XCOM 2

Rethinking XCOM 2

My relationship with XCOM 2 was a troubled one.

I use the word "relationship" there intentionally, and ultimately many of the adjectives I use to describe the game are the sorts of words you might use to describe someone with whom you’d had a passionate, and at times complicated, affair. In describing the game I say things like "difficult," "inflexible," "quirky," "stubborn"; but then in the next breath I might say things like "smart," "attractive," "impressive" and "rewarding."

This is a game that will infuriate you in one moment and then delight you in the very next – or, vice versa – which is a complicated emotional roller coaster that one should not engage lightly. This is not the game you’ll play at the end of a long day to unwind. But if you can set aside your preconceived notions of what this game is supposed to be and instead allow yourself to accept and enjoy what the game is, you might just find that XCOM 2 is one of the best strategy titles released in years.

Or you’ll throw your computer through a window.

By the end of my first few days with XCOM 2, I was far closer to the latter than the former. Picking up the game on opening day, I entered my first few missions with the tattered remains of the defeated XCOM team excited but with a lack of respect for what I’d later perceive as the game’s over-the-top difficulty. By the end of day two, I’d had enough of the game and reached the unfortunate conclusion that this round was not for me.

At the time, playing XCOM 2 felt like having a mean big brother. It would put you in tough, sometimes painful situations and ask you to choose between two or three equally bad options. Then, whichever option you choose, it would somehow try to make that the worst result after the fact, and then give you a good wedgie at the end of it all – just to really drive home the point that XCOM 2 is kind of a jerk.

“I’m going to kill your favorite squadmates,” the game would seem to say capriciously, and then two minutes later it would punish you for letting your squadmates die. It was the video game version of Stop Hitting Yourself, and there’s only so much of that I’m interested in dealing with in my life. So I quit playing entirely, wrote the game off as not my kind of thing at best, and moved on with my life.

As it turns out, I was 100% wrong about XCOM 2.

The problem, as it turns out, wasn’t that XCOM 2 somehow had it out for me. The problem was that I was being lazy and stupid while I was playing it. Now, I have to stress here that I’m not calling anyone lazy or stupid for finding XCOM 2 to not be fun or to be too difficult, just that for me, it turned out to be my problem. I’ve gotten very used to playing strategy games that recognize and adapt to a new player, and that have mechanics in the game that allow the player to catch up or at least stabilize if the player drops the ball once or twice.

This game seems to have no such mechanic. The reality is that XCOM 2 never takes its foot off the pedal, even if you ask it really nicely. The upside of this is that decisions have weight, not only in the execution of turn-based fights, but in the way you set up those fights, the way you’ve equipped your crew, the way you’ve balanced their skills to be complementary, the way you’ve researched new technologies, the way you’ve prioritized your meager budget between R&D versus live-fire application, and a thousand other things. The downside is that you have a million opportunities to shoot yourself in the foot.

If you don’t know this, or you don’t fully appreciate this going in, it’s going to be a slog. The reality is that a handful of bad decisions even through the first few missions of the game may reverberate all the way through to the end – particularly if you’re a purist and play in Ironman mode or individually limit your ability to save-scum.

I hasten to point out: This does not describe my approach. I am unabashed in the apocalyptic scumminess of my saving philosophy. The interesting thing, though, is that the more I accepted and adapted to XCOM 2’s model, the less I had to resort to my nefarious ways.

When I first played the game, I came away feeling like too much rode on a single roll of the dice, and that a game could be entirely won or lost if your sniper missed that 93% shot. What I eventually realized was that if you were in a position where success or failure lived on the head of a pin and a roll of the dice, you’d already lost – whether you knew it or not. It doesn’t matter if the shot connects or not, because this game isn’t about that. This game is about how you set up the shots so that no one or two rolls matter all that much.

