Oh, and I have been reliably informed that all remaining cheese around the globe is being stored within resource crates. - That’s another mystery explained then.
3 Likes
As to Xenonauts lore, I remember thinking at the time that it was a very contrived explanation for the aliens behavior, but one I was willing to accept because it was basically a remake of a 20 year old game. (For how alien invasions from outside our solar system should work IMO, I wish game devs would read Pournelle and Niven’s Footfall).
As to the gameplay, your glowing picture starkly contrasts with my recollections.
What lost me was how tedious and repetitive the battles were, added to that after less than 2 hours I already felt like I had played the exact same map 3 or 4 times. The “tactical gameplay” - snipers gain higher ground and stay back, scouts move ahead using jetpacks, heavies move in covered by assaults, make everyone converge on the indestructible door to the UFO, etc. is OK for a few missions, but rinse and repeat 10 times and it’s just very tedious. Doing it on the same map over and over again doesn’t make it any better.
It’s funny you mention the robots because I recall being annoyed at them because you couldn’t capture their officers. As soon as I saw this metallic junks on the field it was no, not this again. Because in their infinite wisdom the devs decided to gate progress to capturing officers…
It’s not that the AI was terrible, but it wasn’t spectacular either. Mostly it’s just that there wasn’t much for it to do besides shooting.
Ah, and the mind control, which is what eventually made me rage quit.
Just last year I tried Xenonauts again while waiting for PP, but after getting the same warehouse map 3 times in a single session I thought enough is enough - I gave it more than a fair chance (around 60 hours in total, according to Steam).
Well, as I said my perception of the quality of the AI in PP is colored by my overall perception of the game. I like the game, I like the direction it has taken and I don’t want more remakes of Gollop’s XCom.
And your perception of the AI in PP is colored by your dislike of the direction the game has taken. Also perfectly understandable.
From Arthron Autopsy report:
Function: Combat. Sub-human intelligence allows use of melded weapons.
Triton Autopsy report:
Function: Sufficient intelligence to use a variety of human weapons in sniper or assault roles, plus various stealth capabilities.
Sounds like neither of them is sharpest pencil in the drawer. That would explain their tendency to inflict damage, even if the end result is sub-optimal.
Not going to lie this game isn’t a masterpiece. It’s far from it. I think a lot of people are feeling bad for the devs which you’re also doing. That makes you biased towards the game. It’s an okay game. The devs jettisoned things they promised to be in the game iirc. So they don’t need defenders. They took the pragmatic money first approach. So why would you censor your thoughts on the game? The combat balance is bad. The missions get stale and boring fast. The story is okay. The maps are boring. The “mutating/evolving” enemies are boring to look at and in mechanics. Even xcom’s enemies which have been basically the same for years and years are still more interesting. Base building is dull. Character lol what characters. It’s a an okay framework but it needs to more and needs refining. That’s just to go from okay to good for me. The devs haven’t put the effort in for it to be a masterpiece. Sugar coating just tells them this is fine when really it’s not. Tons of devs rely on getting away with sloppy stuff because people will feel bad for them even though they clearly had no interest in putting the work they promised they would complete.
4 Likes
I don’t, if you read me on the forum (and on this thread) you can see I make plenty of criticisms to the game.
About this specifically, and the need for a proper Panda evolution.
I feel bad that what I think is a great concept (and one that has been mostly implemented right) gets trashed because some players don’t understand it, or wish for a different game. And of course they don’t even wish for the same different game.
My point is very simple - the main concept (miniature game with real ballistics, to put a tag on it) is great and the core implementation is right, but there is work pending. Mostly polishing and balancing, but the biggest problem is the
missing Panda evolution.
I read this as panda (as in panda bears) revolution. 
It’s in one of the DLC’s a new race that will win the war and take the planet back…The Rise of the Ursines! 
1 Like
I write on my phone, which insists I should just call them 
.
2 Likes
One hostile take-over from Activision, slight change to the lore and we’ll get the invasion of fluffy black & white kung-fu monks 
2 Likes
Teach your phone that there are Pandorans.
EDIT. Whooooa, especially that it was you who started this thread. Your masterpiece should have their own words in phone’s library.
I don’t think so - it might conflict with my habit of writing on the subject of the merits of Kung Fu Panda.
1 Like
I was more implying that people criticising the game is well deserved. So why should criticism for the game have to have a counter balance of “its a masterpiece”. So what exactly is masterpiece worthy in this game? When all the main elements are kind of meh. Masterpiece is a pretty exclusive club. Calling this beyond good is a stretch. I don’t see how you can have a dislike people for “not understanding the game”. When you’re basically saying a game that has good concepts that barely exist in game is masterpiece worthy. Not exactly a solid argument you have there yourself. I would say most people do understand the game and it doesn’t lead to a particularly enjoyable experience. Doesn’t really matter what it’s trying to do specifically because the main point is that it’s should try to be fun. Which it doesn’t do. Again nothing this game does in terms of gameplay or strategy is well thought out and engaging. It’s the opposite is repetitive and boring. Or are the plebs not understanding the amazing enemies noob tube spam for being genre defining gameplay. Like the one thing they have going for them is a minor thing in that you can aim yourself. Problem is that makes cover a lot more useless and the AI spams nades making it even more worthless.
1 Like
I don’t have a dislike for people not understanding the game:
I feel bad (as in sad, as in 
) that the game gets trashed.
No, I’m saying that main concept is great and the core implementation is right.
What I like is
-
the freedom when doing the builds. There are no class weapon restrictions because of the third row skills, and the classes don’t determine the roles. For example, a sniper can easily be a CQC specialist (because the quick aim perk makes them ideal for dashing up to an enemy and blasting them with a shotgun), a heavy - a fast, lightly armored, melee fighter, an assault - a tank, etc. The combinations are practically limitless, especially once you factor in the gear and the mutations. I can’t think of any TBT game that approaches this kind of freedom.
-
not only are the builds different, but they also play very differently form each other because of the real ballistics, the confinement of RNG mostly to ballistics and the “transparency”* of the game mechanics.
(*I put transparency in “” because the description for many mechanics is lacking or obscure, what I mean is that the way they operate is transparent to the players once they actually know them, e.g. I know if a siren will be able to control one of my soldiers, because I know her WPs and the WPs of my soldier and there in no chance involved).
To explain what I mean, take Firaxis XCom for comparison, where most mechanics are reduced to rolling dice. Will I hit the target when I shoot? Throw a dice. What damage will I do? Throw another dice. Maybe I would rather run up to it and hit it with something… Again, one die roll for hit - another to see the damage. What about mind control? Well, that’s completely different - because then you have to roll this other die…
It’s not bad by any means - for the record, I think FXcoms are great games: it’s basically a tabletop and I like tabletops and dice throwing. It’s just that PP does something new and different, and something that can’t be done in a tabletop.
-
the lore and the minimalistic approach to storytelling, because when I want to watch or read good science fiction, I watch a movie or a show, or read a book.
-
not having to do extensive micromanagent, or having to play a tile & worker placement board game (aka base management in Firaxis XComs). I want to make strategic high level choices on where to invest my resources, that’s it - I don’t want to work out the optimal placement of facilities to harvest a bonus, or maximize output by optimal worker allocation.
Sure, PP is a little more than rough around the edges - the real issue, I insist, being the need to give the Pandorans some counters against all the stuff the player can do to them (in addition to balancing/nerfing OP builds), preferably through proper Pandoran evolution, but if not just throwing in more enemy types.
And there are plenty of well polished and competently executed clones of XCom and FXcom, but I would rather play a new game.
1 Like
Game has its good points, can’t deny that. But, apart from ballistics in TBS, doesn’t bring anything new to the table and other things can’t compete with equivalents in games we already have. Like few most notable:
Geoscape at the moment is nothing but fancy menu. It doesn’t give you a hint what’s going on and what will happen next. Just random things appear once a while.
Base Building is extremely limited and you can’t even build new ones but rely on existing (yet initialy hidden) interest points. Bad luck having three very close to each other? Doesn’t make sense, but deal with it.
Research and technology is also lacking. Research feels like its purpose is to hinder your overall progress. There’s no feeling of technological advancement at all, just plot gated behind topics. Occasional weapon branching that tackle personal prefrences yet doesn’t feel like something neccesary to win.
Gear doesn’t make a difference. After midgame rookie soldier is mostly useless regardless of whatever weapon or armour he brings into battle. What’s the point of ballistic system if “white” (forgive me MMO terminology, pure weapon damage not augmented with skills) damage doesn’t do much because enemies are bullet sponges and you have to deal with them with metagame rookie isn’t capable of yet? First hours in the game feels great, when white damage is the only choice.
Battlescape isn’t tactical. You can argue that its because of lore enemy isn’t smart, but for me it is terrible game design, if enemy you’re fighting the most isn’t smart.
For me it doesn’t look like a new game. It still feels very much like a clone, just not a good one. These aren’t things that are done differently in PP and that’s what makes game unique. The core remaims the same, they just lack the depth of other games.
4 Likes
There is, of course, no point in arguing about perceptions.
