Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

299 Comments

XCOM 2 Review

3
  • PC

Firaxis delivers a fantastic sequel in many regards, but a large assortment of technical issues plague the overall experience.

XCOM 2 comes with two very different difficulties. I don’t mean that it has two different difficulty options when you start the game (it has four of those), but in terms of there being two different elements of the game that I struggled with. One was fully intended by the developers, involving intense, chess-like battles against an alien force. The other was with the game’s performance, in ways that Firaxis clearly did not intend. When everything is working as it should, XCOM 2 is a fantastic sequel that expands and improves on the original in several ways. When things are falling apart, it becomes a frustrating mess that made me want to quit and wait for a future patch. As it stands today, the quality of XCOM 2’s good elements made the game worth wading through some of its more infuriating problems.

Set 20 years after Enemy Unknown, XCOM 2 sees Earth being occupied by the alien force rather than invaded by it. They won the war, assumed power, and now hold the human race firmly under their control. A resistance of humans has taken up arms against the aliens, and the player assumes control of their faceless commander. Rather than playing defense against alien invaders like the last time, the sequel has you going on the offensive against alien oppressors. While this doesn’t drastically change the overall makeup of the game, it does have gameplay implications.

The metagame is critical, and doesn't give players much time to relax.
The metagame is critical, and doesn't give players much time to relax.

A metagame revolving around constructing a base and managing a world map is back, but in a different format. Instead of building a stationary base, XCOM 2’s home base is a captured enemy aircraft known as the Avenger. Without land to burrow into for expansion, you now add to your base by clearing out rooms of alien debris and repurposing them. It’s functionally similar to the last game, but the aesthetics of the metagame have been altered in a cool way to fit with the new timeframe. I enjoyed flying around the world map in my mobile base, feeling like I was reaching out to other corners of the globe to expand XCOM’s message.

Going on the offensive also has implications for the “boots on the ground” half of the gameplay. Considering that many missions involve the human forces infiltrating enemy bases or strongholds, you’ll occasionally start with your squad concealed from the aliens. That adds minor stealth mechanics to the turn-based strategy, and it’s fun to try to set up the perfect overwatch ambush for when you’re finally ready to launch an acid grenade into a group and announce to the enemy that you’ve arrived.

Both halves of the game carry with them an inescapable sense of tension. A new danger in the metagame is the Avatar project, which is an alien weapon that threatens to cement the occupier’s control of Earth. The progress of this project’s development is indicated by a red meter at the top of the world map, which fills in as in-game time passes and the aliens construct new facilities dedicated to Avatar’s construction. I felt a sense of dread every time another red box was added to the meter, and it made me question every decision I made during the metagame. Was I spending too much time scanning for intel and supplies? Should I be accepting every guerrilla ops mission that’s presented to me? Do I need to restart and prioritize different threads of research? I questioned myself at every turn, and found that the inclusion of the Avatar threat greatly added to the tension of the metagame.

While the first game was no walk in the park when it came to its tactical battles, XCOM 2 ratchets the difficulty up substantially. After about 15 hours of struggling through the default difficulty setting (possibly made worse thanks to some poor metagame decisions in the early stages), I swallowed my pride and knocked it down to easy. Even then, I frequently encountered disastrous missions that left most of my squad gravely wounded or dead.

These things suuuuuuuck.
These things suuuuuuuck.

Much of this difficulty is tied to powerful enemies, both old and new, that can cause chaos for your team. Vipers can use their long tongues to snatch your soldiers from behind cover, coil around them, and render them useless until they’re rescued. Seemingly innocent civilians can morph into hulking Faceless creatures that attack with powerful melee strikes. Stun Lancers can sprint across large portions of the screen in one turn, and immediately incapacitate soldiers with a swipe of their baton. Sectopods still represent an immediate and terrifying threat to any soldier on the battlefield during the late game.

To combat these threats, players have access to a wide variety of classes and abilities when it comes to assembling their ideal squad. Rangers utilize swords for dramatic melee strikes, specialists deploy drones to heal friendlies and hack enemy robotics, and new psionic soldiers can learn several powerful abilities that damage or outright control your foes. In a game where your maximum squad size is six, it’s tremendously useful to bring a couple psionic soldiers to the battlefield and add powerful enemy fighters (complete with their own abilities) to your ranks.

All of the classes feature interesting choices as you progress through the ladder of abilities, with some real game-changers becoming available later in the game. I particularly enjoyed my highly ranked rangers, thanks to the Bladestorm and Reaper abilities. The former automatically strikes at any enemy that enters melee range, even when it isn’t your turn. The latter allows you to chain together multiple melee strikes, provided that the last strike killed the previous enemy. If you encounter several mid-level enemies in the same general area, it’s possible to go on a satisfying killing spree as you dart from foe to foe and strike them down with your sword.

