XCOM 2 is What Happens When You Lose Enemy Unknown

[sagitel]

i dont have a problem with this. think of it this way. if you lost well this happens but even if you won you just destroyed the scouts for an intergalactic talent show owned by an alien empire vastly more powerful than us. so this drew a MASSIVE target on earth that said: these are dangerous. so they attacked full on. you thought the temple ship was powerful? they had battleships a hundred times bigger. sectopods were dangerous? say hello to its bigger, better armed, more intelligent brother! it also comes in boxes of a thousand. humanity could not fight this force and we lost. even X-com was not enough. so we lost plain and simple.

damn im excited for this game every news that comes out of it (barring the archon, that thing is ugly) makes my hyped even more. i know i shouldnt be this hyped but....

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'm actually very excited about this either way. So we lost, so what? It just makes it all the more interesting, like fighting against an even bigger enemy that is established, on your own homeground. Something very patriotic and noble about it, as long as it doesn't go overboard with the whole colonization propaganda and just gets down to business. I think the campaign has the potential to play out very interestingly, unless it ends up with you getting wiped out properly this time of course.

They seem to have improved it, even though there was nothing really wrong with XCOM and it's awesome expansions. Still would love to see another Terror from the Deep setting, I think they said once that it would be very complicated with the underwater physics and weapons, especially if coupled with land attacks, but it would make perfect sense seeing as more than 70% of the earth is covered with water. Ah, one can dream (for now).

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

So no, everyone who played it didn't save the world, only about one in four people managed to save humanity, the rest, roughly 3/4ths either gave up after losing too many times, or never completed a single game.

So rather than make a game for the people who took the time and effort to finish the game, they are pandering to the people who couldn't be bothered. That sounds like a company worthy of our money.

 

[EternallyBored]

So no, everyone who played it didn't save the world, only about one in four people managed to save humanity, the rest, roughly 3/4ths either gave up after losing too many times, or never completed a single game.

So rather than make a game for the people who took the time and effort to finish the game, they are pandering to the people who couldn't be bothered. That sounds like a company worthy of our money.

Where the hell did you get that idea, they aren't pandering to people who didn't beat the game, and stop pretending like people who did beat it are all like you. I beat the game on normal and classic multiple times and I have no problems with xcom 2's proposed story. stop trying to pretend like your part of some aggrieved majority of "true fans", you've got problems with the story, that's fine, but the lame hyperbole just undermines your complaints.

It doesn't matter which direction Firaxis takes the story a large number of people who buy games will never beat them, so they aren't pandering to anyone, a large percentage of people won't beat xcom 2 either, just like with most games. it's not a matter of true fans, people fail to beat games for a large number of reasons, you trying to insult them Just because you're original assertion about most people beating the game was wrong just makes it look like your looking for excuses to paint your opinion as objectively right.

 

[happyninja42]

So no, everyone who played it didn't save the world, only about one in four people managed to save humanity, the rest, roughly 3/4ths either gave up after losing too many times, or never completed a single game.

So rather than make a game for the people who took the time and effort to finish the game, they are pandering to the people who couldn't be bothered. That sounds like a company worthy of our money.

Where the hell did you get that idea, they aren't pandering to people who didn't beat the game, and stop pretending like people who did beat it are all like you. I beat the game on normal and classic multiple times and I have no problems with xcom 2's proposed story. stop trying to pretend like your part of some aggrieved majority of "true fans", you've got problems with the story, that's fine, but the lame hyperbole just undermines your complaints.

It doesn't matter which direction Firaxis takes the story a large number of people who buy games will never beat them, so they aren't pandering to anyone, a large percentage of people won't beat xcom 2 either, just like with most games. it's not a matter of true fans, people fail to beat games for a large number of reasons, you trying to insult them Just because your original assertion about most people beating the game was wrong just makes it look like your looking for excuses to paint your opinion as objectively right.