You don’t win or lose XCOM 2 in the battles. You win or lose XCOM 2 on your ship. The most important screen in the game is the one right before you leave for a mission, where you’re choosing your loadout. The balance between the mission types, your reserve pool, your available equipment and the way they will all work together are what matters. That's where you should spend a ton of time. What can you give up to make space for something you can’t?

Here’s the thing: If that sniper’s roll matters so much, it means he’s on an island. He’s not supported, and he’s probably not supporting. It’s the videogame realization of an old concept: Work together or die alone. Everything needs to support everything else, and often taking the shot is the last thing you do – not the first.

Before firing, you eliminate cover. Before firing, you get into a position that assumes everything else will fail. Before firing, you toss a mimic beacon into the thick of things. Before firing, you have your Psi-soldier know exactly who he’s going to target with a stasis if things go south. Before firing, you think about how you’re going to make sure no alien reinforcements get triggered during your battle. Before firing, you analyze whether you can delay the engagement and instead move one step closer to the goal. Before firing, you toss a flashbang grenade, or smoke grenade, or maybe even just send in a Gremlin on a combat protocol to get the sure-thing-damage.

Only when you’ve exhausted all of that, do you take the shot. And if you can’t do those other things, it might just mean you lost this battle when your crew was standing around outside the dropship waiting for you to say the word.

Once I started playing the game this way, I fell in love with it. It’s a hard thing to love, because it’s buggy, and it’s quirky, and it’s capricious, and it’s not really on your side. And all of those things are part of what makes it great.

Comments

Before firing, you eliminate cover. Before firing, you get into a position that assumes everything else will fail. Before firing, you toss a mimic beacon into the thick of things. Before firing, you have your Psi-soldier know exactly who he’s going to target with a stasis if things go south. Before firing, you think about how you’re going to make sure no alien reinforcements get triggered during your battle. Before firing, you analyze whether you can delay the engagement and instead move one step closer to the goal. Before firing, you toss a flashbang grenade, or smoke grenade, or maybe even just send in a Gremlin on a combat protocol to get the sure-thing-damage.

Sounds like old school XCOM. This is the best thing I've read about the game.

Typos:

Spoiler:

XCOM 22’s model

and

are what matters. That
s where you should spend

The "metagame" of the tactical screen goes even beyond what Elysium here says. You take the shot in the proper order of actions to mitigate misses. Sometimes that means you take the shot before you throw the mimic beacon. Sometimes, it's after. The decision of when to order the shot in relation to other actions can make or break the mission, more than the actual percentage chance of the actual shot. Your mission can't end when you miss the shot. If that happens, you lost before you took it.

When I first played the game, I came away feeling like too much rode on a single roll of the dice, and that a game could be entirely won or lost if your sniper missed that 93% shot. What I eventually realized was that if you were in a position where success or failure lived on the head of a pin and a roll of the dice, you’d already lost.

This is an argument I've had with many people over the years over many, many different kinds of games from XCOM to Blood Bowl to Poker. When randomness is a known variable - when you can look your odds in the eye - you have no business complaining about luck.

The "one mistake and you're hosed" factor is definitely the thing that's kept me from playing through in Ironman mode. I tried; I actually enjoy it better that way. The thing is I do play this to unwind at the end of the day and I don't need that extra stress. I will, at some point, make a boneheaded decision: I'll forget to equip the right guy with the right armour; or I'll forget that I was saving resources for a new Power Relay and instead blow the budget on the new shiny coming in from R&D; or I'll forget to attack with the soldier with the Shredder perk first. I'd rather just take the rewind and do it as I'd have done it were I not frazzled from looking after 2 small children all day.

Soldier gets taken out by a lucky shot? That's fine. Miss a shot I really, really needed to hit? Way it goes. Make a perfectly rationally calculated move around a corner and get jumped on by half a dozen angry aliens? That's XCOM for you. I'm not prepared, though, to compound the stress of my day by having that stress add to my stress in-game.

Stopped reading at the end of the wedgie-fueled analogy. So, you're saying this game is basically the equivalent of Terror From the Deep? So next, we'll get a pausable real-time game that only has some of the same elements, but feels otherwise very different?