No matter how overpowered I made my squad or how easy I set the difficulty setting, I wasn’t able to remedy the cavalcade of technical issues I had with XCOM 2. The most immediately noticeable is the inconsistency of its performance. I played on two computers, and the framerate dropped frequently even on one computer that clocked in far above the recommended specs. Camera angles tended to miss the action whenever they move away from the isometric perspective, like during action-cam shots and hacking sequences. On more than one occasion, the hacking screen was completely obscured by a wall, forcing me to click blindly until I eventually hit the initiate button. I was sometimes unable to move soldiers to specific squares, despite the UI clearly indicating that I should be able to. The action sometimes halted for 15 or 20 seconds at a time for no discernible reason, even when it was my turn (negating the possibility that this bug was caused by offscreen aliens moving around). Roofs of buildings would often remain opaque when I tried to move my soldiers on the floor below. Several missions forced me to reload earlier saves due to bugs that made them impossible to complete. One wouldn’t allow me to evacuate my sharpshooter at mission’s end, and another wouldn’t allow me to pick up a mission-critical objective despite clearly standing on the indicated spot. Another mission got caught in an odd loop that kept warping an enemy around the map and ragdolling him off a bridge, which repeated for several minutes before I gave up on ever regaining control. I had encountered so many of these bugs that I could only laugh when I tried to load the final mission, only to be greeted by a crash and the “XCOM 2 has stopped working” prompt.

Corporal Waluigi is immune to garlic.
Corporal Waluigi is immune to garlic.

I want to come back and spend more time with XCOM 2, but it won’t be for the bare-bones multiplayer mode. These one-on-one battles give you the initial novelty of getting to play around with enemy units’ abilities (an experience relegated to psionic mind control in the campaign), but waiting 90 seconds for opponents’ turns in less-than-engaging battles can’t match the tension and progression from the single-player campaign.

It’s those two distinct difficulties that make me want to return to XCOM 2. The intended difficulty makes me want to come back to try things differently, to bump the setting up to normal and try to make smarter metagame decisions early on to see if I can hang in there and survive a second go-round. The difficulty I experienced with the game’s performance makes me want to wait a few months, and then return to see if this game that I thoroughly enjoyed will be patched enough to ensure that all of its difficulty was fully intended by the developers. I loved XCOM 2 when it worked, but its numerous bugs, glitches, and other performance issues severely handicapped my overall enjoyment of it.

299 Comments

Avatar image for plan6
plan6

420

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@av_gamer said:

Sorry, Dan. Only Jeff can pull off the 8.8 effect.

I figured by watching the special quick look that the game wasn't a huge improvement over the original. With that said, many websites including Gamespot gave it rave reviews.

Why is it sad they had a different experience with the game? Its not bad to have different opinions on a game.

Avatar image for noelle808
Noelle808

203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Noelle808

I'm enjoying XCOM2 a lot, but even without the technical issues, the formula is beginning to feel a little bit stale.

The whole "group-popping" mechanic feels artificial and turns 95% of the tactical decisions I make into "What's the move that's least likely to get me completely dicked over by a bad dice roll or two."

And planning your moves entirely off of hit-percentages is pretty boring since it's not something you can play around beyond throwing more dice at the problem. It's a little harder to appreciate the core of the tactical gameplay after playing so much Invisible Inc.

Avatar image for arbitrarywater
ArbitraryWater

16104

Forum Posts

5585

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 66

Hearing about this game's technical issues bums me the hell out and re-affirms my decision to give it a pass until I get a better computer and it gets a few patches.

I will say that I'm a little skeptical of Dan being the any sort of grand authority on what I would consider difficult in a tactics game, but I appreciate this review regardless.

Avatar image for mems1224
mems1224

2518

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yea, this game runs like garbage. I really want to spend more time with it because I absolutely love Enemy Unknown but there are too many annoying things about it. I've run into a lot of the same bugs that Dan did like not being able to move to a square or the game just straight up crashing for no reason. Its a really huge bummer. Good thing the Dying Light expansion came out this week, that should at least keep me busy for a few weeks.

Avatar image for dreiszen
dreiszen

85

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I didn't realize how stupid "rangers utilize swords" sounded until I saw it written out in a review.

Between the pre-launch Dark Souls II-style guffawing about how brutally difficult the game would be ("we made it harder by giving early game enemies mind control"), reports of what seem like artificially low hit percentages, and huge technical issues, I'm still not sure if I'm going to pick this game up. I'm leaning more towards 'no' every day.

