The core gameplay elements are pretty much the same between the two games. The main difference in the general missions is the timers, so if you were used to overwatch creeping in the first game as your only strategy, then you wouldn't be used to the new, more aggressive style, and might get turned off. Only you know what your experience was like personally, but I don't really see it as being unbalanced. Hell, the sheer existence of mimic beacons makes XCOM 2 a lot more manageable than XCOM 1.I feel that Enemy Unknown was better structured and balanced, that's all I'm saying. And that the mindfuck aliens should never exist, like the eavesdropping missions in Assassins Creed they just suck.
But you have to figure out the countermeasures first, which is too much trial and error. Especially since your done if they wipe your squad, it just breeds restarts of the game over and over. The game is not suited to classical perma XCOM, which the other games were, here you have to save scum. And even if it's in the lore, it should not be used if it hurts the game.The core gameplay elements are pretty much the same between the two games. The main difference in the general missions is the timers, so if you were used to overwatch creeping in the first game as your only strategy, then you wouldn't be used to the new, more aggressive style, and might get turned off. Only you know what your experience was like personally, but I don't really see it as being unbalanced. Hell, the sheer existence of mimic beacons makes XCOM 2 a lot more manageable than XCOM 1.
PSI is part of the established lore, and should be worked into the gameplay. It's not shoehorned in, either. There's many countermeasures you can use to counteract its affects.
Nothing of what you are saying is true.But you have to figure out the countermeasures first, which is too much trial and error. Especially since your done if they wipe your squad, it just breeds restarts of the game over and over. The game is not suited to classical perma XCOM, which the other games were, here you have to save scum. And even if it's in the lore, it should not be used if it hurts the game.
I see. I'm not sure what to say here. I know that this was your personal experience with the game, but I really don't think yours was the average experience.But you have to figure out the countermeasures first, which is too much trial and error. Especially since your done if they wipe your squad, it just breeds restarts of the game over and over. The game is not suited to classical perma XCOM, which the other games were, here you have to save scum. And even if it's in the lore, it should not be used if it hurts the game.
Cool.Just noticed this is £2.80 on Steam. I'm not really into these kind of games but at that price, i may just give it a go lol.
Combat aside they are very different games (Mutant Zero a story driven RPG, this basically a management game with tactical missions).For people who played mutant year zero, how much more complicated is xcom 2 compared to that one? both inside and outside of combat.
When you say management game, what do you mean exactly?Combat aside they are very different games (Mutant Zero a story driven RPG, this basically a management game with tactical missions).
I'd say that when it comes to combat Mutant Zero is pretty much the poor man's version of XCOM 2. Not to mention the content there can be "level-gated", while in XCOM 2 there's no level scaling. Damage is based on equipment and the range of growth is limited and classes gaining ranks gain for the most part flexibility (i.e. ability to shot to more than an enemy in a single turn) over raw stats.
The systems in XCOM 2 are all things considered probably more logical and intuitive, I would guess.
Honestly it's hard to be objective about it because I played MYZ coming from XCOM 2 rather than the other way around, so the latter was the one that felt more intuitive to me to me.
Let's just say this one felt less "gamey" and more consistent across the board with its rules for me.
XCOM is a game about building your central base (which in this case is a giant flying ship with rooms you can fill with useful facilities), researching new technologies, preparing new, more advanced equipment... and then equipping and sending your soldiers around the world to fight in single, individual missions with variable goals, ranging from "kill everyone" to "recover this data before the enemy destroys it", with occasional variations like "Kill this high ranking officer", gather these resources", "protect the civilians in this area" and so on.When you say management game, what do you mean exactly?
like gaining resources, etc.?
You're welcome.And now, I need to reinstall this game. Screw you OP!
Good luck, CommanderWell fuck, for 4 euros i'm gonna take the bait, thanks for the patience op.
Story wise, XCOM 2 takes place after XCOM 1, but the basic premise isn't hard to grasp if you start with XCOM 2.Do I need to play Xcom in order to get in to Xcom2? or are different stories/ plots/ characters?
In XCOM 1 you were leading a team of elite soldiers defending Earth from an alien invasion.Do I need to play Xcom in order to get in to Xcom2? or are different stories/ plots/ characters?