And finished reading. Nope. Not going to bother with this game. I'm not that big of a strategist and the previous XCOM fell pretty flat for me to begin with. Good to hear you found a way to love this game.

I'm not ashamed to say that I backed down the difficulty to Easy.

I kind of hated the stealth and timing mechanics because I don't like to take too many risks with my god-like squad members. But I grew to appreciate the few times when a well-planned ambush wiped the map of enemies before they could react. I also understood the mechanics within the game's narrative and found that, while increasing risk, ultimately did not reduce my enjoyment.

Hear hear!

I think a lot of people had different expectations. Just because there are guns doesn't mean that they are the core of the game. It's not shooting with strategy; it's strategy and building with shooting as a small component. We call it "chess with guns" at my house.

Another thing that's busted a lot of people I've known is the setting. Coming into a sequel from the loser's side the way they did really changed the focus. That opening sequence brought back my frustration at losing the first game and gave me a strong push to make things right.

I'm getting my arse kicked six ways from Sunday (the artists formerly known as ThinMen are big dumb jerks), but I expected that, and it was just what I asked for. When I play this game I want that challenge. But a lot of people don't want to beat themselves senseless like this. And when I'm standing in the ashes of yet another squad-wipe sometimes I agree with them.

Yup. This nails exactly how I'm feeling about the game. I honestly don't think it's unfair when you approach it with the correct mindset - I swallowed the setup, story and setting from day 1 and it's been leaps and bounds the most engaging game I've played in recent memory. Treat it as a campaign with wins, learnings and losses and it will provide an absolutely outstanding experience. Go in expecting to preserve an 18-man roster of invincible colonels while perfectly arranging your ant farm and you will end up frustrated and enraged. You have to use every tool, take every opportunity and make plenty of difficult decisions, but every successful mission and unwounded soldier feels hard-earned and ultra satisfying.

I was sad to see my Steam review get hit immediately (i.e., within 15 minutes if posting it) by 3 downvotes with no commentary. I normally trend positive feedback, but this felt like a reflex action against my positive recommendation

Maq wrote:
When I first played the game, I came away feeling like too much rode on a single roll of the dice, and that a game could be entirely won or lost if your sniper missed that 93% shot. What I eventually realized was that if you were in a position where success or failure lived on the head of a pin and a roll of the dice, you’d already lost.

This is an argument I've had with many people over the years over many, many different kinds of games from XCOM to Blood Bowl to Poker. When randomness is a known variable - when you can look your odds in the eye - you have no business complaining about luck.

Love this, so true to Blood Bowl , and I'd add Tharsis under this mantra aswell. OP has me considering finally boarding the XCOM2 train when I get the time.

troubleshot wrote:
Maq wrote:
When I first played the game, I came away feeling like too much rode on a single roll of the dice, and that a game could be entirely won or lost if your sniper missed that 93% shot. What I eventually realized was that if you were in a position where success or failure lived on the head of a pin and a roll of the dice, you’d already lost.

This is an argument I've had with many people over the years over many, many different kinds of games from XCOM to Blood Bowl to Poker. When randomness is a known variable - when you can look your odds in the eye - you have no business complaining about luck.

Love this, so true to Blood Bowl , and I'd add Tharsis under this mantra aswell. OP has me considering finally boarding the XCOM2 train when I get the time.

You already are, Trouble, you already are. Colonel Tim "Troubleshot" Eyles is the star gunner of my team. Holo-targeting and Shred at the ready!

It is worth noting that the game does have a number of "auto-effect" powers and specials that do what they're supposed to do 100% of the time. For example, Holo-targeting increases to-hit by squadmates whether it hits or misses. Hail of Bullets is a guaranteed hit - good for targets behind full cover. Grenades are all guaranteed damage. Null Lance is guaranteed damage. I believe Rift is also guaranteed damage. Lots of guaranteed damage and guaranteed-effect powers and abilities in the game. If you need a sure shot, you can arrange to have it at the ready and usable.

The original XCOM very much worked this way. Once you had a good sense of how things worked, you could methodically make your way though the landscape, and you could basically control how you engaged the enemy, and even additional pods wandering into the combat zone didn't cause that many problems.

But in this new XCOM, sometimes sh*t just happens. Sometimes you fire on a Muton, miss it completely and blow up the wall behind it, revealing two more Mutons and a Viper. On the ensuing turn, an enemy patrol wanders into your flank, exposing almost every single soldier to flanking fire. You could retreat to better cover, but you are now four turns into an eight turn game, and you'll certainly lose the mission if you fall back, and may not even be able to make your exit if you don't just plow through the enemies ahead of you regardless of the losses you take. Sometimes every single shot on your ambush misses. Sometimes you lose half of your squad to low percentage shots.

That's not to say that this is a product of poor design, quite the opposite. I like this game a lot, and I just wrapped up my first playthrough before starting an ironman run. But at the same time, I don't think failure is 100% or even 80% under your control, particularly in the timed maps (I think would have appreciated an extra turn or two on the some of those timers). I happen to enjoy this to a certain extent, but I can definitely see how people might be getting frustrated with the design philosophy.

I think it has to do with what constitutes "failure."

In the original XCOM, if you played it "straight," sometimes you get a Blaster Launcher or a Stun Launcher in the face and suddenly everything goes to hell. Then the mission becomes hightailing it to the Skyranger with as many of your troops as you can save. Unlike in both modern Firaxis outings, the old XCOM had more leeway for this happening a number of times before you can no longer win. You can't have this happen too many times in XCOM2. You're going to fall behind.

Sometimes, winning in XCOM2 is getting to the evac zone with 2 of your 6 soldiers and the VIP that you desperately need for Intel. The Intel gets you to the Black Site and that allows you to win. That's XCOM baby!

Err, original in the above paragraph means XCOM:EU.

Agree with all of that. I love XCOM2 - everything in it is an evolutionary improvement on XCOM:EU - but when you first load it up the game feels deliberate, almost wilfully obtuse. It explains nothing about what's going on to the player or the relative importance of what all the different resources, or equipment and their importance to how you approach each tactical mission. Pretty much all the negative feedback I've read about the game (apart from the performance and big issues) have been from people who have never got past that first stage (David Heron's review on 3MA being a shining example of that)

But really, it's great. I actually find it much more forgiving than XCOM:EU on the strategic layer - a total squad wipe or a sub-optimal facility build queue will no longer render the game unwinnable. It might take some effort but you can recover. I've had my counter of doom trip to the final count down and got out of it again - fine I sold half my resources to the black market so I afford to set up a radio tower in the region adjacent to the region with a black site in it so I could afford the Intel cost to make contact - (pauses for breath) but it was recoverable. In XCOM:EU I'd be restarting the campaign.

Where perhaps the game does feel a little more unfair or unbalance is very occasional where the RNG during tactical missions refuses to play ball. Fine it's an RNG being an RNG but I had one mission where I was extracting than advent VIP with one remaining stun lancer on the map. With 3 turns let (and one flash bang) I stunned him and moved towards the evac point setting up an overwatch kill zone. Everyone misses when he moves, and he still move far enough to reach a grenadier who's promptly killed, despite the lancer being disorientated. Next round everyone moves to the evac point again only to discover the guy carrying the VIP is one square short. So another over watch zone, but no, no longer disorientated the lancer reaches the guy carrying the VIP, knocks him unconscious and I lose the VIP. Everyone then unloads at the lancer AND STILL MISSES before I evac the mission. Failed and lost 2 guys because the RNG was being the RNG. NOthing to do with your ability to play the game.

When that happens its rage inducing.

