XCOM 2 Preview - The Time Has Come, Commander

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

semantic argument

It is, but only because continuity is something of a sticking point with me. And continuing from the bad ending would be fine, except in Enemy Unknown the aliens said they intend to harvest/assimilate the entire human race. So if we lost, the entire species is wiped out.

To be honest, I thought a lot more people would be annoyed in the shotty storytelling in what is a single player game, which is carried by it's story.

 

[Kajin]

So a level of continuity is required.

Except it's not. No creator of content should be entirely beholden to the whims of the people or any sort of strict adherence to a predefined system of narrative creation. The devs want to make a game where humanity lost in the first game, so they have.

 

[Quazimofo]

semantic argument

It is, but only because continuity is something of a sticking point with me. And continuing from the bad ending would be fine, except in Enemy Unknown the aliens said they intend to harvest/assimilate the entire human race. So if we lost, the entire species is wiped out.

To be honest, I thought a lot more people would be annoyed in the shotty storytelling in what is a single player game, which is carried by it's story.

The tagline of advertisements for Xcom 2 is "Their evolution, our extinction". They haven't said what the plot is explicitly but it's heavily implying that the aliens are doing exactly that. Harvesting several billion people just takes a while, particularly if done in a clandestine fashion so as to minimize risk of unified armed rebellion.

It's hardly shoddy storytelling, it's just going against the standard "The protagonist won" assumption most sequels make, which continues rather well from a game where failure is not only an option, but a very common outcome with a game over screen that actually sets up this sequel rather nicely.

For those of you who may not remember exactly how it went:

Spoiler

 

[Cartographer]

The aliens arrived and were welcomed with open arms, most of humanity are more than happy with the improved way of life alien tech has brought, an end to war and national strife etc. XCOM and the player are the malcontents, the fanatics, the loonies who don't like the status quo and are blowing things up and wrecking $%&*. In this game YOU are the TERRORISTS.

I'll grant you that that is an interesting idea. (This next part is somewhat rhetorical) So why not market it as a separate game?

They did, they called it XCOM 2.

If you want to play an Earth defence game, where you have to balance support from a diverse set of nations, fight off UFO incursions, take out alien infiltration teams while simultaneously developing weaponry to eventually allow you to fight off larger and larger enemy assaults, culminating in a high-risk attack on an alien mothership with the fate of the planet at stake...
Well, that game already exists.

Look, I get you've been raised on sequel after sequel trying nothing new, tried and tested formulae stuck to and iteration eight of a franchise being identical to iteration one. I'm sure you and many others enjoy the annual/bi-annual releases of the same game with a different glossy coat. If you've got this much of an issue with the direction Firaxis have gone, then I fear XCOM 2 isn't for you, and that's okay, not all games have to pander to everyone. We live in a wonderful future where people who like different things can have those different things.

 

[vallorn]

Aliens show up. We fight them. That's the summary of the plot in its entirety.

It's not the plot that annoys me, it's that at the end of Enemy Unknown we are shown to beat the invaders. Now the direct sequel is taking place in an alternate universe where we didn't win. There is no ingame explanation for this. Why call it a sequel to a game, when it's not a sequel at all?

It is a sequel, all those lost games where your base gets destroyed or all the council reject you? Those are the game ending that leads into Xcom 2. It's a really odd choice but it's not necessarily a bad one considering how many people failed at Long War.

 

[EternallyBored]

semantic argument

It is, but only because continuity is something of a sticking point with me. And continuing from the bad ending would be fine, except in Enemy Unknown the aliens said they intend to harvest/assimilate the entire human race. So if we lost, the entire species is wiped out.

To be honest, I thought a lot more people would be annoyed in the shotty storytelling in what is a single player game, which is carried by it's story.

That is the plot of XCOM 2, it directly continues from the plans the ethereals espouse at the end of 1. The previews so far have almost always ended after your first Blacksite mission, where its revealed that the aliens are using thousands upon thousands of humans per site as genetic experiments for their AVATAR project. The completion of that project is an automatic game over in XCOM 2.

The Ethereals are doing exactly what they said they would do, we can even see this in the basic ADVENT troopers, who, under their helmets, are actually revealed to be modified with sectoid genetics, giving them big eyes and psionic implants to control them. So they are assimilating some humans into the alien army as human/sectoid hybrids, as well as potentially clones, and using the civilian population to try and accomplish their ultimate goal, which is the AVATAR project. It meshes just fine with pretty much everything from XCOM 1.

