Am I the only one who feels like this has been "dumbed down"?

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Cirkelinespark
#51 Posted by Cirkelinespark (396 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"][QUOTE="dzimm"]

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"]

I'm kinda disappointed now that I tried it. First off, this game is very linear and that's what I hate most about it, there's simply too much hand holding going on.

Any weapon you get through engineering is instantly made...like what the hell? Also there's no ammo clips in the game, only 3 different grenades(no proximity) which also are given to your squad.

1 alien base ...ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!? Huge letdown.

Alien squads seem to "spawn" rather than being there at the site. And the enemy always know where you are, so forget stealthy approach.

Very scripted combat, for instance, the enemy never open doors, ever. When a pack of aliens are seen, they always get a free move.

And there's a lot of detail missing as well, just to mention one: when a ufo crashes, the alien crew is always alive, no one died from the crash.

The game is also very short, I'm already at the last mission.

dzimm

A couple of things:

The aliens don't get a free move. It's just a little sequence to add color and make it more interesting than finding the aliens already hunkered down. I like it.

I have seen aliens open doors if it's the most direct path to their objective.

Weapons getting manufactured instantly, eh, I suppose it's an oddity considering the manufacturing time on everything else, but it doesn't really bother me. Maybe they have Star Trek replicators that can create small items.

Different ammo clips... well, I've never played the original so I can't say how it compares, but I'm having trouble imagining how juggling different ammo types adds genuine depth rather than merely piling on the busy work.

I played for several hours last night, and it is my impression that the strident cries of "Dumbed down!" don't have much merit. The game might be simplified to a certain extent, but I don't get the sense that it is simple. There is a difference.

Please go play the original, then come back and we'll talk.

Oh, wonderful, an elitist response.  :roll:

What did I say? Try the original first so you can compare. Better ?
Avatar image for Adam_GI
#52 Posted by Adam_GI (25 posts) -

Oi has any one really played it or I don't know turned off the tutorial? Sure I have my gripes but seriously half of the ragging is either false or could be dealt with by turning off the tutorial or spending $50 in the officer school. Rags about game being mainstreamed or dumbed down, plays on mainstream or dumbed down difficulty. I only wish they would have made the Jagged Alliance remake this good.

Avatar image for dzimm
#53 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -

What did I say? Try the original first so you can compare. Better ?

So, what, you think I'll automatically agree with your opinion if I play the original?

Frankly, what this says to me is that you can't elucidate your point and explain why certain features would add genuine depth rather than merely being busy work. I get a strong scent of "It's different, so it sucks" from your various postings on this forum.

I suppose it might be worthwhile to discuss exactly what is meant by the term "depth" and why a game like Enemy Unknown supposedly can't have it.

Avatar image for alphatango1
#54 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

There seems to be two premises here. The OP is comparing the original with the new and saying it is dumbed down. Others are maintaining its still as good and does not require more 'depth' without ever having played the original.

No one is saying the latest incarnation isn't good or fun, they are merely pointing out that it has been overly simplified.

Having played both I agree.  

Avatar image for stan_boyd
#55 Posted by stan_boyd (4925 posts) -
I agree that its been simplified, however I don't think its been oversimplified. They took out all the monotonous tedious busywork so you could focus more on the fun stuff. Thats my opinion anyways, I played the original and Terror from the Deep and I actually like this game more.
Avatar image for alphatango1
#56 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

Well at least you have tried both , that goes some way in qualifying your opinion.

Ultimately it comes down to subjective personal preferences. I like more choices and options and you prefer a more linear, simplified approach.

So there you have it.

Avatar image for stan_boyd
#57 Posted by stan_boyd (4925 posts) -
I just felt there was too much stuff you had to do at your bases in the original, you spend probably half the game at the bases scrolling through menu's when I would rather have my men out in the field trying to outmaneuver my enemies. But that my personal opinion, while I did enjoy the original X-Com I soon forgot about it when games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Vandal Hearts came out because then it was all maneuvering my pieces and very very little menu work.
Avatar image for dzimm
#58 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -

No one is saying the latest incarnation isn't good or fun, they are merely pointing out that it has been overly simplified.alphatango1

I think part of the problem is that describing a game as "dumbed down" and "overly simplified" is implicitely insulting to those who happen to enjoy it.  Even your statement, "I like more choices and options and you prefer a more linear, simplified approach," is (I assume) unintentionally insulting.  Perhaps you could have said, "I like micromanagement and you prefer focusing on the broader strategy."

I would go so far as to say that "more choices" does not necessarily equal "more depth", especially if those choices are busy work (like deciding which direction your soldier should face at the end of a turn) or one choice is obviously superior to the others (such as using the ammo with the highest hit percentage and greatest damage).  Think of it this way: if you have two games with equal depth but one offers fewer choices, the upshot is that each choice carries more weight and becomes more significant.