Heh. Still haven't played XCOM, but reading this post seems appropriate given my head banging against a particular chapter in Fire Emblem Fates. Granted, I could have beaten it by now if I allowed for two particular deaths, but each instance was also a matter of me making stupid decisions, knowing I was taking risky, dumb decisions at the time, and then allowing a moment of frustration before reflecting on all the stupid decisions and trying again.

I think the true mark of good games like these is that the process of banging one's head into the wall is still enjoyable, as it allows an exploration of more tactics, learning the system's intricacies, and simply enjoying the process of thinking on your game.

Or maybe that's just the brain damage.

momgamer wrote:

I'm getting my arse kicked six ways from Sunday

Col Momgamer is doing the arsekicking in my game. She's currently decked out in WAR armour leading the squad in the final mission.

That shouldn't tickle my fancy as much as it does.

Go get 'em Maq!

Wow. Just listened to the 3MA guys. Some of them really didn't get XCOM2 when they hit that podcast. I found that bizarre because I'm not a particularly smart guy and it felt clear to me what all the little strategic resources did right in my first game. It's certainly not as obtuse as UFO Defense where you had to dig through 2 screens just to find out that there was a panic level.

When I first played the game, I came away feeling like too much rode on a single roll of the dice, and that a game could be entirely won or lost if your sniper missed that 93% shot. What I eventually realized was that if you were in a position where success or failure lived on the head of a pin and a roll of the dice, you’d already lost...You don’t win or lose XCOM 2 in the battles. You win or lose XCOM 2 on your ship.

Yes and yes. It's the old Sun Tzu, "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." Target your research intelligently, bypass unnecessary stuff, and always practice good fire and maneuver principles, and the vast majority of the game is a cakewalk. Things get a touch murkier when you're in true Ironman mode and don't permit yourself the luxury of restarting battles when you accidentally pop two monster pods by advancing one square too far, but as long as you're willing to accept failure and retreat early, it's easy to come back from those unfortunate situations. RNG screw is certainly a real thing, and can cause you to lose units even though you're playing optimally, but such losses are recoverable. If you're not in complete control of the doom clock around the time you've teched up to Elerium-based gear, you've been gambling instead of thinking.

Sorbicol wrote:

Agree with all of that. I love XCOM2 - everything in it is an evolutionary improvement on XCOM:EU - but when you first load it up the game feels deliberate, almost wilfully obtuse. It explains nothing about what's going on to the player or the relative importance of what all the different resources, or equipment and their importance to how you approach each tactical mission. Pretty much all the negative feedback I've read about the game (apart from the performance and big issues) have been from people who have never got past that first stage (David Heron's review on 3MA being a shining example of that).

Here's the thing that I think we've all forgotten because we've played a billionty hours of the previous game - Enemy Unknown was just as obtuse in the beginning. I remember my first playthrough going tits-up because at no point did the game make it clear how crucial getting satellites up was. I was happily plowing all my cash into base expansion, and all of a sudden, half of the countries in the world withdraw, leaving me cash starved for the rest of the game.

Honestly, it seems to be a hallmark of Firaxis' game-design that you should expect the first go at the game to be the tutorial that teaches you the nuance of the mechanics, and the second go-around as you actually playing it.

I don't understand why people would want to know how to play it all optimally to start. It would seem that experiencing the failures teaches as much or more as going through the game the first time without a struggle. To each their own, but even games that have great tutorials that explain what is happening, take time to understand the finer points of progressing through it.

I was getting very frustrated until I started to understand better how to move the squad through the maps more effectively. I feel there is a great learning curve to the game that once you start to understand what you're doing, it unlocks a much different, and rewarding, gaming experience. I really appreciate the different facets of the game and how they work together. Of course, going through the first month over and over, can get a bit tiresome if you're trying to work out what to do more effectively. Getting better at not triggering multiple alien packs is a huge step in making the game feel more winnable. Going from triggering them all the time, to half the time, to somewhat rarely feels like great progress to me. I agree with the ship stuff as well, but if you can't function on the missions, it's mostly all for naught too.

Most of the time, I enjoy my time with XCOM 2.