Avatar image for chonkun
chonkun

51

Forum Posts

112

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I want to play it so bad but got bitten on the first one and the technical issues. I want to support them so bad but don't want to give them money for this experience. Fix it and I'll pay full price.

Avatar image for deerpoob
deerpoob

134

Forum Posts

53

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By deerpoob

such a shame, it really is better then the original in nearly every way, and while my experience with the technical glitches has not cooled me in the slightest I could see how someone with less patience then myself could be frustrated.

Games sure are shipping broken these past years, maybe we need more people like giant bomb actually docking points to make people really look into it, other websites often mention issues but rarely does it seem to have an adverse effect on the score.

and amazing sequel to one of the greatest games ever made (my opinion of the original) that in many ways surpasses it, why shouldn't it receive a high score? bullshit technical stuff, a shame but something that is very real and shouldn't be brushed off, games are tough to make but fallout 4 and now xcom 2 they aren't small projects QA should be a major stepping stone of the design process.

On a side note I really do hope you guys allow for after release reviews or something, just to give the game a fair shake once its actually what it should have been.

Avatar image for laini
laini

203

Forum Posts

105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I was really hyped for it but after playing it twice, for like 5 hours in total, I'm gonna hold off for a while.

When I booted it up originally it defaulted to Maximum, which ya know, I admire the game's optimism but it left it running at literally 1 FPS. It took ages to get into the menu and turn everything down to Minimal. Even then I was lucky if it hit 30.

My graphics card isn't great but I wasn't expecting such poor performance. Still it was playable and that's the main thing.

Second time I loaded it up, it set itself on Maximum again ¬_¬

In 2016 you don't make your game save user settings? Come on Firaxis.

Avatar image for schrodngrsfalco
SchrodngrsFalco

4618

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

@walkertr77 said:

I've got about 35 hours and no serious technical issues thus far (the frame rate can be kind of rubbish) but pressing caps lock a couple times speeds up the loads when coming back from missions, which is one of the most fucking mental things I've seen in a game for a while.

Wh- ....How is this even a thing?

Avatar image for meteora3255
meteora3255

683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

@tennmuerti: That assumes that this was a 5 star game. Its plausible that this was a 4 star game that got knocked down to 3.

Avatar image for hippie_genocide
hippie_genocide

2574

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

This sounds like a great game to pick up on the summer sale assuming a lot of the technical kinks are ironed out by then.

Avatar image for jclast
jclast

25

Forum Posts

86

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I don't understand people thinking that the 2 stars both came off for technical issues. Couldn't it be that 1 came off for technical issues and 1 came off for multiplayer that didn't do anything for Dan?

Avatar image for deactivated-5dac8b1b10957
deactivated-5dac8b1b10957

462

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

This score is too low for this game.

Avatar image for heaveninblack
heaveninblack

77

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By heaveninblack
Avatar image for newfiebullet
NewfieBullet

134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NewfieBullet

Great review Dan!

Didn't Enemy Unknown have a bunch of technical issues too? Shitty this game suffers from that too. After a few patches I'll pick it up though. Love me some Xcom

Avatar image for alavapenguin
ALavaPenguin

948

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By ALavaPenguin

I think I want to play this game eventually, but I am not really in the mindset of playing this type of game at the moment overall. I will probably eventually get it.

Avatar image for ottoman673
ottoman673

1289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I'm just here for the inevitable "Dan Ryckert is a cheese and wine gamer" vid that's bound to come from those schmucks at RT

Avatar image for bybeach
bybeach

6754

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Well written to the point of explaining why he gave it three stars. Even more well written to make me want to play it anyway. But if I did that I would restart the first game. For Dan seems to adequately inform me that this one is inclined to be more demanding than the last. To tell the truth for the first I didn't try beyond a cursory effort.

Good review.

Avatar image for gaspower
GaspoweR

4904

Forum Posts

272

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

As someone who owns the game, I can agree with most of Dan's points on the review including the technical problems. With that said, if you were a fan of the original game and have a tolerance for bugs, the game is still worth it. Otherwise, just wait for the inevitable patches to iron things out. If you were a fan of the previous game, XCOM 2 is a really fantastic sequel.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
ripelivejam

13572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for superfriend
superfriend

1786

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The last couple of Firaxis games I played were really janky. I was kinda hoping for this to be better since they sort of blamed the console port for a lot of the last Xcom's issues..

Avatar image for slyspider
slyspider

1832

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I did not see the 3 coming. Not really sure it is earned honestly but I haven't run into any big problems after 15 hours so I guess I'm lucky and the core game is so fucking good. