XCOM 2 Will Push Your Resistance Movement To Its Limits

GARforGunman

New member
Dec 12, 2010
14
0
0
zombiejoe said:
BeerTent said:
Holy shitballs the salt in this thread.

I don't get it, I really don't. The whole bit on "Oh mah gawd, We lost game 1, it's all invaleed nao!" Maybe 008Zulu's side on it helps me understand, but I'm not going to say my thoughts on that matter. Yes, you play to win the game, but if a game isn't fun to play, only fun to win, you're not having a good time.

zombiejoe said:
008Zulu said:
[...]

I have lost troops, but I have never lost a campaign. Every ending I got was the same;

My Psi trooper ordering the remaining off the ship ending

In regards for your possible explanation, while it is feasible, I would have the Devs tell us the official reason why.
It is possible to lose the campaign itself. Just because you yourself didn't do it doesn't mean it's not something that can't happen. Just look up "XCOM Enemy Unknown Game Over." The devs consider it an ending, and that's the one they want to explore.

Though I agree, a more in-depth look at how the humans lost the war wouldn't be so bad. I don't feel that its that important, but more details and story are always welcome.
There's a book detailing the loss, I don't have it, there's people far more dedicated than me who do though. And they say it's a pretty good book.

I think the main reason why we lost, other than your reason, was that XCOM:EW was pretty absurd. When you really think about it, the aliens having that level of resources, how was a scrappy team of 12 dudes, (or even in the case of LW, a organization of 70 dudes.) was going to stop them. I can't be the only one who thinks the aliens are phoning it in pretty hard. Even in LW, where I see 4 named aliens alongside a queen and think, "Okay, Fuckin' take Africa. I'm not goddamn dealing with this."
Agreed, friendo. The amount of salt here is tremendous. Even I'm drowning in the stuff.

I did hear about the book recently, so I guess that is a nice way to flesh out things for those who are interested in it. I might even need to check it out myself, even though I always considered XCOM to be a series more about the world scenarios and situations you're thrown in rather than a hardline story itself.

Like I've said before, even though I consider XCOM 2 to be more an "alternate timeline" than a "this is what actually happened" thing, I'm also fine believing that the aliens we went up against in EU/EW were just the start of what was to come. It seemed like what we fought was working for something much stronger. Though, I guess the book should clear up those details.
As someone who's read the novel, let me save you some time. XCOM 2 : Resurrection is pretty bad, not just as a tie-in novel meant to flesh out the world, but as a piece of literature in general. 90% of the book is spent following a group of underdeveloped characters that received the bare minimum of emotional depth as they're listlessly herded to each major plot point. Speaking of which, the main story rushes along like it has ADHD. There's no reprieve to let the actions and consequences hit a resonant note with the readers. It's a safe bet to say the author's understanding of the source material came from glancing at a wiki page and he churned it out to get a check.

Overall, you can look up the book's major events and details in any XCOM 2 thread and save yourself the time. There's only vague hints that establish why XCOM lost the first, and they could have been easily implemented into a few flashback cut-scenes in XCOM 2 and achieved more immersion that way. If you're looking for a story that captures the sense of urgency, fear and triumph in the face of adversity, you won't find it in XCOM 2: Resurrection. You're better off watching Beaglerush's Let's Play series or reading fan-based character accounts to get the XCOM experience outside the game.

Hell, there's an XCOM EW / My Little Pony FIM crossover fic that fleshes out the game's setting and characters in creative ways that stays truer to the spirit of XCOM than this novel does.

I will say this much for the novel, though. It has convinced me that XCOM 2 is set not only in an alternate timeline, but one in which the Ethereals knew of the defeat in EU/EW. In EU/EW, the Ethereals' invasion was meant to push XCOM and mankind to their limits to see if they could evolve into the perfect new host for them. According to the novel, the invasion was less of a planetary science experiment and more of a full-on war. All tracking satellites were shot down almost as soon as they were launched, abductions were designed to instill mass panic instead of furthering their research efforts, and the aliens ended up discovering XCOM's base and ancillary facilities after infiltrating the first few nations that pulled out of the project. And then they bombarded them all simultaneously.

