XCOM: Enemy Unknown - Strategy Game - Developed by Firaxis

Well, count me as excited to have heard news of any sort of XCOM DLC. Then slight deflation as I failed to feel any genuine excitement for it.

They've made a tremendous game with good replay value. DLC is never a must-have for me and it's a shame they didn't come out stronger with a "give the player what they want" approach. Judging from the admittedly narrow sampling here it seems like they could have checked in with the community more, did some polling, etc.. I dislike design-by-committee or letting the customer get everything they think they want unchecked but it seems like DLC content is something that well-suited to a customer-centered research... because the original vision of the core game is there already.

After my birthday guilt about him buying me DLC, he did with the condition that I give him pink armor.

So I took my best heavy, the only guy to survive to tutorial, and made him Dyni. I stand by my choice.

oilypenguin wrote:

After my birthday guilt about him buying me DLC, he did with the condition that I give him pink armor.

So I took my best heavy, the only guy to survive to tutorial, and made him Dyni. I stand by my choice.

Woot! Actually, I bought that for you before I saw your response in the thread I forsee some positive psychic testing for Heavy Dyni in the future!

P.S. Hair Style 16 go go.

Come on, all this DLC has to be scheduled months ago, probably previous ideas that got on their "nice to have" lists. I still have hope for the game, isn't it the same team that gave such good Mod support with Civ... don't let me down.

Johnvanjim wrote:

DLC Announced: "Slingshot"

Sounds like 3 new missions on new maps, set in China, new character and voice added to the game.

Spoiler:

Evidently it will allow earlier access to the blaster launcher.

My takeaway on that interview....

The only planned 2 DLC's and this is one of them

They dont appear to be planning any additions to the tech tree so no new weapons in the future

Honestly I was disapointed by this announcement, I was really hoping that they would be agressive and have some really neat ideas with some serious content for DLC. Instead we are getting very light content packs and no real assurance about mod support. If Firaxis did anything wrong in this release I would say it was this. When I think more about other Firaxs titles and their DLC I guess this is kinda standard for them. A lot of the DLC for CIV 5 was light and questionable, nothing that you could really say was full of content. And I dont count God's and Kings since that was an expansion and cost like 20-30 bucks.

Oh and giving me a weapon earlier in the game is somthing you want me to pay for? Seriously?

Granted I love Firaxis and adore this game but come on guys, if you want to sell DLC please make it something really worth our time and money.

One last thing, there is a Nexus site up for Xcom with a few mods mostly they are txt changes to base stats.

Log another one under "bug":

My Supports have had Deep Pockets for a handful of missions now and I've never been able to access my grenades from the RT-Action Menu. And yes, this is after properly equipping them in the loadout screen. I"m on the 360 version. Anyone else run into this?

Eh, I've played for a bunch and I haven't seen any new weapons yet. My guns all glow red now and have different numbers attached, but they're still functionally identical save for a bigger number and don't really change how I play the game.

My point is, what exactly could they add? A more powerful gun means they have to rebalance the entire top end of the game. A new gun somewhere in the middle is just going to get skipped on the way to plasma.

Yeah, the DLC seems poorly thought out. I finished the game. Why should I care about getting Blaster Launchers early? We all know we had access to super-soldiers at the expense of achievements. If I didn't take advantage of those during my playthrough, why would it attract me now?

As was stated, we would like new maps, new terrain, new tech (not old tech, faster), new enemy types perhaps (armored Cyber-disc anyone?).

Maclintok wrote:

Log another one under "bug":

My Supports have had Deep Pockets for a handful of missions now and I've never been able to access my grenades from the RT-Action Menu. And yes, this is after properly equipping them in the loadout screen. I"m on the 360 version. Anyone else run into this?

On PC so no.... but have you tried switching which slot the grenades go in?

Vargen wrote:

My point is, what exactly could they add? A more powerful gun means they have to rebalance the entire top end of the game. A new gun somewhere in the middle is just going to get skipped on the way to plasma.

This is the thing though... That's just unimaginative as an addition to the game. A couple of pages back were were listing wish-lists of things to add to the game in DLC or an expansion.

Mine primary one was multi-layered/parted/goaled missions. Leading to more interesting dynamic mission generation (at least, IMO). Not just, escort or fail... or kill or fail... etc.

The secondary wish was for secondary base defences: your interceptor bases around the world come under attack and you have to repel the enemy.... (For example)

What about, a mission you lose (or lose a soldier in) has a very low probability of generating a rescue mission whereby your own tech couldn't revive the soldier but the aliens HAVE(!) and are about to interrogate them, get out there and save your squad member...

Very simple ideas, fairly simple to integrate into the game structure as it is without any or very little modification.

Worse still, these DLC are coming out before any word of a patch for the untold numbers of bugs in the game...

Still, very happy with the base game. Still my GOTY so far.

