This was an earlier post from Steam but was over 1000 characters. It explains what is wrong with the 2012 XCOM game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh. I agree with Zanetsuken. This XCOM is so damn watered down. It plays like a crappy boardgame. This is a prime #1 example of hype propoganda warfare being waged on the consumer. Let's look at how XCOM is different from X-Com:
1) Changed from a remake to a "reimagining" (whatever the fuck that means) to move more copies. This is so fucking disgusting. Firaxis wounded the X-Com name more than Hasbro did with Enforcer by turning it into XCOM. Notice the name change? I DID. I also appear to be in the minority in which I noticed it played like a terrible Games Workshop release.
2) Cartoony graphics. By this I mean it looks like Saints Row, TF2 to compensate for actual lack of detail. I am not a fan of the graphics at all. They look like TF2 on ultra. Just look at Saints Row the third. It looked A LOT like XCOM. The game also runs like crap despite being a TBS.
3) Brand name shielding. "ITS X-COM GUYS! YOU CANT CRITICISE IT! ITS THE BEST THING EVER!". Ok, this one is easy because this is actually the first negative impression besides mine that I have seen. You try complaining about anything XCOM related and they automatically declare you the "Salaman Rushdie" of the arguement. Bottom Line: They got away with making a sub-par TBS because it was named XCOM. Simple as that. People were so pissed off from enforcer (even though nobody bothered to play it and just pretended they did, I actually suffered through the whole 4 hours XD) that anything that called it's self "strategy" would be accepted as a member of the X-Com family.
4) DUMBING DOWN. Holy shit I cannot stress this enough. It seems like console kiddies don't know how to do subtraction so they gutted out the entire turn based system in favour of "AP". This is such an abomination. If you think about how you would actually have to calculate turns and choose which way to shoot and such in the original than this is, like 8 steps back for strategy. In fact I think that XCOM has less "strategy" in it than "The Outfit" from the early 360 days. Also, the part about special abilities is complete BS to me when they try to play off that your soldiers are vulnerable but in reality are complete killing machines. In X-Com a single misplaced pistol bullet could take out your strongest squad member. In XCOM 4 grenades will bounce off your commander. It also works in reverse. I have had an unarmored recruit survive a point blank barrage of plasma and lose only a few HP. In XCOM if you get hit by anything it always does the same damage over and over again. This makes the game easier to exploit and is just lazy in my eyes. Speaking of lazy...
5) MAP HELL. Wtf... Preset maps. Preset maps. PRESET MAPS!
Nope. Just nope. I know how random terrain would look pretty bad in modern graphics but I feel they could have pulled it off with a budget like this. One of the big things about X-Com was that all the maps are random so you can't tell what is going to be wandering around. The enemies in XCOM all hide in painfully predictable ways. There is also VERY little detail in the maps. No closets, no real hiding places and such. I remember when aliens would dive out of the strangest places and it would scare the hell out of me. XCOM isn't scary in any form. Just the fact that they try so damn hard in the tutorial is embarrasing.
and worst of all...
6) SET PLAYLIST STYLE GAMEPLAY. Ooh, they fucked with the wrong series. I dare you to play through this snoozefest twice. You will see all the exact same events and all the exact same missions. Enemies will appear in the same order and you will more or less research all your upgrades in the same order.
I do not trust Sid and his cronies at Firaxis anymore. I do not trust 2k. The fact that XCOM is on console and is dumbed down to this extent is an insult to us old X-Com fans who sat through a 10 year break in the series. I suggest you do not preorder Stronghold Crusader 2. Don't do it. You know they'll screw it up. They messed up every other Stronghold and are using the same formula for this next game.