Some will see it as the logical progression of an alien invasion of this type, but for those who've completed any successful EU/EW campaign can tell these are calculated strikes to ensure mankind (and XCOM in particular) don't get any chance to study their technology. And the only plausible narrative reason I can find for this is that the aliens know what happens if they give XCOM opportunities to reverse-engineer their abilities; they are defeated. In this timeline, they already know humans have the abilities they're searching for and are trying to minimize the risks of any resistance movement studying even a fraction of their technology.

But that's my two cents. Take it for what it is.
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
008Zulu said:
Radoh said:
If you can't think of something relevant
You're the one that brought up the argument about games teaching hard lessons, not me.
Yes I did, then you completely ignored the point I made about Spec Ops and then moved it to COD, which is not in any stretch of the imagination the same thing, in both the focus and tone of the stories as well as the focus of development effort by the teams making it.
One of them is making a power fantasy where you are a super soldier decimating any battle you are a part of in a game where all the attention was in the Multiplayer, and the other is an in-depth look at war crimes and PTSD while painting a meta narrative of how you (the player) are looking to be something you are not and that it's pathetic that you even tried, and where the multiplayer was thrown on because they were forced to make one.
COD, as you said yourself, focuses on the Multiplayer, and the fact that Spec Ops does not should have been enough of a tip-off that you shouldn't compare the two when trying to make an argument.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kajin said:
Movies aren't interactive, though. A VN might be mostly about telling a story, but at the end of the day you're still making choices to drive the plot forward with victory and failure conditions based on choices you make. For certain definitions of "winning" and "losing", but winning and losing nonetheless. That makes them games. A different variety of game from what you'd prefer but still a game. That's all beside the point, though.
I have played a lot of visual novel games (I feel Telltale titles fall in to this category), no matter the playthrough, they always have ended the same. We don't really decide the course of the story, we are there just to read someone's creative fiction.

Kajin said:
It certainly was. Indeed, one tends to want to win a war that one is fighting. Obviously a win condition was prerequisite to playing XCOM as that's what you were working towards. Doesn't mean it actually canonically happens, though. Or happens the way you want it to. Or whatever. Honestly I see nothing wrong with the devs embracing whatever narrative they wish to tell with THEIR game. Because it is THEIR'S to do with as THEY wish.

I'd rather employ the age old tradition of "wait and see" before making any claims of RUINED FOREVER, but even now I like the direction they're taking the game. It's definitely a rather interesting idea regardless of anyone that thinks the devs owe them anything other than a game that might be enjoyable to play.
Yes it is theirs to do as they please, and if not making a coherent story is a choice they want to make, then it is theirs to do so. But they have to accept the fact that people will criticize them for it.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
erttheking said:
Winning or not winning Xcom was not my point. My point was that the sequel doesn't follow the narrative they have already established. And failing on first playthrough is an inconsequential point, unless they allow players to import saves.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Radoh said:
So you consider getting PTSD fun, or a good use of your time? Or even playing a character that has to go through it? I can't imagine any reason why anyone would.
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
008Zulu said:
Radoh said:
So you consider getting PTSD fun, or a good use of your time? Or even playing a character that has to go through it? I can't imagine any reason why anyone would.
Alright so you started by saying all games are is a power fantasy, after pointing out that this is wrong you start arguing that there's no value in having a game that isn't a power fantasy. Great.
However since the original point I was trying to make is that not all games are power fantasies I'm officially exiting this conversation because it is a real chore talking to you about this.
I'm genuinely sorry that you don't see the value in any emotions other than ones that make you feel good.
 

