XCOM 2 is What Happens When You Lose Enemy Unknown

[UrinalDook]

Why is there this assumption that just because there's a 2 on the front of the box, the game has to be a direct, linear continuation of the plot?

Up until this very moment in time, having the original title plus a 2 on the end implies a direct sequel. Games which have taken an "alternate universe/what if" approach have always had a title that implied it was not taking place in the primary timeline.

Far Cry 3 has nothing to do with Far Cry 2 which has nothing to do with Far Cry. The only things they share are mechanics and basic themes.

Before DLC, Left 4 Dead 2 had nothing to do with the story of Left 4 Dead other than the initial premise, setting and mechanics. Grand Theft Auto IV has nothing to do with Grand Theft Auto III other than taking place in broadly the same setting.

And let's not even begin to get in to all the Final Fantasy games and their numbering.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

I'll be honest, I don't care too much. I'll grant, it is a bit stupid calling it "2", but whatever.

That said, it would've been cooler if they did implement a way to "transfer" your end games stats and stuff over for a "pre-mission" where you fight against the initial invasion with whatever you had at the end of the previous game.

And get completely crushed, no matter what you had.

Like, you'd last longer if you had better stuff, but you'd still lose in the end.

Drive home just how horribly outclassed you are.

I dunno, just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Bindal]

They can try to justify as much as they want it - I still consider assuming that the player lost in the previous game a complete rubbish idea. Especially when they set up a possible second alien force invading with the successful ending already.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

I am currently replaying Red Alert 2 since it was available for free on Origin a while back, along with the Yuri's Revenge expansion. And I for one was shocked, nay, appalled at the fact that in the expansion both the Allied and Soviet campaigns are based off of a timeline where the Allies win the base game. All my Soviet playthroughs wasted! Destroyed! Utterly meaningless!

But seriously, the idea that me saving the world in that one X-Com game means that the world must stay saved forever is just... Silly. It also means you'd have to explain why you don't have boatloads of very high-level gear at the start of XCOM 2. Well I suppose without further alien materials to work with you can't create further advanced weaponry or armour, but still. Recruits with psychic potential would be practically unlimited, if nothing else.

But on a less whiny note, I agree with everything in this post:

I can understand why some people aren't too keen on this setting, but I think the "resistance movement fighting against the oppressive super-power that's taken over the world" is an awesome set up, and I actually think it lends itself much better to how X-Com actually plays compared to EU and EW.

For example:
-It now makes sense why you can only send small groups of Soldiers on missions, since it's risky to send a bunch of people, plus higher chance of arousing suspicion. Never made sense to me in EU or EW that even if I had 70 Soldiers sitting in the barracks, I could only send six on a mission. Also never made sense that I could only respond to one abduction taking place, even though I had tons of soldiers and more than enough money to afford more troop transports.
-It makes much more sense now that funding and resources are so limited. In EU, everyone on the planet knew an alien invasion was happening, yet you still had to beg to get funding from countries.
-Now it actually makes sense that you're outnumbered on missions.
-The idea of hitting strategic targets and slowly turning the populace against the aliens is just a great set-up, and I think will lend itself to way more interesting hard resource decisions that don't feel as forced as X-Com had (in other words, instead of "well you can only respond to one abduction mission because we say so", it's "is it worth possibly losing Soldiers to knock out this propaganda center just to hopefully get the populace a little more on our side?").

Anyway, totally psyched for the game and fingers crossed that it ends up being as good as it sounds.

The fact that you're playing a resistance force post alien invasion actually makes me much more excited for the game.

 

[Jandau]

Ah, gamers... whine endlessly about nobody ever trying anything new, but when someone decides to try an interesting premise, they whine that it's too different...

To the question of "What was the point of playing the first game?" - The point was you had fun, it was a good game, it stands on its own two feet perfectly fine. I honestly don't see why all the fuss. Sequels to games often pick one ending as "canon" and go from there. Is Baldur's Gate 2 pissing on your BG1 playthrough simply because it uses a "default" gamestate which might ignore what you did in BG1? Of course not.

I for one find the concept interesting and a pleasant break from the norm. I don't find that it in any way detracts form the first game or my enjoyment of it, and I find it potentially a lot more interesting than a retread of the first game with simply a new invasion.

 

[Rawbeard]

but I didn't lose Enemy Unknown, so I can't play the sequel since it makes no sense to me.

 

[EternallyBored]

I am currently replaying Red Alert 2 since it was available for free on Origin a while back, along with the Yuri's Revenge expansion. And I for one was shocked, nay, appalled at the fact that in the expansion both the Allied and Soviet campaigns are based off of a timeline where the Allies win the base game. All my Soviet playthroughs wasted! Destroyed! Utterly meaningless!