[edit] Thinking about this situation some more I feel a melancholy mood overtaking me. Maybe I'm incorrect in my reasoning but it seriously looks like the reason why the planned DLC is (based on personal opinion) so poor is because no one expected the game to sell well (at least at management level)... So what we are potentially left with is a situation whereby nothing proper was planned for post-launch or budgeted.... so I think there are two ways this is going to play out:

L4D style - a sequel released one year to one year and a half later that improves upon the game but also changes it quite significantly (I never did like L4D2)

Rushed, but late DLC - whereby we get more substantial DLC but it'll take until late spring to summer next year.

I don't believe, at this point and given the information and attitude of the developers/publishers, we will get an expansion. Expansions are cheaper to buy than a full-blown "release" and cost more than "DLC"...
This is not the renaissance of TBS we were hoping for... but it may lead to it!

Nevin73 wrote:

As was stated, we would like new maps, new terrain, new tech (not old tech, faster), new enemy types perhaps (armored Cyber-disc anyone?).

Oh hell NO!!!!!! What are you gonna suggest next? Armored floating Sectopods?

jeffsceu wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

As was stated, we would like new maps, new terrain, new tech (not old tech, faster), new enemy types perhaps (armored Cyber-disc anyone?).

Oh hell NO!!!!!! What are you gonna suggest next? Armored floating Sectopods? :P

Given that we get the hover shiv... that would make logical sense.

>:)

Duoae wrote:

Worse still, these DLC are coming out before any word of a patch for the untold numbers of bugs in the game...

This is the worst thing. We are playing a commercially released game with an Ironman mode where your soldiers may simply stop recognizing a doorway, be unable to walk through, and thereby fail the mission; where the game can't distinguish between SHIVs that have been killed and new SHIVs built to replace them, so that you can waste a hundred credits building buggy, non-working SHIVs before you get one that works; where enemies can pass through ceilings without leaving a hole, or simply appear amid your troops.

It's a good game but it's frankly indecent that they left so much broken sh*t in, and are probably not going to fix it. Give me that DLC. I'd pay $5 for a version of the game that worked consistently.

I understand that $60 sales can't support a huge budget unless lots of people buy the game. If lots of people have bought the game, though, I think we are owed the quality assurance and bug-fixing that was missing from the retail package. (And the patch should be delivered on all platforms, dammit!)

How many hours is it taking folks to finish their first playthrough?

Has anyone captured a Drone? What happens/how does it work? I usually just let them get caught in the CyberDisc blast or I'm too far away to use the Arc Thrower on them.

Also, is there anyway to incapacitate the Sectopod? I find it interesting that they tell you its chest cannon breaks into fragments when you waste one and wonder what that's about.

Duoae wrote:
Maclintok wrote:

Log another one under "bug":

My Supports have had Deep Pockets for a handful of missions now and I've never been able to access my grenades from the RT-Action Menu. And yes, this is after properly equipping them in the loadout screen. I"m on the 360 version. Anyone else run into this?

On PC so no.... but have you tried switching which slot the grenades go in?

No, I could try that next time I boot up. Of course I'll leave myself open to the even less desirable proposition of having 1 alien grenade but not being able to use my 3 Medikits. :p Just not certain on the scope of this bug.

I'm absolutely loving this. Just being able to name people after my friends and then regale the actual friends with the adventures and painful demises of their avatars is worth the price of admission alone. This is my first time playing an XCOM (or X-COM for that matter) game and I'm sort of just stumbling through normal. Going well, though. My next story mission appears to be an enemy base? I hope that's not the end of the game as I still want better armor and I only have 1 plasma weapon.

Anyway, other that enemies no-clipping through a few walls, I've only had 1 bug of note: There was a crash map that had 3 or 4 levels, I could not, for the life of me, keep the screen centered on my guys in the middle level. it just kept snapping to the roof or not allowing my cursor to work on the level I was on. It took me 3 hours to work through it because I kept getting frustrated and turning it off. My cursor is there, click to send the guy! I moved the mouse slightly, he's now running down stairs. Oh hey, it's an alien. Oh hey, my guts. Bah.

But loooooving it.

cheesycrouton wrote:

How many hours is it taking folks to finish their first playthrough?

I just finished a game in Classic mode, according to Steam it took me 37 hours. However, I took a LONG time before assaulting the enemy base mid-way through. I probably could have shaved several hours off that time. Also, I play extremely cautiously, a single mission usually takes me close to an hour to play through. That maps about right, I think the final tally for my game showed somewhere around 35-40 missions completed.

So I am kind of curious, are most of the people who are having bug problems playing on PC? I am playing on the PS3 and haven't encountered any bugs. I also have to say it works surprisingly great with a controller, I can't really imagine it being any better with mouse and keyboard. I have had no problem with selecting different vertical levels, or really the camera in general. Maybe this is a case of the rare (heretofore mythical perhaps) strategy game that is better on a console than on a PC?

cheesycrouton wrote:

How many hours is it taking folks to finish their first playthrough?