The WOTC release on PC made the game run a lot better and more smoothly than the original release. I'm not sure if those same benefits carried over to console.All my love is given to Xcom: Enemy Within, I can play that game on a loop forever on Ironman mode classic. So I feel the same way about that game that OP does about XCOM2. There's something about ironman mode where it adds meaning and excitement to every decision because the consequences are real. You can lose a mission, have a great soldier die, retreat, rally and turn things around, it's awesome.
I bought XCOM2 at launch and my ancient PC was minimum specs to run it, performance was pretty bad. There were also numerous other little things I didn't like, so I dropped the game for a while. I'm another PS4 gamer though, so I eventually played it there. I actually was a bit unimpressed with a lot of the changes, and sometimes I wonder if they really were inferior or I just like XCOM so much that minor changes bothered me. Thinking back on it, one thing that I specifically remember is how infuriating grenades were. In XCOM 1, you evened the odds a lot by softening multiple enemies up with grenades. In XCOM2, you will target 2 enemies with a grenade, and one of them just won't highlight as being a target. His body will clearly be touching the blast radius, but the game is like "nah, this won't hit." Just one frustrating example that I remember, but there were others.
That bugged me, but the biggest issue was console performance just wasn't that stable. Like I said, I love to play on Ironman, where you only have one autosave and all choices are irreversible. But on PS4, that could totally end with you 30 hours deep into a massive playthrough and the game just gets stuck. You could easily be trapped in a glitchy situation where all progress is lost and you don't have other saves to go back to, it's not worth risking the commitment on console. So even though it seems to me that I don't like XCOM2 as much as XCOM1, I can't play it on my favourite mode so I don't even really get to test it. This is a problem is greatly increased by War of the Chosen, which is an awesome expansion for XCOM2 that adds a ton of amazing new stuff.
WotC seems to add so many cool things that I might possibly like it as much or better than XCOM1 if I could play Ironman. But the PS4 version is a complete shitshow, lagging and chugging severely when there are a lot of zombies on the screen, and straight up crashing way more than the vanilla release. Ironman mode would be unthinkable. I don't know what it is about these sorts of turn-based strategy "XCOM likes" that makes their console ports atrocious crash fests, but they are. Mutant Year Zero crashed more and more the further you progress on Switch, and I recently played through Wasteland 3 on PS4, which crashes just as often as Cyberpunk which was recalled for its bad performance. You would think a game that runs in real time would be harder to make stable than a turn based game, but this sort of thing seems fairly common with xcom and it's imitators. Maybe the genre is so niche that the console audience is too small for the devs to bother. Anyway I would loooove a (stable) port of XCOM1 to the Switch, that would be awesome.
Opposite I'm afraid. Particularly bad with "the lost" since that involves many zombies on screenThe WOTC release on PC made the game run a lot better and more smoothly than the original release. I'm not sure if those same benefits carried over to console.
I thought Chimera Squad was great, especially since I only paid 10 bucks for it.Opposite I'm afraid. Particularly bad with "the lost" since that involves many zombies on screen
Hey what about Chimera Squad guys? Is that any good?
I finished the game.I see. I'm not sure what to say here. I know that this was your personal experience with the game, but I really don't think yours was the average experience.
Trial and error comes with figuring out any game, not just XCOM 2, and I don't believe XCOM 2 forces that more than other games of its genre. Squad wipes in one battle don't have to be a game ender. Troops are replenished fairly easily and cheaply.
If someone truly has that hard a time, that is what rookie difficulty is for. XCOM 2 doesn't force you to save scum anymore than the first game. You can tailor the experience to be as easy or as difficult as you want it to be.
Not only is PSI in the lore, but it helps the gameplay too with action variety.
I think you just got frustrated way too soon and gave up too early, but that might be my personal bias talking. I love the game. I think it's brilliant.
XCOM 2 not really harder.
Best turn based strategy game of all time.
War of the chosen elevated an already amazing game to ridiculous heights.
Well, I guess that works as an excellent explanation about why you'd even think the first is better.. I couldn't even finish the tutorial on Xcom 2.