Nevermind the simple narrative fact of basing the game after a victory scenario puts humanity in an incredibly powerful position, making it unrealistic they would be attacked so easily again. Aside from just saying "it's wave 2!! And they're exponentially more powerful than the last wave of supremely powerful beings!" That's one the most played out plot devices ever in scifi. "Hurray! We've defeated the undefeatable, all powerful threat! OH NO!! It's an even BIGGER undefeatable, all powerful threat! We're doomed!"

Seriously, a globally invested early warning system, a fleet of fast reaction attack ships using alien technology to pop ships out of the sky, an army of psionically and mechanically augmented supersoldiers, with the full support and funding of the planet? That's not really the type of setup that people usually like playing in. We like Underdog stories, the small guy punching up against the evil empire. In a victory scenario though, the humans ARE the empire (evil or not), and it's not really all that dramatic.

 

[jabrwock]

I wouldn't mind multiple overwatch triggering if there was a certain percentage of it happening based on experience. IE a green recruit might still waste their shots into an enemy that's clearly down because of jumping the gun, or a bit of battlefield induced panic. A veteran would be a lot less likely to do so. But it seemed there was an all or nothing prospect, everyone would fire even if they didn't need to, regardless of experience.

 

[EternallyBored]

So no, everyone who played it didn't save the world, only about one in four people managed to save humanity, the rest, roughly 3/4ths either gave up after losing too many times, or never completed a single game.

So rather than make a game for the people who took the time and effort to finish the game, they are pandering to the people who couldn't be bothered. That sounds like a company worthy of our money.

Where the hell did you get that idea, they aren't pandering to people who didn't beat the game, and stop pretending like people who did beat it are all like you. I beat the game on normal and classic multiple times and I have no problems with xcom 2's proposed story. stop trying to pretend like your part of some aggrieved majority of "true fans", you've got problems with the story, that's fine, but the lame hyperbole just undermines your complaints.

It doesn't matter which direction Firaxis takes the story a large number of people who buy games will never beat them, so they aren't pandering to anyone, a large percentage of people won't beat xcom 2 either, just like with most games. it's not a matter of true fans, people fail to beat games for a large number of reasons, you trying to insult them Just because your original assertion about most people beating the game was wrong just makes it look like your looking for excuses to paint your opinion as objectively right.

Nevermind the simple narrative fact of basing the game after a victory scenario puts humanity in an incredibly powerful position, making it unrealistic they would be attacked so easily again. Aside from just saying "it's wave 2!! And they're exponentially more powerful than the last wave of supremely powerful beings!" That's one the most played out plot devices ever in scifi. "Hurray! We've defeated the undefeatable, all powerful threat! OH NO!! It's an even BIGGER undefeatable, all powerful threat! We're doomed!"

Seriously, a globally invested early warning system, a fleet of fast reaction attack ships using alien technology to pop ships out of the sky, an army of psionically and mechanically augmented supersoldiers, with the full support and funding of the planet? That's not really the type of setup that people usually like playing in. We like Underdog stories, the small guy punching up against the evil empire. In a victory scenario though, the humans ARE the empire (evil or not), and it's not really all that dramatic.

More than likely they'd find some way to depower XCOM, like the original series, set it underwater or in another dimension so none of their technology works, or like apocalypse just have the aliens that were defeated in the last game release a super weapon off screen between games that fucks everything up and takes all your cool toys away.

It's the Metroid problem, you can't let them keep all the cool toys they got previously otherwise you end up with nowhere left to go very fast. What kind of upgrades do you give to a soldier that can start out with psychic powers, invisibility skin, jet packs, and plasma weapons. Sort of like asking what the hell kind of upgrade you can give to Samus' jumping ability after giving her the screw jump, that basically lets her fly and makes her invincible, it would be kind of pointless to start every Metroid after Super with that ability.

