XCOM 2 Will Push Your Resistance Movement To Its Limits
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just think...In XCOM 3 they'll say all of 2 never happened, your resistance failed(again!) and that all of humanity was destroyed and now you have to play as above average IQ raccoons to stop the aliens.
Why ARE people so pissed about this?Silentpony said:
Seriously, it's a different time a different game. It could be a different universe, think about it. You won! GO YOU, YOU'RE AWESOME. But I lost one or three of my playthroughs, so I fucked humanity. Your turn now to come save my universe from my shitty commandering
Oh god this happened to me, I had one of my characters named after my GF, even made her look like her. Then the bad thing happened to her... She still doesn't let me forget it.MarsAtlas said:
EDIT: How the hell do you put spoilers? I want to say how/why she died.
Basically because its an unachievable option in the first game. Yes, you can have all the Nations leave Xcom, but then its just game over. Its not an ending, its a failure.Qizx said:
Its the equivalent of having another Resident Evil game, except Chris and Leon are dead because its possible to die in RE and RE2. Its not actually what the takeaway was supposed to be.
Its such a desperate and needless way to raise the stakes. Hitting the Reset button on the previous game's plot is weak. There are so many better ways to continue the story instead of saying "Nope, the story never happened!"
I had a nice cup of coffee once in Spain nearly ten years ago. Does that count?Imperioratorex Caprae said:
All serious, I can be positive, its just that in today gaming climate that's virtually impossible. Like when Batman was first pulled from Steam on promise of fixing it and I said it'll still be completely broken when it relaunches. People said I was negative.
Or when I said TitanFall doesn't look like a game that'll last too longer after opening month.
Or that Sonic Boom looked iffy in gameplay trailers.
Or that Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system was kinda' broken because it required the player to die for shit to happen but the game was too easy.
Negative, negative, negative.
But I'd rather be negative and correct than constantly getting let down by AAA shittiness. Being positive doesn't make bad games better. Just means you have no pattern recognition.
But if it'll make you feel better, I'll say something nice about the first game I see on Steam's storefront:
Space - The Return Of The Pixxelfrazzer. Lets see...I'm sure Markiplier's video will be funny for the first 5mins.
There. That positive enough for you?!?
Its not impossible, but it may seem that way if all you look at is the negative parts. I mean for discussion value, if all you add is negative points and nothing constructive, which is immediately what my mind jumps to when seeing your nick/avatar, then what good is any of what you say to the discussion? I've got no problem with bringing up negative points as long as there's some discussion value beyond the negative. It is just hard for me to understand why one would bother posting if one has nothing to add to the discussion except the same negativity you've brought in the past.Silentpony said:
And I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I'd also bring up something like despite the Nemesis system being broken by easy gameplay its still a great system that could be implemented in better games in the future and is something I'd enjoy the hell out of if developers learned the lesson from SoM.
I'd love to hear more than just the down notes is all. =P
I've never understood why people are so upset over this decision, given how well it does fit the mythos of the series. The entire alien conspiracy movement does contain a section where aliens invade covertly that inpsires the (at least initial) waves of alien attackers. Then the game follows through with a more overt alien invasion as things heat up. It's a great series, but there's other bits of the mythos to explore that isn't always done.Silentpony said:
Hence, XCOM 2. Where it follows the idea that aliens are actually in control of our governments, and only a dedicated few remain outside of alien control in order to fight back. It's still going with the aliens are real mythos.
The Nemesis system was interesting, yeah. What they should do is take the idea of it, put into a Assassin's Creed game, then set the whole thing in the 40k Universe.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
That's a game I would reserve negative comments on until after launch and recall.
Qizx said:
Gawd, how do you manage giving a link to the old version and not the new one, despite it being stickied? I've actually lost count on people doing this. T_TMarsAtlas said:
I'd be up for that. I'm not happy with the AAA games of late, though a few have been good recently. I feel that the failures of today can end up being the catalysts for success tomorrow, but as long as the fledgling devs of right now are learning the lessons the AAA devs are teaching, unknowingly.Silentpony said:
I feel personally we're in a holding pattern while the industry catches up to the general customer malaise. We're hurt by what I call the hardcore casuals, gamers who buy games but have no care to put their voice out and keep buying the same crap that is hurting (not ruining) the industry and gamers as a whole. These "hardcore casuals" are dangerous in that they represent the larger number of gamers and are probably unaware, willfully ignorant or otherwise, of the problems in the industry. Moreover they don't follow the trends, the pitfalls and such and don't add their voices to the discussion. Its just bad that the industry is driven by the people who buy without researching or keeping up in gaming and that overall is the biggest reason outside of the AAA publishers why games are being so crappy.
The difference is Xcom has failure as very much an option, sure you CAN save scum, you can play on super easy, but that's not how you should! When Chris or or Leon die in RE you lose, GG load up a save (Usually the same screen).Silentpony said:
When your favorite sniper dies in Xcom? Tough titties.
Argentina just left taking their money? Fuck off commander.
Failure is ALWAYS an option in Xcom and when you lose it doesn't just say "reload." Sure you can but the point is you lost, you failed earth.
I feel like the story line in XCOM 2 is an interesting one, although kind of "wasted". By that I mean, it's a perfect way to revive a story that was *supposed* to end on the bad note, yet there seems a whole lot of demand for a sequel so the best way to revive it is to play the bad note. Little pocket of resistance is always cool. I like how the "leave no man behind" kind of plays into the dramatic and patriotic fight back against all odds scenario.
Although it does annoy me somewhat, since I felt like the utter badass for beating Enemy Within on Hard (not Ironman though, sorry), it is successful in making me want to see how it all pans out. I mean, it'd be kind of stupid to play through yet another game and still be wiped out in the end anyway, heh.