I'm curious why you even tried to make this point when even basic research from the previews reveals that the assimilation and experimentation on humanity is still the aliens primary goal in XCOM 2, they do so through drawing humans into the alien built city centers and then using them as stock for creating more troopers or to further their AVATAR project.

People didn't mind the story telling in one because it was hung on good gameplay, and while the story was bare bones, it wasn't actually bad or dragged the game down in any way. It was an excuse plot to move the single player game along, and it did its job, but there wasn't really enough there to make people clamor for a direct sequel. There are plot hooks, but most of them surround the nature of the Ethereal's plans, which can just as easily be accomplished with the current XCOM 2 plot.

Edit: unless that "shoddy" remark was supposed to be directed at xcom 2, in which case, just saying something is shoddy does not make it true, people aren't complaining en masse because most people don't actually see the new story as inherently bad. Judging from your comment you don't seem to know what the plot of xcom 2 is actually about and are reaching for justifications, the ethereals plan stated at the end of the first game is pretty much being carried out in the second game, there is no plot hole or major discrepancy as far as that goes.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

basic research

Destiny proved that if you want the fans to know the game, having them do the research never works.

It's hardly shoddy storytelling, it's just going against the standard "The protagonist won" assumption most sequels make

So why make the sequel take place in an alternate universe?

Except it's not. No creator of content should be entirely beholden to the whims of the people or any sort of strict adherence to a predefined system of narrative creation. The devs want to make a game where humanity lost in the first game, so they have.

So if humanity was meant to ultimately lose, why are they putting the game in an alternate universe?

Look, I get you've been raised on sequel after sequel trying nothing new, tried and tested formulae stuck to and iteration eight of a franchise being identical to iteration one. I'm sure you and many others enjoy the annual/bi-annual releases of the same game with a different glossy coat. If you've got this much of an issue with the direction Firaxis have gone, then I fear XCOM 2 isn't for you, and that's okay, not all games have to pander to everyone. We live in a wonderful future where people who like different things can have those different things.

1st- Friendly warning; Don't pretend to know me.

2nd- Your argument negates itself. You make the argument that different iterations of the same game are dull and boring, tell me; What has Xcom 2 done that is different from the first game? So far, it seems like Xcom 2 is the same game, just with a glossy coat.

It is a sequel, all those lost games where your base gets destroyed or all the council reject you? Those are the game ending that leads into Xcom 2. It's a really odd choice but it's not necessarily a bad one considering how many people failed at Long War.

If Xcom 2 imported your save data I could see where you campaigns failings (if any) would come in to play.

 

[Kajin]

Except it's not. No creator of content should be entirely beholden to the whims of the people or any sort of strict adherence to a predefined system of narrative creation. The devs want to make a game where humanity lost in the first game, so they have.

So if humanity was meant to ultimately lose, why are they putting the game in an alternate universe?

Dunno. I'm just going on what someone else said. Maybe it's an alternate universe where humanity lost. Maybe it's the same universe where we lost. Doesn't even matter. What does matter is that the devs thought it would be neat to tell the story they're telling and there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

I get that you don't like that humanity losing is the premise of the second game, but you're flailing about so much trying to justify why you think it's shitty that I'm starting to get genuinely concerned you might pull a muscle. A lot of people think that it's a genuinely neat premise and every argument you've had against it has been rebuffed. Buy the game or don't, it's your choice.

 

[EternallyBored]

basic research

Destiny proved that if you want the fans to know the game, having them do the research never works.

I'm honestly unsure if you are just trying to fuck with me at this point.If you are actually serious about that Destiny comparison, then 1 of 2 things has happened here, either:

1. you have no idea why people were mad at Destiny's Grimoire cards

2. You don't know what a preview is.

I will proceed to address both points in order to show why this situation is nothing like Destiny.

First of all, the controversy with Destiny was that people had to find plot critical lore outside the game. Most people would have tolerated it if it was a Mass effect style codex they could access at any time. People were pissed because they had to go to a completely separate website and log in just to find out stuff like what exactly the Cabal are, or how the Traveller came to Earth. Fans are fine researching basic things about a game, like what's contained in a preview, which brings us to point 2.

Previews are generally showcases of the game itself, from gameplay to story, some previews contain information that isn't in the main game, but the vast majority of the time it is. All that shit I told you about XCOM 2, that is absolutely nothing like Destiny because all that shit is in the game itself, the previews are based on press builds of the game, not extraneous information you have to log out of the game and find on a website.