I couldn't finish tutorial because it was boring I bought this game again but for Pc this time, i will give it a second chance. First game is better because of it's story progression(yeah it is lame but got me hooked) and it's simplicity imho. Even Enemy Within was overwhelmed me with content. I'm looking from the casual side so don't mind meWell, I guess that works as an excellent explanation about why you'd even think the first is better.
"The first game is not better under any metric" is precisely what I'm trying to tell you.I couldn't finish tutorial because it was boring I bought this game again but for Pc this time, i will give it a second chance. First game is better because of it's story progression(yeah it is lame but got me hooked) and it's simplicity imho. Even Enemy Within was overwhelmed me with content. I'm looking from the casual side so don't mind me
Glad to hear it is not just me. This is all I need to hear to pass on Xcom 2. I could not manage Enemy Within. Enemy Unknown was perfectly balanced in my opinion.I finished the game.
Let me explain a bit better. I am a big fan of XCOM and feel the permadeath is a big part of why these games are so good. It's important I think, that the game is balanced to suit the permadeath style of XCOM. Enemy Unknown hit a perfect balance, where you could go through it on normal and feel challenged. Enemy Within was harder and started to hit upon the limit of good permadeath balance, but it worked.
This game however, I feel is poorly made for classic XCOM. Sure, if you save and reload and put it on easy and all that bullshit it's gonna be easier, but it should be structured from the beginning to suit XCOM, and it should not require restarts to learn how to deal with mindfuck aliens, or require the player to go outside the game to find cheating tactics.
For an XCOM fan, the core normal setting with permadeath is a cheap experience because they messed up the difficulty balance.
The developers have stated clearly that they try to build harder games with each iteration. Enemy Unknown was their base, Enemy Within the harder iteration, and XCOM 2 is even harder. I think they pushed too hard and fucked up the classical XCOM experience. It requires you to either learn the game with saves and loads, lower the difficulty, or play with permadeath and restart when you mess up. All those options are not good IMO, it should be possible to play through the game without any of that, which I did with the first 2. I'm a purist and ended up restarting something like 4 times, each time getting fucked by the mindfuck aliens (which I still don't know how to deal with properly), but in the end, I finished it, but only with sour grapes and disappointed in the balance of the game.
"Your baseless bullshit totally confirms my baseless bullshit" is pretty much the gist of the conversation going on here.Glad to hear it is not just me. This is all I need to hear to pass on Xcom 2. I could not manage Enemy Within. Enemy Unknown was perfectly balanced in my opinion.
Hell to the yeah. Give a medal to whomever came up with that character design and concept.PS: Templar is the best unit fight me!
NoT Nintendo?Tomorrow it will be the last day the game will be on sale on Steam.
Your last chance to get a modern classic for pennies and embrace awesomeness, rather than being one of those sad tossers who keep crying about the game being too hard.
What's the question, exactly?NoT Nintendo?
War of the Chosen alters the whole campaign, it's not standalone, and you have to get it, it's bloody brilliant.Thinking of getting this as the the base game is discounted right now. What about the DLC though? Does War of the Chosen alter the base game or is it a standalone campaign?
WOTC also fixes a lot of bugs and has better performance and loading times.Thinking of getting this as the the base game is discounted right now. What about the DLC though? Does War of the Chosen alter the base game or is it a standalone campaign?
The devs saw everyone modding the first one to make it harder and they thought it was cool, so they made the sequel hard as fuck. Which is cool.I just bought this the other day on the Xbox sale, $10 for the entire collection. So far I love the game. There is so much going on and the gameplay is top notch.
BUT
Why is it so goddamn, unforgivingly, rage inducing hard? I read that the game is more difficult if you start in War of the Chosen mode but that it offers so many improvements over the vanilla game that it’s worth it. But holy fuck the difficulty is brutal. The missions constantly rush you and the soldiers you have get obliterated by enemies that are much stronger. Is it normal to lose a lot of soldiers?
I’ve even lowered the difficulty to the easiest option and it’s the same shit. This is probably the first time in my life that a games difficulty is leading to me not enjoying it but I love the genre and normally don’t have any problems.