Avatar image for Cirkelinespark
#59 Posted by Cirkelinespark (396 posts) -

What did I say? Try the original first so you can compare. Better ?dzimm

So, what, you think I'll automatically agree with your opinion if I play the original?

Frankly, what this says to me is that you can't elucidate your point and explain why certain features would add genuine depth rather than merely being busy work. I get a strong scent of "It's different, so it sucks" from your various postings on this forum.

I suppose it might be worthwhile to discuss exactly what is meant by the term "depth" and why a game like Enemy Unknown supposedly can't have it.

How can you compare something you know nothing of? You're making assumptions on something you have no clue about. And no, I do like when it's different, but this is watered down way too much. There are some things I like in the new X-COM, for instance I do like that the tetris is gone, that was a pain honestly. I also like the new base overview. I like the facility bonus, leaves room for some strategic base setup. The research is also a lot better, in the original you could just research everything right off the bat which I hated. Graphics are great as well. The worst thing is that it's linear, had it stayed sandbox, then this game would be great and it would have a lot of replayability. Other than that, this game offers very little replay, because it's no longer sandbox, and as far I can tell the dice is rigged which only makes this game even worse.
Avatar image for dzimm
#60 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -

You're making assumptions on something you have no clue about.Cirkelinespark

No, I was asking if you could support your claims that the game is "dumbed down". If the best you can do is say, "Play the original and you'll see what I'm talking about," then it makes me question if you even understand your own criticism. You should be able to explain your own point of view and give examples without me having to play the original. The fact that you can't -- beyond reiterating your basic premise that "more options = depth" -- compels me to wonder how valid your complaints really are.

That said, you do have a point that the game is not completely open-ended. I don't know how this affects replayability; however, it does seem there is a lot of randomness and room for strategic creativity in between set piece missions. Maybe it could be described as a structured sandbox.

Avatar image for Cirkelinespark
#61 Posted by Cirkelinespark (396 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"]You're making assumptions on something you have no clue about.dzimm

No, I was asking if you could support your claims that the game is "dumbed down". If the best you can do is say, "Play the original and you'll see what I'm talking about," then it makes me question if you even understand your own criticism. You should be able to explain your own point of view and give examples without me having to play the original. The fact that you can't -- beyond reiterating your basic premise that "more options = depth" -- compels me to wonder how valid your complaints really are.

That said, you do have a point that the game is not completely open-ended. I don't know how this affects replayability; however, it does seem there is a lot of randomness and room for strategic creativity in between set piece missions. Maybe it could be described as a structured sandbox.

Well I thought you might enjoy the game and see for yourself and save me the arguement. It has it's own charm. At first it's really overwhelming, but when you figure it out, it really shines and you're in for a load of fun. I'm not saying more options is depth, but it would be nice the have say, a general overview of all your inventory for instance? What if I want to get rid of my old weapons now that I just got my new plasma weaponry. It's just left there to rot for the rest of the game. What if I want to check out what kind of armor my squad got? Guess I'll have to look through each soldier to figure that out compared to getting an overview of who has what. The squad is also really limited in terms of inventory. I can only have 1(!) grenade and no medikit, or 1 medikit and no grenade...are you kidding me? Even you should find this ridiculous. Why can't I pick up items and put them in my inventory? Oh right THERE ISNT ONE! "Damn my support guy just got killed, wait let me go pick it up his medikit with assault guy"...yeah you get it now. So annoying. There are loads of small details left out as well, such as the no casualty on crash I mentioned before. Some may see this as petty and not important, but it's the details that makes a game great, something the majority of devs don't get. The only thing considered sandbox'y would probably be the baselayout the rest is just very limited or as you said structured sandbox. You should really give the original a go. At first you might be disgusted by the somewhat horrible graphics, just hang in there, it'll go away.
Avatar image for dzimm
#62 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -
[QUOTE="dzimm"]

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"]You're making assumptions on something you have no clue about.Cirkelinespark

No, I was asking if you could support your claims that the game is "dumbed down". If the best you can do is say, "Play the original and you'll see what I'm talking about," then it makes me question if you even understand your own criticism. You should be able to explain your own point of view and give examples without me having to play the original. The fact that you can't -- beyond reiterating your basic premise that "more options = depth" -- compels me to wonder how valid your complaints really are.

That said, you do have a point that the game is not completely open-ended. I don't know how this affects replayability; however, it does seem there is a lot of randomness and room for strategic creativity in between set piece missions. Maybe it could be described as a structured sandbox.

