit. Both of the two guns solve exactly the same problem -making something die at moderate ranges-, but there's a fair bit of difference between the two.

I'm gonna have to ask you to cite specific weapon choices from an xcom game there, because I don't think those have ever been real things.

[Rodin]

The problem is differentiating weapons without breaking the class structure. So if you have an Assault class, that class is going to be getting up close and personal and blowing stuff up. If the Assault class can equip both a short and a long range weapon, then that class either becomes broken by being a jack-of-all-trades, or either the short or long range option becomes useless because one or the other is clearly better.

The SMG was literally an "off the top of my head with no deep consideration whatsoever, here's an alternative", so don't dwell on that too much. As another off-the-cuff example, give the Assault class a short range Grenade launcher as the secondary weapon. It doesn't really matter since this is all hypothetical anyway.

My point was that the Assault should have two different tools for solving different situations, and ideally they won't both be shotguns since it's difficult to make two shotguns differentiated. Each class should have two weapons that look, feel, and most importantly play differently.

[Gnoman]

I'm gonna have to ask you to cite specific weapon choices from an xcom game there, because I don't think those have ever been real things.

I'm not referring to past Xcom games (although this sort of thing IS present in the UFO Afterblank series), I'm challenging your statement that "Adding "moar guns" adds complexity but not depth unless there are significant differences in the problems those guns solve." in general.

[GloatingSwine]

My point was that the Assault should have two different tools for solving different situations, and ideally they won't both be shotguns since it's difficult to make two shotguns differentiated. Each class should have two weapons that look, feel, and most importantly play differently.

They do, they can have shotguns or rifles.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm not referring to past Xcom games (although this sort of thing IS present in the UFO Afterblank series), I'm challenging your statement that "Adding "moar guns" adds complexity but not depth unless there are significant differences in the problems those guns solve." in general.

But without actually coming up with a real example.

Real depth is measured by the choices the player makes having significant consequences. If the guns are similar enough that the difference between them are very situational (which is what your example would give rise to) then there actually isn't a lot of depth, you just figure out which situation is most common and use the gun that's best at that all the time.

[Rodin]

They do, they can have shotguns or rifles.

...And are literally the only class with that choice. And also fall into the problem of giving a class clearly meant for short-range a long-range weapon.

Are you seriously arguing that Enemy Unknown had plenty of gun options available for the troopers, and that we shouldn't be endeavoring to add more? Because that's all we're really talking about here. It's pointless to talk about the nitty gritty of it since we aren't the ones actually designing the game.

[GloatingSwine]

Are you seriously arguing that Enemy Unknown had plenty of gun options available for the troopers, and that we shouldn't be endeavoring to add more? Because that's all we're really talking about here. It's pointless to talk about the nitty gritty of it since we aren't the ones actually designing the game.

What gameplay problem could you not solve with the guns on offer?

What I'm arguing is that you should have a reason to add more guns, it's not an objective in and of itself. These aren't shooters where the guns can have kinesthetic differences which justify their similarity, they're strategy games where the gun is an abstract problem solving tool.

It's more important to think of other ways to differentiate troopers, which is what they're doing by adding things like the Ranger's melee, the Specialist getting hacking tools or being able to use their drone to support other soldiers at range, etc. Because the guns already solve all of the problems you need a gun to solve in the game.

[Ailurus]

I'm going to disagree pretty heavily with you on this in general if not with regards to Xcom specifically. Even without getting super crunchy, decisions like "This rifle has 30 shots and has good burst accuracy; but is less accurate at range and does less damage, while this other rifle does more damage, and is better against distant targets; but loses a lot of accuracy in rapid fire and only has 20 shots" add quite a bit. Both of the two guns solve exactly the same problem -making something die at moderate ranges-, but there's a fair bit of difference between the two.

Yes, there's a difference between the guns, but there's no real choice. If both guns can get the job of "kill stuff at moderate range" done in most situations, then your choice comes down to the minor situation where one gun under performs, but with a squad based system its highly likely that someone else in the party can easily take care of that situation. If one of the guns doesn't perform in a lot of situations, though, then it becomes essentially garbage and it becomes "choose the gun that works or the gun that doesn't work."

It gets even worse in games with research system. Lets say I pick the 20-rnd gun to research for my troops. I get it and presumably it will be good at least for a few missions. But, sooner or later my R&D crew is done with armor or w/e and it's time to research another gun. I can't recall a single game where I ever felt "man, instead of upgrading my 20-rnd gun (more damage, more accuracy, laser 20-rnd gun, whatever comes), I'm gonna go back and instead research the 30-rnd gun." Because if you go back and get the 30-rnd gun the general situation is you've now got 2 out-of-date guns, each of which may be OK in their 'ideal' situation but are poor overall. Whereas if I were to upgrade the 20-rnd gun, I may struggle a bit with 1 or 2 enemies (those the 30-rnd is designed to be really strong against), but against most enemies I'll be OK. Alternatively, if the base guns are still viable it may look good for a second until you realize that if the regular gun is still going strong then likely the upgraded 20-rnd will be absolutely dominating against most enemies, again making it the superior choice. The only way there's a motivation to change is if you get weapons that perform different roles - otherwise, my heavily-upgraded 20-rnd gun is pretty much always going to be able to solve any moderate range problems and then there's no reason for me to consider the 30-rnd gun.

It will be a little better if there's say an "advanced ballistic weapons" tech that unlocks a bunch of variant guns, but in that case I give it a week tops before the TheoryCraft boards have determined which gun is best for each class. Sure, it may be possible to win without following the 'best' loadouts (at least on non-impossible difficulty) but the so-called best builds will probably make things a lot easier.

The way it becomes a choice instead if a difference is if the weapons do different things. Now if the options for the soldier were Assault Rifle (moderate damage+range), Shotgun (extreme damage, low range) or Grenade Launcher (very low ammo, but small-range AoE damage and the ability to fire indirectly), now it's a real choice. Making the choice will fundamentally change how your squad works, and is something that probably should be adjusted on a mission by mission basis. Going into a heavy urban area? Then probably shotgun. Hitting a farm, then the assault rifle looks a lot more viable. But, if there's going to be a chance of mooks, or if you'll need lots of terrain destruction then having one of your guys toting the grenade launcher will probably be much more useful.

[tonberrian]

But then why not just make the customization choice on class, rather than weapon? Want to blow up terrain? Bring a not!Heavy. Need to run close to kill things? Sword-Ranger. Need to hack stuff? Not!Support.

I don't see why we need each class to have two-three weapon types. You want someone that can do something different, get different perks for your level ups, or even a different class entirely.

(This, of course, assumes that more builds per class would be viable. Or, have Training Roulette still be a thing.)

[Cikomyr]

Base weapons is not what we nees more variety of.

We need more utility stuff. More various grenades, more inventory slots for your squaddies.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Base weapons is not what we nees more variety of.

We need more utility stuff. More various grenades, more inventory slots for your squaddies.

Considering the Heavy is now called the Grenadier and now has a grenade launcher, you might well see a greater variety of grenade loadouts for him. Heck, Enemy Within created a whole slew of conventional grenades, including AP grenades (less terrain damage and lower damage to mechanical units, but more damage to bio units), and a few others. I could see the Grenadier having a loadout of a number of grenades to be used in either offensive or defensive (smoke) or utility/debuff (tear gas?).

His gun is just 'that thing he uses when he runs out of grenades or doesn't want to waste one on a single target'.

As far as more inventory slots... not really. I mean, come on, how much is one ALICE going to hold that you can immediately grab? Maybe a backpack that takes a partial action to access might make sense, but other than that, not really.

[tonberrian]

Considering the Heavy is now called the Grenadier and now has a grenade launcher, you might well see a greater variety of grenade loadouts for him. Heck, Enemy Within created a whole slew of conventional grenades, including AP grenades (less terrain damage and lower damage to mechanical units, but more damage to bio units), and a few others. I could see the Grenadier having a loadout of a number of grenades to be used in either offensive or defensive (smoke) or utility/debuff (tear gas?).

His gun is just 'that thing he uses when he runs out of grenades or doesn't want to waste one on a single target'.

As far as more inventory slots... not really. I mean, come on, how much is one ALICE going to hold that you can immediately grab? Maybe a backpack that takes a partial action to access might make sense, but other than that, not really.

You can definitely hold more than a scope on your gun, or a single frag grenade.

[Rodin]

Base weapons is not what we nees more variety of.

We need more utility stuff. More various grenades, more inventory slots for your squaddies.

And see, my opinion is the direct opposite. There were plenty of utility things in the first game, and not enough guns.

I like having gun choices. I like making loadout decisions, and going beyond "Bring X of class 1, Y of class 2, Z of class 3" on the mission.

Maybe I'm alone in this.

[Cikomyr]

You can definitely hold more than a scope on your gun, or a single frag grenade.

Basically this. I mean, it was a bit ridiculous..

I can understand if someone has to choose between a grenade loadout or medics, but it's a freakkin' SCOPE