But seriously, the idea that me saving the world in that one X-Com game means that the world must stay saved forever is just... Silly. It also means you'd have to explain why you don't have boatloads of very high-level gear at the start of XCOM 2. Well I suppose without further alien materials to work with you can't create further advanced weaponry or armour, but still. Recruits with psychic potential would be practically unlimited, if nothing else.

I think the technology tree was one of the reasons they went with this scenario as well, the old x-coms, and most similar games usually have to try to contrive someway to set back your tech level. Which might also be why they went with this being a continuation of enemy unknown rather than enemy within.

Trying to go to a direct sequel from a win state leaves you with an xcom with power armor, psychic supersoldiers, plasma weapons, jet packs, and stealth suits. If we add in Enemy within, you've got an Xcom that basically has mechs and gene-modded supersoldiers. While it sounds cool to start a game with all that, it would be a nightmare to balance, and you end up with having to come up with further upgrades to round out the new tech tree. At some point you are just making up words for guns that fire different colored energy than plasma weapons, or you have to introduce tech that isn't suited to a small squad tactics game, or you end up with a tech tree composed of weak improvements that don't change much, or just act as side grades rather than upgrades, once you've got things like jetpacks or the titan armor's immunity to gas attacks there's not really any new tech you can introduce that fills a similar role but is a clear and new upgrade.

Even the old series did this by making your equipment not work underwater for the second game, and adding an apocalypse that wiped out a lot of tech for the 3rd game.

Overall, the change doesn't upset me, the story in EU and EW was pretty basic at best, continuing that wasn't really something that was tickling my fancy as it likely would have just involved more powerful aliens coming in and wrecking enough shit to take away all the toys from the first game, so you basically end up with the plot of Xcom 2 without the iconic Xcom aliens, or a rehash of the plot of Xcom 1 with defending the earth from a different alien threat.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

I am currently replaying Red Alert 2 since it was available for free on Origin a while back, along with the Yuri's Revenge expansion. And I for one was shocked, nay, appalled at the fact that in the expansion both the Allied and Soviet campaigns are based off of a timeline where the Allies win the base game. All my Soviet playthroughs wasted! Destroyed! Utterly meaningless!

But seriously, the idea that me saving the world in that one X-Com game means that the world must stay saved forever is just... Silly. It also means you'd have to explain why you don't have boatloads of very high-level gear at the start of XCOM 2. Well I suppose without further alien materials to work with you can't create further advanced weaponry or armour, but still. Recruits with psychic potential would be practically unlimited, if nothing else.

But on a less whiny note, I agree with everything in this post:

I can understand why some people aren't too keen on this setting, but I think the "resistance movement fighting against the oppressive super-power that's taken over the world" is an awesome set up, and I actually think it lends itself much better to how X-Com actually plays compared to EU and EW.

For example:
-It now makes sense why you can only send small groups of Soldiers on missions, since it's risky to send a bunch of people, plus higher chance of arousing suspicion. Never made sense to me in EU or EW that even if I had 70 Soldiers sitting in the barracks, I could only send six on a mission. Also never made sense that I could only respond to one abduction taking place, even though I had tons of soldiers and more than enough money to afford more troop transports.
-It makes much more sense now that funding and resources are so limited. In EU, everyone on the planet knew an alien invasion was happening, yet you still had to beg to get funding from countries.
-Now it actually makes sense that you're outnumbered on missions.
-The idea of hitting strategic targets and slowly turning the populace against the aliens is just a great set-up, and I think will lend itself to way more interesting hard resource decisions that don't feel as forced as X-Com had (in other words, instead of "well you can only respond to one abduction mission because we say so", it's "is it worth possibly losing Soldiers to knock out this propaganda center just to hopefully get the populace a little more on our side?").

Anyway, totally psyched for the game and fingers crossed that it ends up being as good as it sounds.

The fact that you're playing a resistance force post alien invasion actually makes me much more excited for the game.

100% agree with you, I'm pretty sure we had this whine and debate when the first trailers for XCOM 2 came out. I'm gettin' flashbacks...

Anyway, let's say two things happen, either post-winning the full alien force arrives and earth is just destroyed straight up, or we never reached the temple ship, it really doesn't matter. XCOM is a game, first and foremost. It has an impressive way of creating stories through the soldiers you create, yes, but it also is mostly about the gameplay and strategy, rather than all of those grey/grey and romantic choices that I definitely remember XCOM being so popular for. Who did you romance, the Sectoid or Ethereal Senpai?