Well I thought you might enjoy the game and see for yourself and save me the arguement. It has it's own charm. At first it's really overwhelming, but when you figure it out, it really shines and you're in for a load of fun. I'm not saying more options is depth, but it would be nice the have say, a general overview of all your inventory for instance? What if I want to get rid of my old weapons now that I just got my new plasma weaponry. It's just left there to rot for the rest of the game. What if I want to check out what kind of armor my squad got? Guess I'll have to look through each soldier to figure that out compared to getting an overview of who has what. The squad is also really limited in terms of inventory. I can only have 1(!) grenade and no medikit, or 1 medikit and no grenade...are you kidding me? Even you should find this ridiculous. Why can't I pick up items and put them in my inventory? Oh right THERE ISNT ONE! "Damn my support guy just got killed, wait let me go pick it up his medikit with assault guy"...yeah you get it now. So annoying. There are loads of small details left out as well, such as the no casualty on crash I mentioned before. Some may see this as petty and not important, but it's the details that makes a game great, something the majority of devs don't get. The only thing considered sandbox'y would probably be the baselayout the rest is just very limited or as you said structured sandbox. You should really give the original a go. At first you might be disgusted by the somewhat horrible graphics, just hang in there, it'll go away.

I'm not a graphics whore so dated graphics don't bother me. Most of your criticisms seem to center around interface issues, like having to look at each soldier individually to see what they have equipped. I suspect this is due to the fact that the game was developed for consoles as well as the PC, the former having a more limited input interface compared to mouse and keyboard. You mention limited load-out options. No, actually, I don't think it's ridiculous since it forces you to make tough choices -- this is a good example of what I was talking about earlier where giving you fewer choices actually increases the weight and significance of each choice. I also like that it leads to specialization of your troops instead of everybody being a jack-of-all-trades. The lack of a field inventory I don't find to be that big of a deal (maybe I'd feel different if I had played the original? I don't know. I may get around to playing it in the future.). The fact that you can't run your point man over to pick up the med kit might be one of those "suspension of disbelief" moments, but I feel that it again forces you to make tough choices. Do you risk your only medic or play it safe so he can be around to heal your guys in a later round? Do you sacrifice grenades and scopes to equip your other soldiers with med kits? There's no optimal answer which I think actually increases rather decreases the depth.
Avatar image for Cirkelinespark
#63 Posted by Cirkelinespark (396 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"][QUOTE="dzimm"]

No, I was asking if you could support your claims that the game is "dumbed down". If the best you can do is say, "Play the original and you'll see what I'm talking about," then it makes me question if you even understand your own criticism. You should be able to explain your own point of view and give examples without me having to play the original. The fact that you can't -- beyond reiterating your basic premise that "more options = depth" -- compels me to wonder how valid your complaints really are.

That said, you do have a point that the game is not completely open-ended. I don't know how this affects replayability; however, it does seem there is a lot of randomness and room for strategic creativity in between set piece missions. Maybe it could be described as a structured sandbox.

dzimm

Well I thought you might enjoy the game and see for yourself and save me the arguement. It has it's own charm. At first it's really overwhelming, but when you figure it out, it really shines and you're in for a load of fun. I'm not saying more options is depth, but it would be nice the have say, a general overview of all your inventory for instance? What if I want to get rid of my old weapons now that I just got my new plasma weaponry. It's just left there to rot for the rest of the game. What if I want to check out what kind of armor my squad got? Guess I'll have to look through each soldier to figure that out compared to getting an overview of who has what. The squad is also really limited in terms of inventory. I can only have 1(!) grenade and no medikit, or 1 medikit and no grenade...are you kidding me? Even you should find this ridiculous. Why can't I pick up items and put them in my inventory? Oh right THERE ISNT ONE! "Damn my support guy just got killed, wait let me go pick it up his medikit with assault guy"...yeah you get it now. So annoying. There are loads of small details left out as well, such as the no casualty on crash I mentioned before. Some may see this as petty and not important, but it's the details that makes a game great, something the majority of devs don't get. The only thing considered sandbox'y would probably be the baselayout the rest is just very limited or as you said structured sandbox. You should really give the original a go. At first you might be disgusted by the somewhat horrible graphics, just hang in there, it'll go away.

I'm not a graphics whore so dated graphics don't bother me. Most of your criticisms seem to center around interface issues, like having to look at each soldier individually to see what they have equipped. I suspect this is due to the fact that the game was developed for consoles as well as the PC, the former having a more limited input interface compared to mouse and keyboard. You mention limited load-out options. No, actually, I don't think it's ridiculous since it forces you to make tough choices -- this is a good example of what I was talking about earlier where giving you fewer choices actually increases the weight and significance of each choice. I also like that it leads to specialization of your troops instead of everybody being a jack-of-all-trades. The lack of a field inventory I don't find to be that big of a deal (maybe I'd feel different if I had played the original? I don't know. I may get around to playing it in the future.). The fact that you can't run your point man over to pick up the med kit might be one of those "suspension of disbelief" moments, but I feel that it again forces you to make tough choices. Do you risk your only medic or play it safe so he can be around to heal your guys in a later round? Do you sacrifice grenades and scopes to equip your other soldiers with med kits? There's no optimal answer which I think actually increases rather decreases the depth.