I honestly don't know what to think... In my opinion, XCOM is the best turn-based strategy game I know! All you're doing here is comparing this game to the original, and that's unacceptable for an "accurate" game review. At least make an attempt to compare this with all those other modern turn-based strategy games out there today! I'm sure you'll find that XCOM is extensively better than what your scrutinized criticisms make it out to be. While I DO agree with you on a few points that you made, - such as preset map generations and repetitive game events - you have to keep in mind that this game was actually intended to APPEAL to the common consumer. By stating this, I am referring to your 4th criticism headed as, "DUMBING DOWN" . If you were looking for a glorified version of the original X-Com game when you bought this, you pretty much wasted your money on this game. Don't get me wrong, this game is outstanding and enjoyable in every way... But that's not how an X-Com veteran such as yourself would see it. My point being, Firaxis' new version of the original X-Com game wasn't "Dumbed Down" as you said. It was made easier to understand by the general populace without - and I repeat, WITHOUT - letting go of most of the original X-Com's tactical depth. All in all, the game was simplified, not "Dumbed Down". Firaxis' XCOM has proven to be a valuble addition to my paucity of PC games, providing me with hours upon hours of entertaining gameplay. In this new version of the classic X-Com, the fact still remains that this is an exemplary turn-based strategy game. No amount of small, harmless downgrades as you mentioned above will ever change this. However, I do have to say, your review entices me to play the original X-Com game. The way you belittle and XCOM and shove it into X-Com's grand and mighty shadow makes me wonder how in-depth the gameplay of the original really is. Rest assured, I'll be sure to check out X-Com as soon as I can... (Hoping for some undeniable awesomeness!!!)
ReplyDeleteWell, your post is pretty long but I can gather what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem I had with the new XCOM was that it really offended me about how stripped the gameplay was. They know very well that they marketed this as something that would appeal to fans of the original. While it is a decent game (nothing great) it seems more like a glorified board game.
They told us it would be better than the original and keep us playing for longer. It would be more in depth and be much harder.
What we got was a console-ready board game. I was truly shocked when I fired it up on my 360 that it had even less features than the original. No base assaults, no (real) destructible terrain (ie digging and breaking every wall), and even less selection of enemies. To boot the game wasn't even creepy in the least, unlike the original. Also, RANDOM MAP GENERATION (not the glitchy kind)
I really do feel sorry for you that you played the reboot before the original. Kind of like how playing Skyrim before Oblivion would ruin it. Make sure to use DOSbox instead of buying on steam if you want to save some money.
If you compare gameplay from the original you can see the difference. For starters you can aim anywhere, anything is breakable (even the ground can be dug), the way damage is dealt is much more detailed, accuracy is no longer visible, your soldiers aren't supermen (they're still quite pathetic at the end), and the enemies are about 100x more unpredictable and dangerous (regular guns are pretty useless past the early months). I only rarely saw enemies move in the new one once spotted. Enemies in the original would do some really strange and awesome things in the middle of combat. To be honest the gameplay was somehow better than a game with 15 years of technology behind it and a massive budget.
I hope this enlightens you as to why I was pissed. Also, the helmet DLC was a dick move by 2K.
Hahahaha, I can definately see your viewpoint on the 2 games now, Over the past few weeks I've been trying out the old X-Com for myself, and it's pretty obvious how much the new XCOM has regressed in quality from its predecessor. While I can wholly empathize with you on this subject, one question still lingers in my mind...
ReplyDeleteIs Oblivion really of higher quality than Skyrim in the way that X-Com is better than XCOM? (I actually played Skyrim without experiencing Oblivion beforehand! Lol.)
It's great you asked that. Skyrim is much more popular and has no doubt much many more mods due to the huge amount of exposure. Quality is a very fickle thing. What is quality exactly? Skyrim had a MUCH large budget, hence everyone looking like Shrek in Oblivion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the environments (to me) are much better in Oblivion than in Skyrim. The art and design is much better too. There is also a greater variety in pretty much everything too. From the marshes, to the plains, to the mountains, to even the fiery planes of Oblivion the environments were about a hundred times more colourful than Skyrim and contained almost no dead filler space in the world map (there were places like caves and forts almost every 50 or so feet). While many issues that plagued Oblivion were fixed in Skyrim, I find Oblivion to retain a certain charm.
Many people hate Oblivion for many things, but if you overlook them you'll have a better time playing it than Skyrim.
Thanks for writing back. Now, if you excuse me I have to write some really fricking awful prose for school.