Even if XCOM 2 was literally a game where the opening scene was your base being utterly destroyed and demolished while a voice over tells you "Too bad that no-one was good enough to fight off an alien invasion...", before launching into actual gameplay, it would still be totally bloody fine because XCOM 2 is a brand new game to be played for fun. The people whining over this make me so confused. I'd get it if it was Mass Effect or The Walking Dead. Those games live and die on their stories and the choices you make, the endings you get. XCOM chose one ending of two, and the sequel is set after that ending. So play the bloody game and retake the world you are whining about being stolen from you.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Far Cry 3 has nothing to do with Far Cry 2 which has nothing to do with Far Cry. The only things they share are mechanics and basic themes.

Before DLC, Left 4 Dead 2 had nothing to do with the story of Left 4 Dead other than the initial premise, setting and mechanics. Grand Theft Auto IV has nothing to do with Grand Theft Auto III other than taking place in broadly the same setting.

And let's not even begin to get in to all the Final Fantasy games and their numbering.

We don't know that all the Farcry games don't happen in the same "universe". Perhaps someone who is very well versed in the lore (such as it is) could better determine that answer. To a degree, perhaps Final Fantasy is the same. There are many recurring smaller characters in multiple titles, Biggs and Wedge for example (yeah I know it's a running gag, doesn't make it any less so). If the DLC linked the Left for Dead games together, then it is a sequel in the traditional sense.

I think you're right about GTA though, those games seem to focus on the smaller individual rather than the universe as a whole.

However, they did say Xcom 2 is a direct sequel. They could have made it a "What If?" spin-off and I think most people would have been fine with it. But they chose to make it a sequel to a game where everyone who played it (excluding the minimal few who played, and abandoned the game), saved the world. There's no logic to their choice.

 

[Petromir]

*snip*

However, they did say Xcom 2 is a direct sequel. They could have made it a "What If?" spin-off and I think most people would have been fine with it. But they chose to make it a sequel to a game where everyone who played it (excluding the minimal few who played, and abandoned the game), saved the world. There's no logic to their choice.

Nonsense games have had canonical endings that sequels continue on from as long as multiple endings have existed. Also the majority failed to save the world at least once, (tip any time you reloaded a save as a mission went wrong or similar there appears a lost campaign, with reasonably sound logic, as the reload mechanic is't in universe you're essentially creating split timelines, and the one you effectively abandoned is a world in which x-com lost).


Then theres the issue that X-Com has more than one win ending, one of which at least makes the guerrilla scenario tricky to get to, and that from a win condition you've likely got tech that doesn't work with the scenario either.

 

[Piorn]

I'm fine with the setting, really. I don't see a problem with it.

Now let's talk about the Archon a bit, does it strike anyone else like it's been designed for intimidation rather than warfrare? Like it's primary purpose is to impress civillians and deter a rebellion?
Wouldn't it be a pretty cool overall arc for the aliens to have them revert from impressive looking enemies to effective and ugly enemies as the fight goes on? So as you destabilize the enemies, they too become more effective at killing and less effective at keeping order?
Just a thought, though. Would be neat I guess.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

In addition to what others have said about multiple/canon endings, I bring before you the C&C games. The official canon endings have always been the 'good guys win' GDI or Allied. With the possibly only sidetrack of RA1 Soviet ending which allegedly paves way for C&C1 (Tiberium Dawn) (lore wise that is).
Also, it is much more interesting than a 'Congratulations, you won, now go out there and conquer the stars' scenario.

 

[Souplex]

We did win, but whatever the Etherials where running away from and preparing us to fight was what took over (a lot of people don't seem to understand what happened at the end of the game).

I guess you can add 1 to that list.
The etherals were having their strings pulled by the "Ascended" (They don't really have a name) looking for other species that can ascend and join them.

Now behold our greatest failure, the etherals. Those who failed to ascend as we did.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Then theres the issue that X-Com has more than one win ending

My playthroughs usually involve "turtling" (I only proceed with the story once I have the current tier of tech researched, and as soon as I unlock the next, I do random missions until I have the next and so on). How many endings does it have? I have only had the one where my Psionic soldier sacrifices themselves, while the others get off the ship.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I kind oif like the idea of going into a game with the premise that you fucked up somehow, or you were never destined to 'win' but rather 'lose the least', which I think the premise of XCOM 2 does better than most. Why exactly shouldn't the player feel like they were put into a situation where they have a choice between merely a pyrrhic victory and a defeat? I think it works well in the XCOM game because it is literally humanity vs. a universe of unknown and unknowable foes that seek to undermine any means of effective strategy and command of the situation. The idea of merely losing the least as the premise of this game imparts to me gives it a wonderful feel that ranks up there playing a DEFCON: Everybody Dies game online. You will get nuked, you will lose (even if you win), humanity will still be destroyed, but maybe you can earn your paycheck and do your job in maintaining that MAD has consequences ....