I'm glad that you're not a graphics whore! Those are the worst! :)

Most of the dumbing down is actually the interface and it's options, but also the economy. I agree with you on the console part, I do too think that's why things have been kept down, toned down. Also, this game was made for a larger audience, so that pretty much explains it.

Yeah it is all about choices and setups, either choose this or that, which does makes it feel limited to some extent and not very flexible.

Avatar image for dzimm
#64 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -
Yeah it is all about choices and setups, either choose this or that, which does makes it feel limited to some extent and not very flexible.Cirkelinespark
It's those limitations forcing tough decisions that I think are one of the best parts of the game.
Avatar image for Cirkelinespark
#65 Posted by Cirkelinespark (396 posts) -

It's those limitations forcing tough decisions that I think are one of the best parts of the game. dzimm

What?! Why?

Avatar image for alphatango1
#66 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"]Yeah it is all about choices and setups, either choose this or that, which does makes it feel limited to some extent and not very flexible.dzimm
It's those limitations forcing tough decisions that I think are one of the best parts of the game.

= Fail

Avatar image for Wassabi21
#67 Posted by Wassabi21 (25 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cirkelinespark"]Yeah it is all about choices and setups, either choose this or that, which does makes it feel limited to some extent and not very flexible.dzimm
It's those limitations forcing tough decisions that I think are one of the best parts of the game.

 

100% agree. The constant triage is what makes this game so intense and engaging. "Do I save this soldier, or that soldier? Do I research the new weapon, or the new aircraft? Do I build a lab, or a workshop?" Particularly in the beginning of the campaign, when the odds are stacked so heavily against you, is when this game is at it's best, in my opinion. 

As for the dumbing down, I never played an XCOM game before this, so I wouldn't know. But I do know that this game is one of the best strategy games I've ever played on a console.

Avatar image for dzimm
#68 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -

[QUOTE="dzimm"]It's those limitations forcing tough decisions that I think are one of the best parts of the game. Cirkelinespark

What?! Why?

Because contrary to the premise of this thread, I think it actually adds a lot of depth. You have to balance the pros and cons of each and every decision and determine if, for example, it's worth losing the accuracy bonus of a scope in order to carry a med kit. Or deciding if you should use your second move to shoot and hope for a lucky hit on an alien, or dash your soldier to better cover and try to ride it out until your next turn.

My experience with the game tells me that there are few occasions where the decisions you face have an obvious "right" or optimal answer, which I think is an awesome feature for a strategy game.

Avatar image for alphatango1
#69 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

I don't see how you can say that by reducing the options, restricting the load out and other previously granted freedoms it is adding depth.

Yes, you have to make a strategic choice at the expense of selecting another but that is not depth by any stretch of the imagination.

Avatar image for stan_boyd
#70 Posted by stan_boyd (4925 posts) -

I don't see how you can say that by reducing the options, restricting the load out and other previously granted freedoms it is adding depth.

Yes, you have to make a strategic choice at the expense of selecting another but that is not depth by any stretch of the imagination.

alphatango1
Depends what you consider deep I guess. I found that the original games had to much busy work and I didn't care about my soldier cause I had so many of them that I just thought of them as cannon fodder. With this game I feel every soldier is important and since I can only research one thing at a time I find myself thinking more about what I should do. But to each their own, alot of people consider the original xcoms the best strategy games ever, I thought they were awesome, until I started playing FF Tactics and Vandal Hearts and Fire Emblem then I kinda forgot about xcom because I only enjoyed half the game, the half where I was trying to outmaneouver my enemies, all the menu work was just dull and repetitive to me.
Avatar image for dzimm
#71 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -

Yes, you have to make a strategic choice at the expense of selecting another but that is not depth by any stretch of the imagination.alphatango1
Why not? Having to make tough mutually exclusive decisions that have wide reaching implications is the very definition of depth.

Avatar image for alphatango1
#72 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

One man's poison is anothers champagne.