So yeah, nothing at all like Destiny, what do you think a preview is for if not the fans? That's why they have popular XCOM 1 streamers playing preview builds of XCOM 2 right now, because there are thousands and thousands of fans watching them do it. Watching a preview is not fucking research, it's basic knowledge equivalent to sitting through the opening cutscene.

Honestly, I am blown away that you seem to think just knowing the basic premise of the sequel, as in the actual story of the game told through cutscenes, and the actual win/lose condition of the campaign, is somehow "research" that fans are unwilling to do.

You need to actually explain what your thought process is here, because your one line snappy comebacks make no sense, you either don't understand why people were mad at Destiny, or you have no idea what the plot of XCOM 2 is about.

EDIT: to sum it up succinctly. Destiny fans weren't mad they had to do research, they were mad that basic game information wasn't in the actual game. You, 008Zulu, should try to at least read the synopsis for what the sequel is about before you spout off about things you don't like about it. That is how this started afterall, you complained that the game didn't address a story point from XCOM 1, where even just the most basic research would reveal that your complaint is pretty much addressed by the central plot of the sequel. You seem to be just deflecting from the fact that you didn't know what the sequel was about.

 

[vallorn]

basic research

Destiny proved that if you want the fans to know the game, having them do the research never works.

On the other hand, Dark Souls proves that there are a lot of people who are willing to dig into item descriptions to understand a game. On the other hand, the problem with Destiny was that they were not in the game, adding another hurdle to actually learning the story that didn't need to be there. As well as that, Dark Souls had a decent story in and of itself, you can meet Seigmeyer and Lautrec and the other stories of that world and enjoy them without digging any deeper into the world, on the inverse, Destiny's story just isn't there at all which means that to get any enjoyment out of the story you need to jump through these extra hurdles.

It's hardly shoddy storytelling, it's just going against the standard "The protagonist won" assumption most sequels make

So why make the sequel take place in an alternate universe?

Except it's not. No creator of content should be entirely beholden to the whims of the people or any sort of strict adherence to a predefined system of narrative creation. The devs want to make a game where humanity lost in the first game, so they have.

So if humanity was meant to ultimately lose, why are they putting the game in an alternate universe?

Here's what the developer framed it as.

"When the aliens showed up, XCOM suffered massive casualties, and governments around the world crumbled in face of popular support to surrender. Then, the Earth was quickly overrun," Creative Director Jake Solomon explained. "And so, 20 years into the future, the world is a very different place. The aliens rule Earth from giant shining megacities where all the people of Earth are flocking; that?s where they?re promised an easy life, a secure life free of disease."

Now, here's my issue with your interpretation of the "XCOM WIN!" ending being the only true ending and the others being "alternate universes". There are lots of games out there that had multiple endings and then had to somehow have a sequel, a common way to do this is to do a cop out like Daggerfall's Dragon Break and just say "they all are the true ending". On the other hand, if you choose one specific ending then people who picked the other ones feel cheated. Now, let's look at Xcom, you saved the earth, destroyed all the aliens, your surviving squad members are heroes, the sacrifice is honored, the technology you have can now change the world for good or ill.

Where do you go with that? Do you go "we have an even bigger, badder alien fleet!" No, maybe in a cheap sequel but I don't think that would work, and with the impact you had on the world, you would need to be able to import save data over to have those choices reflected. And that would be a pain.

So instead, they've chosen one of the possible endings to the game, you still get an ending cinematic even if you didn't win, your troops got massacred so they aren't around, the staff are also different. This way, they get to nearly start the Xcom story again from scratch in a different setting which gives them more flexibility instead of trying to go "how do we account for all the different things that could have happened in the first game?". This is a choice that is quite logically sound and gives Fireaxis more logical freedom in writing Xcom 2.

Furthermore, if we look back, multiple endings usually assume "bad ends" where something bad happens, in this case, the end that Fireaxis chose to use was simply a Bad End instead of the "good end" that you get for beating the game. It's no different to how developers have had to choose from multiple endings in the past.

Look, I get you've been raised on sequel after sequel trying nothing new, tried and tested formulae stuck to and iteration eight of a franchise being identical to iteration one. I'm sure you and many others enjoy the annual/bi-annual releases of the same game with a different glossy coat. If you've got this much of an issue with the direction Firaxis have gone, then I fear XCOM 2 isn't for you, and that's okay, not all games have to pander to everyone. We live in a wonderful future where people who like different things can have those different things.