Which is effective storytelling in a game that has emotional weight well beyond the setup. WW3, thermonuclear war is unavoidable. It doesn't matter what you do, humanity is doomed ... enjoy! I think the idea of an unwinnable battle, or better yet the fact that courage, fortitude, innovation ... all the best qualities of the human creature, and it's still not enough ... that's a powerful story mechanic and it's a story that works well.

One of the more memorable moments in SR: Hong Kong is when Cheng informs the player that defeating a planes travelling overlord that seeks to dominate and control tens of thousands is ultimately peanuts compared to the very real, very outlandish tragedies inflicting upon metahumanity that ultimately no metatype can fight unless they simply get lucky. That these tragedies will continue onwards, forever, unceasing and uncaring of the metahumanity condition as they do so. The best you can do is make a bit of nuyen out of it and call it a 'victory' even as the world around you burns uncontrollably.

That's good storytelling.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I knew about this from the earliest videos surrounding the game. It was unequivocally stated that XCOM "lost" after the events of the EU/EW. It matters not one bit. It has no bearing on anything that happens in the first game, at all, which is still a sublime game and one of the most enjoyable games I've ever played, let alone within the strategy genre of which I'm not normally a fan. It's simply laying the backstory for the forthcoming sequel.

I have no objection to the story development at all. It doesn't take anything away from my triumph in the first game and is as good as any a development for setting the stage for a second. If XCOM had won outright in the first game, there wouldn't be a second game coming out for one thing. I don't doubt that firaxis will make an amazing game. Taking the core, the premise, the mechanics and the backstory from the first, but adding in new content and units, weapons, procedural maps, enhanced visuals, new storyline and so on. It's going to be as good as or better than the first. EW was a great improvement even over EU for the extra things it brought in and I have complete faith that 2 will be an incredible game well worth it's asking price.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

Good they based it off of my playthrough where midway through the commander just stopped moving for no apparent reason.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Even now ive never beaten the aliens in the original games.....just keep fighting them off.....i amt he shield. lol. This new game seems a step back to me. I want to fight on alien planets and dimensions. Take the war to them. Use there weapons against them.

 

[EternallyBored]

Far Cry 3 has nothing to do with Far Cry 2 which has nothing to do with Far Cry. The only things they share are mechanics and basic themes.

Before DLC, Left 4 Dead 2 had nothing to do with the story of Left 4 Dead other than the initial premise, setting and mechanics. Grand Theft Auto IV has nothing to do with Grand Theft Auto III other than taking place in broadly the same setting.

And let's not even begin to get in to all the Final Fantasy games and their numbering.

We don't know that all the Farcry games don't happen in the same "universe". Perhaps someone who is very well versed in the lore (such as it is) could better determine that answer. To a degree, perhaps Final Fantasy is the same. There are many recurring smaller characters in multiple titles, Biggs and Wedge for example (yeah I know it's a running gag, doesn't make it any less so). If the DLC linked the Left for Dead games together, then it is a sequel in the traditional sense.

I think you're right about GTA though, those games seem to focus on the smaller individual rather than the universe as a whole.

However, they did say Xcom 2 is a direct sequel. They could have made it a "What If?" spin-off and I think most people would have been fine with it. But they chose to make it a sequel to a game where everyone who played it (excluding the minimal few who played, and abandoned the game), saved the world. There's no logic to their choice.

Statistically, most people who play games don't beat them, especially strategy games. Analysis of achievements, trophies and stats bears this out time and time again, across almost all genres and games. A very large number of people never beat the games they play.

The "humanity's savior" Steam achievement for beating the game on any difficulty right now sits at 26% global achievement rate, meaning that only 26% of people who own Xcom on Steam have beaten the game on any difficulty. Less than 5% of players have beaten the game on classic, and just over 1% of players have beaten the game on Impossible.

The "minimal few" who played the game and abandoned it are actually the majority, only 1 in 4 players stuck with the game to see the end. Now some people likely received the game and never played it much or at all, although I think people that have never launched the game aren't included in the stats. Even excluding them by calculating only for people that got the easy early game achievements, you still come up with less than half of players playing Xcom beating the game. Hell, less than half of players even got the hyperwave beacon, only about 30% of people on Steam got far enough in the game to build the Gollop chamber.

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.