Rybowl wrote:

I don't understand why people would want to know how to play it all optimally to start. It would seem that experiencing the failures teaches as much or more as going through the game the first time without a struggle. To each their own, but even games that have great tutorials that explain what is happening, take time to understand the finer points of progressing through it.

I think what it ultimately comes down to is how people feel the value of their time is, and what provides satisfaction. Even if a game can be frustrating, there's an accomplishment to be felt after beating your head against an obstacle for a while. Your skill at the game has improved.

However, there are few other mediums that operate this way. There's no film that forces you to rewatch a certain scene until you "get it", then continues on. Even if you stumble upon an unfamiliar word or phrase in a book, you're able to take a guess and just move on, even if it means you have incorrectly contextualized the moment. The time where we have all gone through the struggle of learning to read or learning to comprehend language (not to mention speak it) is so far long ago that, well, I dunno about you, but I myself cannot recall a time before I could read. I mean, I remember being that young, but I cannot recall seeing words and not recognizing them.

Video games are the only real leisure activity that require its audience learn over and over, and in some cases constant failure until understanding is achieved is part of the selling point. Not that there aren't other mainstream parallels. Anyone starting exercise understands that you'll stumble and screw up before you start to see real results, and that there's a time commitment involved. But I'd say there are a limited number of enthusiasts that would also call that "leisure" or "entertainment". Oh, sure, plenty do! But plenty also view it as work and obligation.

Some people don't want to play games that way. They want to engage in the same manner that they engage in books or movies, or even something like solitaire. So in that regard, people would much rather understand how to play optimally from the beginning, or at least, what the best approach is, rather than earning that knowledge themselves.

XCOM explains how things work, mostly, but not the optimal strategy. That would completely invalidate playing a strategy game.

Suffice it to say, we all value things much differently and just because I don't understand something, surely doesn't necessarily mean it isn't right.

I would say that any of those activities have different levels to them. One doesn't start reading Moby Dick and hope to understand and take away as much from it as if you read it after understanding a few Dr. Seuss books. There is always progression in your intake of a medium. Some activities just have more easily transferrable skills to move to the next level. There is still time investment to get there.

I can totally see someone starting XCOM from scratch with a horrible experience, not knowing about how so many of the aspects function. Same to me as trying to start playing the guitar. That sound isn't like a guitar. Who is making that awful noise? Do I buckle down and try to learn it or just scrap it and go back to something where I'm more familiar? It all depends on how much it engages you. If it does, fantastic! Otherwise, it's totally a work/obligation situation. Find something else you enjoy, there are always more than enough work/obligation activities.

LarryC wrote:

Wow. Just listened to the 3MA guys. Some of them really didn't get XCOM2 when they hit that podcast. I found that bizarre because I'm not a particularly smart guy and it felt clear to me what all the little strategic resources did right in my first game. It's certainly not as obtuse as UFO Defense where you had to dig through 2 screens just to find out that there was a panic level.

Yeah, even as someone who hasn't played XCOM 2 yet that was a painful listen, and the forum comments to the episode agreed.

It was a bit funny that week because I heard Rob Zacny holding forth on the Conference Call, 3MA and Idle Weekend, so I really understood his perspective on the game. Tom Chick was a guest on Idle Weekend and he even said by the end that Rob should just play a game on Easy to get a sense of the systems without being overwhelmed. After several minutes talking about playing games at the 'right' difficulty.

I'm looking forward to getting to XCOM 2 eventually, but need to seriously play some Enemy Unknown first.

It's weird because the region contact info says "30 Intel" when you click them, so you know what Intel is for. Then you get the Black Market, and once again, the prices are listed in Intel right there.

It's not even true that it's never worth going to HQ to harvest Intel. Sometimes, you just need that little bit to push you over and scanning at HQ gives you the option to trade time for that benefit.

ccesarano wrote:

There's no film that forces you to rewatch a certain scene until you "get it", then continues on.

You've clearly never watched a movie with my wife.