For strategy games, some just ignore the power creep, which kind of works on an army level, but with small squads you would have people wondering where all their psychics and mechs went. Especially with plasma weapons, you can maybe shoehorn in rail guns and particle weapons, but at some point you are just making up names for different colored energy weapons.

So yeah they could continue after the victory ending, but it would involve some flimsy excuse to depower XCOM or make it so we actually lost in the end anyway, because XCOM taken to its logical conclusion looks more like star trek or Starcraft than XCOM.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

snip

snip

snip

More than likely they'd find some way to depower XCOM, like the original series, set it underwater or in another dimension so none of their technology works, or like apocalypse just have the aliens that were defeated in the last game release a super weapon off screen between games that fucks everything up and takes all your cool toys away.

It's the Metroid problem, you can't let them keep all the cool toys they got previously otherwise you end up with nowhere left to go very fast. What kind of upgrades do you give to a soldier that can start out with psychic powers, invisibility skin, jet packs, and plasma weapons. Sort of like asking what the hell kind of upgrade you can give to Samus' jumping ability after giving her the screw jump, that basically lets her fly and makes her invincible, it would be kind of pointless to start every Metroid after Super with that ability.

For strategy games, some just ignore the power creep, which kind of works on an army level, but with small squads you would have people wondering where all their psychics and mechs went. Especially with plasma weapons, you can maybe shoehorn in rail guns and particle weapons, but at some point you are just making up names for different colored energy weapons.

So yeah they could continue after the victory ending, but it would involve some flimsy excuse to depower XCOM or make it so we actually lost in the end anyway, because XCOM taken to its logical conclusion looks more like star trek or Starcraft than XCOM.

Exactly my point. Sure they could make up some reason to nerf XCOM before the sequel, but we all know it will be stupid, and break any kind of narrative continuity simply to allow progressive gameplay and advancement. It's like God of War, where they had to kick Kratos to the Underworld every fucking game, and take his blades away....just so they could give him some new fucking blades that he had to level up again. It became a joke, and I'd rather they didn't do that with XCOM if it can be avoided. And it CAN be avoided! They just have to say "Humanity lost". And boom! You have a perfect setup for game 2. It makes sense in the narrative continuity, without being stupid. Now, I'm not sure how they will justify an XCOM 3, without falling into this same trap of "Humanity loses...again" or the "Humanity got nerfed off camera". But that's a problem for the future.

 

[The_Darkness]

Now, I'm not sure how they will justify an XCOM 3, without falling into this same trap of "Humanity loses...again" or the "Humanity got nerfed off camera". But that's a problem for the future.

I'm now looking forward to XCOM 3 - Human Invasion where we play as some other species attempting to resist the encroaching Interstellar Human Empire...

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Honestly, being bothered by the meaninglessness of their personal canons says something about some gamers.

See, I'm coming into this from the Elder Scrolls school of alternate timelines. In Nirn's world and quasi-physics, "Dragon Breaks" occur when defining events spider out into different potentials. Every single playthrough of every single Elder Scrolls game is canon. Your Argonian Nerevarine is as canonical as your Kahjiit Dovahkiin or your Redguard Hero of Kvatch. In other words, everything you do matters and every do-over is as easy to consider as being real as anything else. Nothing is being prioritized as being the "proper" timeline for Tamriel to follow. I've played as six different Dragonborns, one Archmage, one Speaker for the Night Mother and one leader of the Thieves' Guild. Should Bethesda ever assume that the Dragonborn was canonically a Nord, I'll simply refer to my Nord Dragonborn playthrough or better yet, simply accept that fact as-is. I don't need the devs to pander to my sense of achievement.

XCOM 2 needs some sort of hook to happen. If you beat the Temple Ship, then congrats! You're left with a battered but surviving human race and a few dozen or so spaceships to plunder for more alien tech. You can assume that XCOM winning changes human technology extensively, and that any further incursions see us ready and able to deal with them. At this point, though, this is conjecture or fanfiction material. The aftermaths of player victories are left nebulous, as they're the end-state of the first game. There's literally no need for anything to be waiting past that point.