We shall agree to disagree,

Avatar image for veryraiser
#74 Posted by veryraiser (52 posts) -

No, you sir are not alone to think like that. The game it self is an abomination of Xcom series. I was playing on normal just to demo the game. I lost the count on how many times my ppl missed with 92% hit chance WITH THE **** SHOTGUN, that is an epic feat in it's own right. No matter how many times I load the game they just miss, no matter the position they take!!!!. It's either scripted or plain retarded game development. Intercepting vessels is a best described as a developers attempt to joke with ppl how loved and enjoyed original, all the while calling it amazingly super intelligent! Suppressing enemy unit or a group doesn't count as shot/ing. Let me get this straight, you are behind a card box, I fire say 2/3 of my magazine at you and none of the bullets actually hit you, yeah right!!!!. In what universe is that good thing. Not to mention absurdity such as making one step counts as same as scaling the the freaking skyscraper without using a ladder, whilst wearing a full battle armor/gear. Bro, not even a crash bandicoot and jazz jackrabbit can't do that kind of sh*t. Sure some things are improved such as graphics, that is if you don't mind the glitches. Also, having a destructible cover and not being able to shot while enemies are not present, not counting grenades and launchers is what? Idiotic at best. And please don't get me started at literally impossible angles at which most of the shots are coming from, mainly from your squad. Next, inability to target various body parts, I DON'T WANT TO SHOT EVERYTHING IN A HEAD FIRAXIS! Why can't you just use shotgun and blast the legs of chrysalids or mutons, and then watch them trying to infect or jump to balcony. Next, no inventory really Firaxis, I mean really?! Can't salvage medikit from a downed support, I don't want to perform a heart transplant on a battlefield, i just want to stabilize her/him! Next extremely annoying thing, why can't you take a pot shot/snap shot, why it has to be a burst. This just on top of head without going into a details. This game doesn't deserve to have an X in it's title, let alone a complete Xcom Enemy Unknown. I would be alright with anything else, but putting whole title like that is insulting to say the least. I understand that as a developers they have their vision of the game. That is completely cool in my book, they tried to give their version/vision of legendary Xcom. Again, that is alright, BUT DO NOT CALL IT AN XCOM ENEMY UNKNOWN. Call it Xjoke Firaxis attempt to cash in on a legend- Fans known. Because it is not, in this form it constitutes a robbery material and intellectual. And this is putting it lightly. Calling it dumbed down is understatement.

Avatar image for dzimm
#75 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -

GameSpy just posted an interesting article based on the general premise that "simpler games can be smarter" and using XCOM: Enemy Unknown as an example.

"XCOM:EU may be simpler, but the problems I'm using its tools to solve are as thorny as those I've encountered in more hardcore wargames. You can move and take an action, or you can move far and take no action. This is pretty much the same choice I face 95% of the time in a wargame. The difference is that XCOM:EU expresses it simply as a 'run, or take a smaller move and shoot.' A more 'serious' game expresses the same dilemma as 'use 13 points for movement and crouch for 1, or use 6 points for movement and take a shot for 8.' XCOM:EU never wants you to spend your time worrying about those numbers and counting spaces; it just wants you to move from tradeoff to tradeoff."

He then mentions that games like classic XCOM and Jagged Alliance could occasionally have really awesome moments thanks to the increased flexibility but that those moments were the execption rather than the rule and that "Firaxis chose to lop off some of the highest peaks of which those games were capable, in order to remove deeper and wider valleys. The result is a game that's designed to operate in a tactical sweet-spot . . . I've spent as long trying to construct the 'perfect turn' in XCOM:EU as I ever have in Jagged Alliance 2 counting action points."

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/xcom-enemy-unknown/1226388p1.html

Avatar image for stan_boyd
#76 Posted by stan_boyd (4925 posts) -

GameSpy just posted an interesting article based on the general premise that "simpler games can be smarter" and using XCOM: Enemy Unknown as an example.

"XCOM:EU may be simpler, but the problems I'm using its tools to solve are as thorny as those I've encountered in more hardcore wargames. You can move and take an action, or you can move far and take no action. This is pretty much the same choice I face 95% of the time in a wargame. The difference is that XCOM:EU expresses it simply as a 'run, or take a smaller move and shoot.' A more 'serious' game expresses the same dilemma as 'use 13 points for movement and crouch for 1, or use 6 points for movement and take a shot for 8.' XCOM:EU never wants you to spend your time worrying about those numbers and counting spaces; it just wants you to move from tradeoff to tradeoff."

He then mentions that games like classic XCOM and Jagged Alliance could occasionally have really awesome moments thanks to the increased flexibility but that those moments were the execption rather than the rule and that "Firaxis chose to lop off some of the highest peaks of which those games were capable, in order to remove deeper and wider valleys. The result is a game that's designed to operate in a tactical sweet-spot . . . I've spent as long trying to construct the 'perfect turn' in XCOM:EU as I ever have in Jagged Alliance 2 counting action points."