LordLundar

New member
Apr 6, 2004
962
0
0
Kajin said:
Silentpony said:
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!"
Where could they POSSIBLY take the plot, though? Congratulations! You beat back the alien invasion and won the last game! Time to repel another alien invasion, but because you were so OP at the end of last game we took away everything you had so you have to start over. Or they reboot it and say the events of the last game never happened at all and THIS is the new XCOM, bigger and shinier but pretty much just the same game. This is actually a really good idea for a sequel.
Quite simply explain that what was repelled was an analytical force, sent to assess the planet. When the last signal sent was the capital ship's destruction the Xeno's response was essentially "welp, time to stop treating them with kid gloves." It was done loosely with C&C3 as well as the anime Tekkaman Blade. It's not a hard concept but instead we're getting the "all that effort you did? waste of time."
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
008Zulu said:
erttheking said:
Winning or not winning Xcom was not my point. My point was that the sequel doesn't follow the narrative they have already established. And failing on first playthrough is an inconsequential point, unless they allow players to import saves.
What is this narrative they're violating? The narrative established very early on that humanity was massively outgunned. XCOM only stopped the temple ship from destroying the entire planet out of a fluke. Really another one could've come in after that and onquered the entire race in a day.

Oh yeah, the only reason the aliens didn't conquer us faster is that they were holding back, and they stopped holding back at the end when they realized we weren't playing by their rules.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
008Zulu said:
Kajin said:
Movies aren't interactive, though. A VN might be mostly about telling a story, but at the end of the day you're still making choices to drive the plot forward with victory and failure conditions based on choices you make. For certain definitions of "winning" and "losing", but winning and losing nonetheless. That makes them games. A different variety of game from what you'd prefer but still a game. That's all beside the point, though.
I have played a lot of visual novel games (I feel Telltale titles fall in to this category), no matter the playthrough, they always have ended the same. We don't really decide the course of the story, we are there just to read someone's creative fiction.
I wouldn't count anything by Telltale as a visual novel. More like movies with quick time events? Bah. Besides, you can't have played very many (or any at all) if you believe that they all come down to one singular ending. Most of them have at least several, not counting whatever fail states that cause a game over along the way. Some of them have dozens of possible endings. And every one of them picked out by what actions you pick in the story, as few and far in between as they may be. There are choices. There are victory states and failure states that result from those choices. That makes them games. I don't understand why you're failing to grasp such a simple concept.

Yes it is theirs to do as they please, and if not making a coherent story is a choice they want to make, then it is theirs to do so. But they have to accept the fact that people will criticize them for it.
And criticize you can. Doesn't make that criticism correct. Or even rational. The devs state that the canonical end of the first game is that we lost. They could justify it using any one of a potential dozen possible ways and it would make narrative sense. Just because their narrative is not the same narrative you tell yourself when you play the game doesn't mean it lacks any sense. It just means you're upset that you're not getting it your way. Be as upset about it as you want, but it doesn't make your arguments valid.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Daftmau5 said:
you simply dont understand why anyone would want something more
I understand that some people want more out of games, but I would like to know why anyone would knowingly subject themselves to such horrors.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
erttheking said:
What is this narrative they're violating? The narrative established very early on that humanity was massively outgunned. XCOM only stopped the temple ship from destroying the entire planet out of a fluke. Really another one could've come in after that and onquered the entire race in a day.

Oh yeah, the only reason the aliens didn't conquer us faster is that they were holding back, and they stopped holding back at the end when they realized we weren't playing by their rules.
Yes we were outgunned, and destroying the ship could be construed as a fluke. But the developers haven't given a reason as to why humanity lost beyond "we wanted to take the game in a different direction". There is no logical in game reason for the sudden change.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kajin said:
I would say, at most, I have played maybe 20 visual novel games. I will just come out and say that the format bores me. Nothing else to it than that. Maybe there are ones with branching stories, where choices do matter. None of the ones I have played have had such a mechanic (Some Japanese Dating sims do, but they are romance simulators, and don't qualify). This is going back some 20 years too, it's not like I just started gaming.