In the case of your loss, however, then there's a lot of narrative potential to fulfill. The aliens descend en masse, Earth's governments crumble, worldwide anarchy spreads until the invaders instigate their own form of order - and with each playthrough of the first game being as valid as any other, then your accomplishments aren't invalidated. They're simply not what the game designers could be expected to work with.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Where the hell did you get that idea, they aren't pandering to people who didn't beat the game, and stop pretending like people who did beat it are all like you. I beat the game on normal and classic multiple times and I have no problems with xcom 2's proposed story. stop trying to pretend like your part of some aggrieved majority of "true fans", you've got problems with the story, that's fine, but the lame hyperbole just undermines your complaints.

It doesn't matter which direction Firaxis takes the story a large number of people who buy games will never beat them, so they aren't pandering to anyone, a large percentage of people won't beat xcom 2 either, just like with most games. it's not a matter of true fans, people fail to beat games for a large number of reasons, you trying to insult them Just because you're original assertion about most people beating the game was wrong just makes it look like your looking for excuses to paint your opinion as objectively right.

I, and others, are just trying to discern the logic behind their reason for doing this. It makes no sense to have one game end with winning the war, only for it's sequel to say "No you didn't, this is what happened instead."

 

[happyninja42]

Now, I'm not sure how they will justify an XCOM 3, without falling into this same trap of "Humanity loses...again" or the "Humanity got nerfed off camera". But that's a problem for the future.

I'm now looking forward to XCOM 3 - Human Invasion where we play as some other species attempting to resist the encroaching Interstellar Human Empire...

Oooh! XCOM 3: The Alien Anals! This time, it's the aliens getting probed! Humanity takes the fight to their planet, complete with abduction scenarios.

 

[laggyteabag]

Won XCOM, lost XCOM blah blah blah, whatever.

XCOM 2, guys!

 

[NerfedFalcon]

I, and others, are just trying to discern the logic behind their reason for doing this. It makes no sense to have one game end with winning the war, only for it's sequel to say "No you didn't, this is what happened instead."

How many times did you play XCOM: Enemy Unknown?

How many did you actually win?

Now how many did you outright lose or give up on?

How many times did you have to reload after making a bad strategic or tactical decision?

Do you see how many more timelines there are now in which humanity is screwed, compared to the ones where they come out on top?

It makes far more sense for the canon to be based on the dominant timeline.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

How many times did you play XCOM: Enemy Unknown?

How many did you actually win?

Now how many did you outright lose or give up on?

How many times did you have to reload after making a bad strategic or tactical decision?

Do you see how many more timelines there are now in which humanity is screwed, compared to the ones where they come out on top?

It makes far more sense for the canon to be based on the dominant timeline.

These questions would only be valid if they implemented a save game import similar to Mass Effect.

 

[MerlinCross]

I, and others, are just trying to discern the logic behind their reason for doing this. It makes no sense to have one game end with winning the war, only for it's sequel to say "No you didn't, this is what happened instead."

How many times did you play XCOM: Enemy Unknown?

How many did you actually win?

Now how many did you outright lose or give up on?

How many times did you have to reload after making a bad strategic or tactical decision?

Do you see how many more timelines there are now in which humanity is screwed, compared to the ones where they come out on top?

It makes far more sense for the canon to be based on the dominant timeline.

This is a question that can be asked of any game in a series espically if the are hard. "Hey the majority of you lost so next game is going with a you lost timeline". Hey picture if FF 10-2 started with Sin still alive.

Alternate timeline sounds like a bs reason that would allow them to reuse assets if they are so I lined to(which I haven't really yet but just saying) And why not just have us lose to wave 2? I mean we barely bet the Etherals and they were scared of whatever is out there. I don't think we could actually stand against them. And hell I want to see more about those things. But if this is alternate timeline well guess we'll probably have to kill an Etheral boss again sine the are the head guys. Willing to bet we will see Mutons too because why phase them out?