My steam stats say 27 hours, but that's including about five hours one game that I abandoned once I figured out what the tutorial hadn't told me, so I could avoid clever moves like placing satellites over countries that don't have any interceptors.

Pacman wrote:

So I am kind of curious, are most of the people who are having bug problems playing on PC? I am playing on the PS3 and haven't encountered any bugs. I also have to say it works surprisingly great with a controller, I can't really imagine it being any better with mouse and keyboard. I have had no problem with selecting different vertical levels, or really the camera in general. Maybe this is a case of the rare (heretofore mythical perhaps) strategy game that is better on a console than on a PC?

I haven't run into any bugs of note on the PC in my first play through.

With respect to the UI, I feel they prioritized design for controllers. The pain of trying to select the correct "high ground" tile with the mouse was almost enough to make me start shopping for a controller. Eventually I discovered that there is almost always a camera angle that will allow proper selection of the tile I wanted.

That issue alone is enough to keep me from going beyond "pretend this is ironman" with autosave... dying due to a miss-click is more than I could handle.

Pacman wrote:

So I am kind of curious, are most of the people who are having bug problems playing on PC? I am playing on the PS3 and haven't encountered any bugs. I also have to say it works surprisingly great with a controller, I can't really imagine it being any better with mouse and keyboard. I have had no problem with selecting different vertical levels, or really the camera in general. Maybe this is a case of the rare (heretofore mythical perhaps) strategy game that is better on a console than on a PC?

I am on 360 and have encountered the impassable door bug (only once, thankfully), and the unusable SHIV bug (numerous times, infuriatingly).

I agree that the controller interface is pretty great, though.

grobstein wrote:

I agree that the controller interface is pretty great, though.

Even though I will *always* default to playing on the PC with mouse & keyboard I'm using a controller on the PC for this game - it works (and looks) just great. Overwatch is always in the same place and the only minor drawback I have found so far (I am not that far in) is having to cycle through my squad (as opposed to just clicking directly on the soldier I want).

However there is a problem with rotating the Geoscape which is discussed here http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.... A fix is referenced in post #24 but I've only just seen it and haven't tested it as I in a mission right now.

My only thought on the DLC - will there be achievements:)?

Also, I finally caved and picked this up on Xbox today at lunch. Thanks, you enabling bastards!

SallyNasty wrote:

My only thought on the DLC - will there be achievements:)?

Also, I finally caved and picked this up on Xbox today at lunch. Thanks, you enabling bastards!

Ooo! Play so we can nerd out about it this weekend!

cheesycrouton wrote:

How many hours is it taking folks to finish their first playthrough?

I believe I was at 29 hours for my normal non-ironman with 3 or 4 missions reloaded.

I've since spent another 20 hours just trying to get to month 4 in Classic Ironman

robthomasson wrote:

the only minor drawback I have found so far (I am not that far in) is having to cycle through my squad (as opposed to just clicking directly on the soldier I want).

And here we have the real reason behind the 4/6 man squads. I.e. nothing to do with "playability" or balancing, or anything else.

MoonDragon wrote:
robthomasson wrote:

the only minor drawback I have found so far (I am not that far in) is having to cycle through my squad (as opposed to just clicking directly on the soldier I want).

And here we have the real reason behind the 4/6 man squads. I.e. nothing to do with "playability" or balancing, or anything else.

Disagree. If I was designing it, I would also have limited the squad size to six, max. There's diminishing returns the more pieces you are shoving around on the board; six is right in the sweet spot.

Gremlin wrote:
MoonDragon wrote:
robthomasson wrote:

the only minor drawback I have found so far (I am not that far in) is having to cycle through my squad (as opposed to just clicking directly on the soldier I want).

And here we have the real reason behind the 4/6 man squads. I.e. nothing to do with "playability" or balancing, or anything else.

Disagree. If I was designing it, I would also have limited the squad size to six, max. There's diminishing returns the more pieces you are shoving around on the board; six is right in the sweet spot.

Yeah, I think it was a design decision, and one that I happen to agree with. I don't think I would like the game as much if I had to manage a bunch more guys.

Six is the sweet spot? Please. Breaking my squad down into real fire teams, maneuvering them in supporting crossfire, flanking and suppressing the aliens as I moved across the map, that was a core feature to X-Com. Forcing my team of 6 to stay huddled together because splitting up farther than overwatch can cover is suicidal is not what I consider the X-Com experience.

LtWarhound wrote:

Six is the sweet spot? Please. Breaking my squad down into real fire teams, maneuvering them in supporting crossfire, flanking and suppressing the aliens as I moved across the map, that was a core feature to X-Com. Forcing my team of 6 to stay huddled together because splitting up farther than overwatch can cover is suicidal is not what I consider the X-Com experience.

Human short term memory is limited to handling around seven objects. Once you get more than six guys in a squad, what you're really doing most of the time is splitting up into groups and moving those six or so groups around the map. Functionally, it's not all that different, there are just more moving parts.