Although it does annoy me somewhat, since I felt like the utter badass for beating Enemy Within on Hard (not Ironman though, sorry), it is successful in making me want to see how it all pans out. I mean, it'd be kind of stupid to play through yet another game and still be wiped out in the end anyway, heh.
I'd say the prospect of failure in XCOM isn't what he was complaining about. In fact, I'd say failure (be it squad wipes, falling behind on research) is a core feature of the series. No matter what you do, you will fail at some point, and sometimes this leads to the "game over" scenario.Qizx said:
But what do you do, then? Do you uninstall the game and never touch it again after it humiliated you?
Hell no! You boot a new game, learn from your mistakes, and go another round with the xeno scum. And you do better the second, third and tenth time around (assuming the early month missions roll in your favor by some miracle). That's what I love about XCOM; it forces you to learn from all your mistakes and losses so that, when you do beat Ironman / Impossible without any shortcuts, it makes the victory that much sweeter. When you fall down, you rise back up stronger.
And that's why I think XCOM 2's opening scenario of "you lost, dumbass" is counter-productive to one of the series best traits. Loss in XCOM is supposed to feel like a motivator to improve. Here, it feels like Firaxis is leaning on the meta-data of "99% of players couldn't beat I/I, so that must mean hardly anyone finished the game" to justify the current events. It feels like a mini-version of ME3's ending debacle, only without the creator's actively calling anyone who complains self-entitled whiners.
I guess my point is there are other ways to justify why the aliens won. They could have gone with you won the first invasion fleet, but then another 10 show up and decimate everything with ease, proving that you've still got a long way to go before you master the alien's technology. Just something that doesn't resort to the Metroid philosophy of every new game must start the player off with a large handicap to make it challenging.
Although, given the story hints and tidbits they've released so far, it's sounding like this is less of a sequel and more of an alternate timeline. The aliens didn't just attack Earth; they specifically targeted XCOM before moving against the rest of the planet. This makes me think the aliens somehow knew that, if given the opportunity, XCOM would find a way to thwart their plans. So, they find a way to warn themselves and adjust their invasion plan accordingly.
If this theory pans out, then that would make EU/EW's victory and loss scenarios both canon for different reasons. And it would make the Ethereals the ultimate save-scummers.
Like I said last time around I came to the understanding that if you can both win and lose Xcom EU/EW then it's like "Schrodinger's Cat" In that the first time line where you said Earth is fine, however the decisions that lead to that cause a parallel time line that results in the defeat of Xcom which still means the First Earth is fine but the GAME follows the timeline of the new second Earth that still needs saving from a hostile alien threat. So now you have to save a slightly different Earth than the one you knew before with a different history that might not be so familiar. Justice League has a pretty good example of what I mean with the "Justice League" and "Crime Syndicate".
Edit: Spoiler Alert the following clip is from a portion of the ending to "Justice League: Crisis on two Earths"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-rl0tfQO9E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-rl0tfQO9E
There's a skill I like to call "Cautious Cynicism". Basically instead of swinging wildly between any two extremes of being SUPER HYPED or SUPER ANGRY NEGATIVE, you take a little of both and live in a realistic balance. I've been excited for games that let me down and ones that I'd predicted correctly. I've also dismissed games that I thought wouldn't be fun that later proved successful and worthy of praise. If we really put this into perspective, you're saying that everything is shit. AAA games CAN'T be good. Positivity and optimism are childish retreats from the soul crushing reality of game developers working hard to deliver steaming piles shit.Silentpony said:
Why would anyone want to live in a world like this? Why wouldn't you want to get excited for something that's been proven to be a difficult genre to be continuing? It's like presuming Persona 5 is going to be shit because I don't get to play as Yu Narukami/Souji Seta anymore. Or Fallout New Vegas and 4 are pointless because I'm not the Lone Wanderer. Or hell, ANY fallout game after 1 because you're not controlling the Vault Dweller.
It also discounts the AAA games that ARE actually really good. Transformers Devastation, Portal 2, Spec Ops: The Line, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Shin Megami Tensei IV. The list can go on. Positivity is not a "blindness". Only bad JRPG villians really think that.
Anyone can be negative. SMT IV has an awful painful map system, Transformers Devastation is kind of short, Link Between Worlds changed the mechanics on how you get tools, Portal 2 had a couple kind of bad puzzles and changed the ending so GLaDOS wan't really dead, Deus Ex: Human Revolution had bad boss fights. It's pointless to just be mean and spiteful of things just because they weren't made how you wanted or were made by big name companies.
I'm honestly not sure which I'm looking forward to most at the moment, X-COM, Dark Souls or Persona but every time I hear anything about X-COM I get more exited about it.
The alien progress thing sounds good, but I think its going to be hard to balance. You want it to be really close to completion at the end of the game for drama, but you don't want to put the game into an unwinnable state if you aren't quick enough in the middle and didn't realise you don't have time at the end to win. I'm hoping that these missions will be that balancing factor.
The alien progress thing sounds good, but I think its going to be hard to balance. You want it to be really close to completion at the end of the game for drama, but you don't want to put the game into an unwinnable state if you aren't quick enough in the middle and didn't realise you don't have time at the end to win. I'm hoping that these missions will be that balancing factor.
The butthurt is strong with this one. While in essence, it's nothing different from just any developer deciding that their game has a canonical and non-canonical ending.Silentpony said:
Like darkside Revan in Kotor, darkside Kyle Katarn in the Jedi Knight series, all the female / male character in games where only one gender is canonical, etc. All those endings and possibilities were ignored as well to make the sequels or the continued story more coherent and interesting.
There's zero need to be butthurt. The fun times you had still existed, they weren't erased. Plus XCOM2 looks to add a ton more to that.