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/xcom-enemy-unknown/1226388p1.html

dzimm
Angry Joe said pretty much the same thing in his review.
Avatar image for dzimm
#77 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -
I watched an Angry Joe video once. I am determined to never repeat that mistake.
Avatar image for stan_boyd
#78 Posted by stan_boyd (4925 posts) -
ha ha I like angry joes, reviews, while I might not always agree with him, his videos are usually 10-20 mins long instead of 5 mins and he points out more flaws in games than GS does. But sometimes his fanboyism can be umm fanboyist.
Avatar image for dzimm
#79 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -
I'm all for a lengthy, detailed review. I just found the "Angry Joe" persona intensely annoying.
Avatar image for MirkoS77
#80 Posted by MirkoS77 (14251 posts) -

Posted this as a reply to another in another thread.  I must say I'm really enjoying EU but really do think it doesn't touch the original, and here's a few reasons why:

 1) The game selects for me which class all of my troops become.  I hate this and hope modders fix it asap.  There's no choice on who I want who to be and what role I wish them to play. What if I want to take out a squad of all assault? Or all support? Snipers? It CAN be done but I have to recruit 30+ soldiers and then go through the trouble of using them all until the game decides what they are best suited for.  As the game progresses this becomes more and more difficult and risky, eventually to the point of near futility later on. Why can't I decide that from the start through stats instead of having to wait for the game to do it for me? I fail to see the benefit except to make the game more accessible or perhaps try to encourage a mixed squad.

Here's my problem: if all my heavys get killed and some are injured, I no longer have the freedom to have any unless I've worked all my FNGs up to squaddies.  Bam!....an entire class of soldier has effectively been removed from the field.  This should not even be a possibility.  I have to take out a rookie and pray s/he eventually turns into a heavy, while at the same time compromising my squad selection and endangering the lives of my vets due to his/her inexperience.  There've been times I've been unable to have a certain class. I yearn for being able to look at the stats and then decide for myself who becomes what, rookie or not. To take that choice away was a terrible decision. It is flat out poor design that strips freedom out of the player's hand.

2) Only one base. Not a huge deal (the satellites pretty much take their place), but it was nice to have the freedom to place my bases where ever I deemed necessary instead of the game doing it, and also having to build each one designed to repel invasion.

3) Speaking of which, base invasions are gone entirely so there's no longer any consideration towards how I construct it aside from adjacency bonuses.

4) Being limited on purchasing/selling goods. This was an astonishingly TERRIBLE move by Firaxis that drastically holds back EU from what it could've been. There are many things I don't have to buy: clips, grenades, rockets. Worst of all, I'm unable to buy scientists and engineers, only through building and missions can they be obtained.  I have to have enough money and power to build an entire facility if all I determine I need is 1 damn engineer or scientist.  Or what if I want 20?  Sorry pal, you need five laboratories. Some may say this was done to eliminate the hassle (though this is strategy, resource management and allocation is kind of the point) but it comes at an additional cost. I can buy goods.....but I'm unable to sell them.

That's a crucial omission, that for Xcom is almost game breaking. I want commodities to be able to cash-in as priorities shift and needs change. I want economy, which is what makes Xcom Xcom. Once you build an item in EU you have it for good and it never needs replacing, nor can it be sold. Or at least I haven't found a way. It should be an expendable asset so it can be traded when needs be.  Why should I care how much ammo or grenades I use when I don't have to worry about the financial burden of replacement? In a game that puts importance on strategy, it seems wrong to remove a large part of what helps make it strategic: the market. Yes, the grey market is nice to sell items you obtain on missions and such but that's it.  The majority of it is needed for building and research anyway. In the original you could sell anything you had: engineers, scientists, anything. No more.

5) It's far too scripted and narrative driven which will significantly reduce replayability.

Don't get me wrong, there are things I find done that are much better in EU: the combat is far more enjoyable and flows smoother.  It is a huge improvement mechanically speaking but again comes at the expense of player choice. Admittedly the TUs were cumbersome micromanagement but I could do things with that system that I'm unable to in the new game (such as take three snap shots at reduced % to hit instead of one well aimed shot with a much higher hit % but which required a hefty chunk of TUs, and that was without moving).

I'd like to hear how some can call these improvements.  They are streamlined features but definitely not for the better.  They were done for user accesibility at the cost of choice.  In Xcom, choice was the most important aspect of all.