1st- Friendly warning; Don't pretend to know me.

2nd- Your argument negates itself. You make the argument that different iterations of the same game are dull and boring, tell me; What has Xcom 2 done that is different from the first game? So far, it seems like Xcom 2 is the same game, just with a glossy coat.

Different mechanics like Concealment, completely different classes, completely different enemies, the Resistance aspect, mobile main base, Dark Events, Blacksite Missions, etc. There's a lot that's been changed in terms of how the game plays as well as how the story seems to flow.

It is a sequel, all those lost games where your base gets destroyed or all the council reject you? Those are the game ending that leads into Xcom 2. It's a really odd choice but it's not necessarily a bad one considering how many people failed at Long War.

If Xcom 2 imported your save data I could see where you campaigns failings (if any) would come in to play.

That's why they chose Campaign Failure. Xcom gets wiped out, everything you did gets destroyed and buried as the aliens take over. They seem to have done this specifically so they wouldn't have to work with importing save data.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I get that you don't like that humanity losing is the premise of the second game, but you're flailing about so much trying to justify why you think it's shitty that I'm starting to get genuinely concerned you might pull a muscle. A lot of people think that it's a genuinely neat premise and every argument you've had against it has been rebuffed. Buy the game or don't, it's your choice.

It's not the losing that bothers me, if humanity losing is the way the story is intended to progress then fine so be it. But it is set in an alternate universe where we lost. Which means humanity (prime) did win, but rather continue the story, they are making the sequel revolve around a "what if?" scenario instead. That's just poor story development.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

no idea what the plot of XCOM 2 is about.

Plot: The aliens won (somehow), and now rule the Earth. A rag-tag group of humans try to take it back.

What is the in-game reason for it being set in an alternate universe? Did the destruction of the mothership create some sort of weird interdimensional time portal the erased all the heroic moments and wins from the human's side?

See, when devs take the lazy way out, like this, all it does is provide fodder for all the YouTube channels out there who exist solely to mock bad game design choices.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

On the other hand, Dark Souls proves that there are a lot of people who are willing to dig into item descriptions to understand a game.

Some developers are good at creating an engaging story, others, not so much.

 

[EternallyBored]

no idea what the plot of XCOM 2 is about.

Plot: The aliens won (somehow), and now rule the Earth. A rag-tag group of humans try to take it back.

What is the in-game reason for it being set in an alternate universe? Did the destruction of the mothership create some sort of weird interdimensional time portal the erased all the heroic moments and wins from the human's side?

See, when devs take the lazy way out, like this, all it does is provide fodder for all the YouTube channels out there who exist solely to mock bad game design choices.

What Youtube channels are you talking about? Because somehow I doubt many people are going to be mocking the story the way you think they are, pretty much everyone accepts the story premise, even those that don't like it or think continuing the victory ending would have been better. You are pretty much the only one I've seen trying to push the dislike of the story to this extent, some people dislike it, but you seem to be bending over backwards with weak excuses and hyperbole to make it look like its some terrible thing.

Like the first part of your post, the game doesn't need to justify itself as an alternate universe, pretty much nobody here except you thinks that. They don't need to explain the victory ending as some kind of time warp, they explained it as much as they needed to, we lost, the victory ending didn't happen. Trying to paint it as a time warp is as ridiculous them making a game that continues from the victory ending and complaining because the game over ending isn't addressed because it had a cutscene and everything.

At this point, you're basically just calling the story bad writing without actually backing it up with anything beyond the fact that you think they shouldn't have stuck a 2 on it, you haven't given us anything else to go on except that you don't like it. Just because you say something is bad writing doesn't make it true.

So far you haven't mustered more than one line responses and a handful of sentences, you've utterly failed to convince me that Xcom 2's writing is bad based on just the premise, that you bring up blatantly false information like the previous lie about them not addressing the Ethereal's plan from 1, only further convinces me that you are just making up excuses at this point.

Also, why the hell do you keep resurrecting this topic just to pick out a single sentence from my post to go on an unrelated tangent that has little to do with what we were talking about previously?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

why the hell do you keep resurrecting this topic just to pick out a single sentence from my post to go on an unrelated tangent that has little to do with what we were talking about previously?

You post a reply directly relating to me, it would be rude for me to not reply.