You see the problem here besides "We should have won"? If this is a time line where we lost, I now have different expectations. Where's my thin man? Where's my bug guys? Where'd the heck this Snake thing in the trailer come from, it wasn't a part of the OG timeline forces. Is that why we lost, this time line brought in more guys?

I hope this doesn't become a trend.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

You see the problem here besides "We should have won"? If this is a time line where we lost, I now have different expectations. Where's my thin man? Where's my bug guys? Where'd the heck this Snake thing in the trailer come from, it wasn't a part of the OG timeline forces. Is that why we lost, this time line brought in more guys?

I hope this doesn't become a trend.

So what you're saying is that you have specific expectations and that you're unable to reconcile what the devs are attempting with what you were expecting.

Keep in mind, XCOM 2 is set to unfold several decades after the first game's negative outcome. More races could've been selected for Ascension or created wholesale thanks to genetic engineering programs. If Mutons are explained as being technologically obsolete, I don't see why the Ethereals would keep them around. After all, they don't seem to look too kindly on species that fail to be Ascended or to live up to their expectations post-Ascension. Whatever or whoever it is that's pulling the strings, it isn't concerned with continuity or respecting a created species' right to exist - it's shown its willingness to aggressively alter and pursue highly specific forms of organic life in order to further its goals.

In short, the game doesn't *have* to carry the first game's units over. It doesn't *have* to offer you that sense of familiarity you seem to be craving. Why ask for slightly higher-poly Mutons for the sake of some immediate continuity concerns when a little imagination solves the problem?

Mutons as we knew them turned out to be obsolete, the same might be said of Sectoids or of the other enemy units from the first game, for all I know. The invaders proceeded as any superpower would and developed their arsenal, trimming the fat where needed and refining what already showed some promise. Even if they won, it makes sense for the aliens to do just that. It's what any superpower does, regardless of how willing it is or isn't to go to war.

 

[MerlinCross]

OH no I'll still pick the game up and play the hell out of it but yes I had expected to see new alien races but if this is the SAME batch of aliens that we fought against I would expect the same or close to the same enemy types now. Why, because it is still the same group, even a few decades down the line(actual time length isn't know).

I'm not asking for the old guys, I wanted really new aliens. But for all you said about the story telling(Mutons got out classed and replaced) this also gives them the right to just be lazy and put them in anyway(Same group you can't blame us for being lazy/saving money).

Call me cynic but I'll need to see more. But I won't be surprised if we don't see the same thpes(fodder, recon, flight, big guy, big robots, and Etheral at the top). Also are you GLAD to be fighting those guys again? You didn't say anything about them.

 

[esserin]

OH no I'll still pick the game up and play the hell out of it but yes I had expected to see new alien races but if this is the SAME batch of aliens that we fought against I would expect the same or close to the same enemy types now. Why, because it is still the same group, even a few decades down the line(actual time length isn't know).

I'm not asking for the old guys, I wanted really new aliens. But for all you said about the story telling(Mutons got out classed and replaced) this also gives them the right to just be lazy and put them in anyway(Same group you can't blame us for being lazy/saving money).

Call me cynic but I'll need to see more. But I won't be surprised if we don't see the same thpes(fodder, recon, flight, big guy, big robots, and Etheral at the top). Also are you GLAD to be fighting those guys again? You didn't say anything about them.

If you go on the website for xcom 2, you'll see that the aliens are not being reused.The snake people are actually the true form of the thin men since now they don't need to try to infiltrate them into earth. Some aliens, like the muton and sectoid, were genetically enhanced with human DNA. And there are now advent soldiers, humans which have been.... enhanced.

So no, you won't have to worry about the aliens being reused. They've all been upgraded and they now have new art assets.