Considering they haven't offered up a rationale for the sudden change, I would suggest that my criticisms are more valid than theirs.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
008Zulu said:
erttheking said:
What is this narrative they're violating? The narrative established very early on that humanity was massively outgunned. XCOM only stopped the temple ship from destroying the entire planet out of a fluke. Really another one could've come in after that and onquered the entire race in a day.

Oh yeah, the only reason the aliens didn't conquer us faster is that they were holding back, and they stopped holding back at the end when they realized we weren't playing by their rules.
Yes we were outgunned, and destroying the ship could be construed as a fluke. But the developers haven't given a reason as to why humanity lost beyond "we wanted to take the game in a different direction". There is no logical in game reason for the sudden change.
No, there is a logical reason. The aliens were holding back the entire time. And losing was still a very real option. If losing is a massive possibility if they're holding back, imagine if they give it their all.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
008Zulu said:
Considering they haven't offered up a rationale for the sudden change, I would suggest that my criticisms are more valid than theirs.
And you've yet to give me any sort of reason why your criticism is in any way valid. I would suggest that my criticism of you is more valid then your criticism of them.
008Zulu said:
Radoh said:
Games are entertainment, entertainment is supposed to make you feel good. It's as simple as that.
Entertainment is supposed to be entertaining. That does not automatically include "making you feel good". If it did a large amount of media would simply not exist, because "making you feel good" was never its goal.

008Zulu said:
Daftmau5 said:
you simply dont understand why anyone would want something more
I understand that some people want more out of games, but I would like to know why anyone would knowingly subject themselves to such horrors.
It's a form of emotional release. Experiencing an emotion in a safe, controlled environment can be thrilling. It's why roller coasters exist. It's why horror movies exist. It's why stories with heartbreaking events that leave you a crying wreck exist. People find emotions like horror and fear and sadness tantalizing, so they consume that which allows them to experience such emotions without actually being damaged by them.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
LordLundar said:
When the last signal sent was the capital ship's destruction the Xeno's response was essentially "welp, time to stop treating them with kid gloves." It was done loosely with C&C3 as well as the anime Tekkaman Blade. It's not a hard concept but instead we're getting the "all that effort you did? waste of time."
It's only a waste of time if you yourself consider your time wasted. Did you play the first game? Did you derive enjoyment from it? Did you feel your money was well spent and that you had a good time when you initially finished playing the game? Then your time wasn't at all wasted. If you think that "oh, you lose canonically" is enough to make all of that a waste of time then you must not actually enjoy playing games all that much.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Kajin said:
yet to give me any sort of reason why your criticism is in any way valid
Since there very beginning, I have been calling them out on their lack of coherent storytelling. Go see for yourself.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
erttheking said:
No, there is a logical reason. The aliens were holding back the entire time. And losing was still a very real option. If losing is a massive possibility if they're holding back, imagine if they give it their all.
Why would they hold back when their entire intention was to test the human race for potential?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
008Zulu said:
erttheking said:
No, there is a logical reason. The aliens were holding back the entire time. And losing was still a very real option. If losing is a massive possibility if they're holding back, imagine if they give it their all.
Why would they hold back when their entire intention was to test the human race for potential?
Because they wanted to see if humanity had the gift and they couldn't do that if they just went in and steamrolled them all.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
008Zulu said:
Kajin said:
yet to give me any sort of reason why your criticism is in any way valid
Since there very beginning, I have been calling them out on their lack of coherent storytelling. Go see for yourself.
Since the very beginning you've done naught but complain about a game with bare minimum story elements choosing to do a sequel where humanity ultimately lost. Further, you're doing so without even knowing any details of the story in said sequel, claiming it makes no sense when you lack all the necessary information that would allow you to make an actual, compelling argument. All the while you've been acting like the developers have wronged you on a personal level.

I feel quite confident in saying your criticisms are meaningless. At least wait until the game comes out and the story can be scrutinized before crying about how the plot is entirely incoherent. If the story actually IS incoherent then, hey, point for you and your precognizant, far seeing badassness. I won't care. I'll be too busy playing the game and likely enjoying it. Or playing something else if the reviews suck.