On some of the more concrete points:
It is true that some weapons need to be revised (virus and acid) to be meaningful, but in PP almost all weapons, including the starting ones, are useful until the end.
The problem is that we are accustomed to the legacy approach of XCom of the 3 tier weapons/armors, and PP doesn’t follow it.
AR, for example. It’s true that on its own, it’s can’t penetrate armor. However, it has unrivaled damage potential per AP and accuracy. So once you do remove the armor from a body part, AR can reliably finish the job. What’s more, in PP you can overcome armor either by penetrating it, or simply by doing a lot of raw damage, and under certain circumstances ARs do a lot of damage (attacking from stealth, having the reckless perk, or the weapon skill, etc).
It’s a lateral progression, where new weapons with slightly different characteristics allow for new play styles, while all weapons stay relevant until the end. Instead of thinking MMO, think Dark Souls.
And the gear (armor especially) is key to properly kitting out the troops, because it allows trades between accuracy/speed/stealth/protection.
For example, in my last playthrough my most important damage dealer was a sniper assault with the heavy weapons perk carrying the NJ HMG - one of the starting weapons, wearing light armor, a synedrion sniper helmet and with the speed legs mutation. It was OP, to be honest, because he could reliably one shot crabs and tritons at 5 tiles, and recoup the spent APs with Rapid Clearance.
Yes, you can say, see, another stupid OP build, but how many games you know allow the player this kind of freedom to do their own thing?
Well besides those “awful” simulation games, like all 3 old X-Com, Laser Squad, Soldiers at War, Jagged Alliance, Xenonauts, UFO series, Incubation, Fallout Tactics, the whole Combat Mission series. That’s just scraping it from what I remember playing. So how is that happened that you can’t think of any TBT that “approaches this kind of freedom”?
On top of that, class system in PP is neither a good system that actually puts an emphasis of assembling the team of specific skills by classes as done in games like Divinity, neither is a free form system where any soldier can take any role but they might be just better in taking particular role. A sniper in JA2 can be anything as long as he carries necessary equipment and has same basic training.
I’m sorry but this is just ridiculous.
4 Likes
Simulation games per se are not “awful” (at least I have never said this), though you got a pretty mixed bag there.
What’s ridiculous is ignoring that classes make for more distinct builds. Yes, you can give a sniper rifle to a soldier, say, in XCom Apocalypse and play him as a sniper, i.e. differently from the guy with the machine gun, but the differences between them are small when you compare them to those between an Assault and a Sniper in Firaxis XCom.
Anyway, once again you make the point for me: you don’t like class based systems and don’t see a point in having classes at all. That I can understand. But why can’t you accept that you might not like something not because it’s inherently bad, but because you just don’t like it?
1 Like
Neither xcom or PP have a really great class system in my opinion. Though xcoms is better. It’s more balanced, it understands why classes exist in the first place and the base trees are good. Classes exist to give a character strengths as well as limitations. That adds to the tactical layer of the game. Why have classes at all if you want a more open approach. You can just make OP versatilaballs. Very few people are viewing xcom 2 as the bible of TBT. It has flaws which I will point out. People aren’t getting hung up on xcom 2. You talk about it more than most people I’ve seen criticising this game. Like people didn’t ass blast the alien hunters dlc. Which I personally like but it’s flawed and criticisms are fair. Base building in this game is more micromanagement heavy. It’s not as interesting either. It feels broken to be honest because you can makes tons of stuff to sell off. Shame you don’t really have that much to spend it on. Research in xcom works the way it does for the same reason research exists irl and in other games. To create a sense of progression or for exact progression . It also adds an arms races to the game which creates tension in xcom.Here it’s feels more pick a colour. So how exactly is research better in this game? Xcom doesn’t exactly break the mold but I’m not defending xcom anyway. You just keep bringing it up. How is research that has no tension, stuff that is poorly balanced and isn’t paramount to your success a good thing. Like it’s basically some good stuff though mostly worthless and here take your slightly better gun and your favourite colour. Like you’re just attacking xcom. Not actually arguing against my point. Then somehow PP is so much better than xcom because something in xcom is standard. Like that just makes xcom a bit generic. It doesn’t make this game any better though. Especially when it does worse than standard. Like this game needs its dlc really badly. It needs patches badly as well.
1 Like
I would also say that comparing this game to darks souls is a bad idea. The only real progression here is in skills not in research. It should be both. Research should work in tandem with the “evolving” enemies in an arms race. That would create a lot of tension which works well in these types of game. You need to beat their natural rapid evolution by making breakthroughs in armour and weapons. Rather than you know some factions giving you their gun.
1 Like