Avatar image for ZakMcKracken
#81 Posted by ZakMcKracken (188 posts) -
Wow, did...blabla.aroberts7969
Sir, for Gods sake use the [enter] / [return] key more!
Avatar image for D3nnyCrane
#82 Posted by D3nnyCrane (12058 posts) -
Dumbed down is a harsh way to put it. As someone who played the original growing up, this iterations feels a LITTLE like Babby's First XCOM - you can defintely get away with bypassing micromanagement. Example: Terror mission is announced. In the original XCOM, this was terrifying - you'd probably be undermanned and under-equipped. This time around, I shrug, manufacture plasma weapons and Titan armor, and breeze through with minimal difficulty. Which is unfortunate, because as a youngster, bringing home even a quarter of my team was an achievement. Things like one base alllowed, removal of TU's, removal of base invasions, and a myriad other small changes exist - but the original XCOM is older than some of you. If the standard of difficulty were unchanged, I can guarantee people would blather on about boycotting the game for being cheap and too difficult on any setting. Do I think it's been dumbed down? No - you cannot play this game without a decent degree of foresight and ability to make tough calls. I DO, however, believe that, just as the graphics were refitted for present day consumption, so was the means of gameplay.
Avatar image for MN121MN
#83 Posted by MN121MN (466 posts) -

Seems the issue of "dumbing down" is very hto now.


Just a single question.

 

ARE YOU ENJOYING THIS?

If not, then just get the old one.

If you do, just play. 

Either way, let's just enjoy the game. Even if we hate it, just enjoy it while it lasts. Some things don't last forever.

Avatar image for alphatango1
#84 Posted by alphatango1 (3778 posts) -

Posted this as a reply to another in another thread.  I must say I'm really enjoying EU but really do think it doesn't touch the original, and here's a few reasons why:

 1) The game selects for me which class all of my troops become.  I hate this and hope modders fix it asap.  There's no choice on who I want who to be and what role I wish them to play. What if I want to take out a squad of all assault? Or all support? Snipers? It CAN be done but I have to recruit 30+ soldiers and then go through the trouble of using them all until the game decides what they are best suited for.  As the game progresses this becomes more and more difficult and risky, eventually to the point of near futility later on. Why can't I decide that from the start through stats instead of having to wait for the game to do it for me? I fail to see the benefit except to make the game more accessible or perhaps try to encourage a mixed squad.

Here's my problem: if all my heavys get killed and some are injured, I no longer have the freedom to have any unless I've worked all my FNGs up to squaddies.  Bam!....an entire class of soldier has effectively been removed from the field.  This should not even be a possibility.  I have to take out a rookie and pray s/he eventually turns into a heavy, while at the same time compromising my squad selection and endangering the lives of my vets due to his/her inexperience.  There've been times I've been unable to have a certain class. I yearn for being able to look at the stats and then decide for myself who becomes what, rookie or not. To take that choice away was a terrible decision. It is flat out poor design that strips freedom out of the player's hand.

2) Only one base. Not a huge deal (the satellites pretty much take their place), but it was nice to have the freedom to place my bases where ever I deemed necessary instead of the game doing it, and also having to build each one designed to repel invasion.

3) Speaking of which, base invasions are gone entirely so there's no longer any consideration towards how I construct it aside from adjacency bonuses.

4) Being limited on purchasing/selling goods. This was an astonishingly TERRIBLE move by Firaxis that drastically holds back EU from what it could've been. There are many things I don't have to buy: clips, grenades, rockets. Worst of all, I'm unable to buy scientists and engineers, only through building and missions can they be obtained.  I have to have enough money and power to build an entire facility if all I determine I need is 1 damn engineer or scientist.  Or what if I want 20?  Sorry pal, you need five laboratories. Some may say this was done to eliminate the hassle (though this is strategy, resource management and allocation is kind of the point) but it comes at an additional cost. I can buy goods.....but I'm unable to sell them.

That's a crucial omission, that for Xcom is almost game breaking. I want commodities to be able to cash-in as priorities shift and needs change. I want economy, which is what makes Xcom Xcom. Once you build an item in EU you have it for good and it never needs replacing, nor can it be sold. Or at least I haven't found a way. It should be an expendable asset so it can be traded when needs be.  Why should I care how much ammo or grenades I use when I don't have to worry about the financial burden of replacement? In a game that puts importance on strategy, it seems wrong to remove a large part of what helps make it strategic: the market. Yes, the grey market is nice to sell items you obtain on missions and such but that's it.  The majority of it is needed for building and research anyway. In the original you could sell anything you had: engineers, scientists, anything. No more.

5) It's far too scripted and narrative driven which will significantly reduce replayability.

Don't get me wrong, there are things I find done that are much better in EU: the combat is far more enjoyable and flows smoother.  It is a huge improvement mechanically speaking but again comes at the expense of player choice. Admittedly the TUs were cumbersome micromanagement but I could do things with that system that I'm unable to in the new game (such as take three snap shots at reduced % to hit instead of one well aimed shot with a much higher hit % but which required a hefty chunk of TUs, and that was without moving).

I'd like to hear how some can call these improvements.  They are streamlined features but definitely not for the better.  They were done for user accesibility at the cost of choice.  In Xcom, choice was the most important aspect of all.

MirkoS77

 

Excellent post.

As the main protagonist has never even played the original, dont expect a meaningful response anytime soon.

Avatar image for Avenger1324
#85 Posted by Avenger1324 (16344 posts) -

I used to love playing the original UFO / XCOM series and have put hundreds of hours into playing them, as well as enjoying some of the XCOM-esque games such as the UFO After(Math / Shock / Light) series.

Yes XCOM Enemy Unknown has simplified some aspects of the game - some changes have little impact on how the game plays compared to the originals, other changes have more of an impact - but overall I am really enjoying this re-imagining of the XCOM series.

I guess the first pre-conception to get over is just because an awesome game did something one way 18 years ago doesn't necessarily make it the best way for a game today. That also doesn't mean that just because XCOM EU does something different today that it is right or better.

The strategic side is made challenging by the lack of resources - you don't have a big pot of money to spend at the start of the game, and there are restrictions on how fast you can expand - you need more engineers to build things, need more power, or need to excavate the space to build. Building satellites and nexus and stationing interceptors around the world effectively replace having additional bases - a change to the game but one that brings new challenges without really being detrimental.

Base layout used to be important for base defence - now it is important for planning to get bonsues and efficiency gains - a well laid out group of workshops will greatly reduce the cost to manufacture, labs can research a lot faster, or launch more satellites without losing more base space.

The tactical side has drastically reduced the number of soldiers you can bring to a fight, but also raised the value of each one. I do feel the initial restriction of just 4 is too low, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason why you can't take more soldiers - after all even with the squad size increases paid for you are still using the same Skyranger to get to missions. In UFO EU you could take more once you researched and built bigger aircraft.

Individual soldiers are valued more in XCOM EU. Losing a Captain / Major / Colonel is a big loss because of the extra skills and abilities they have over a rookie, and knowing how hard it is to spare the extra slots on missions to bring lower level soldiers along to build up their experience. In UFO EU rookies were cheap and expendable, and in some cases needed in quantity just so you could have your highest rank soldier promoted rather than because of their experience or kill count.

With the introduction of soldier cIasses I do wish there was some option to select the cIass - even if it meant paying a small fee in Officer Training which would make sense - so I get the type of soldier I want.

The Gray market is a useful feature, but one which feels incomplete - if there is someone there willing to buy alien corpses and broken weapons, why won't they also let me sell items I have made or recovered from missions such as plasma rifles or laser tech? Considering you get a Council request each month where a nation can ask for these items (and pay very well for them) it seems odd not to be able to sell these sort of items.

In my current playthrough the only other concern I have is the length of the game. At approx 5 months in I done all available research, filled my base, made the best armour and weapons for my soldiers, got the best aircraft in each continent and satellites over the whole world (ok i lost 1 nation!), and I'm on the verge of getting that "launch the final mission" button. In UFO EU I think I was closer to 18 months into a game before I got to a similar point.

Overall I am really enjoying XCOM. It isn't the same game as UFO EU, but it's about as faithful a sequel as we could have hoped for in an industry that rarely makes anything like this any more. Some aspects have been simplified and adapted to the current audience, but there is still plenty of challenge to both old and new players.

Avatar image for kwhitney
#86 Posted by kwhitney (74 posts) -

 I would like to cast my vote for "dumbed down for the console market" And yes I just finished enemy unknown.

Avatar image for j4n051k
#87 Posted by j4n051k (25 posts) -
I miss the freedom of UFO Enemy Unknown. Don't wan't to repeat what's already been said but it was nice to be able to take the ammo magazine out of your auto cannon and then being able to just throw it at an alien (hoping to knock one out with it :P), if one chose to do so- there was so much more freedom in both the strategical and tactical aspects in the original UFO:EU game.
Avatar image for Diminisher
#88 Posted by Diminisher (1006 posts) -
As an avid player of both XCOMUD and TFTD. This feels 'simplified' but mostly in a good way. I'm actually more mad about the addition than the subractions. So intercepting is a single click and manufacturing is instant (why??) TUs are gone along with soldier stats. No crouching to inrease aim. Random maps. No inventory management. Yeah it sucks, but todays gamers probably couldn't handle the complexity anyways. But what am I most mad about? The cover system. WTH!? So my sniper takes a 30% hit in accuracy because an alien is standing IN FRONT OF a bus. Mind = blown. Not hiding in the least. Just standing there about 30 feet away... and of course she missed. Should that be fixed I could enjoy this much more. I do enjoy it a lot now.
Avatar image for dzimm
#89 Posted by dzimm (5494 posts) -
You gambled on a 30% shot and are upset that you missed? You need to remember that the under-the-hood math and what is represented on the screen aren't necessarily in sync. It might appear you have a clear shot, but if the under-the-hood number crunching is telling you otherwise then trust the numbers.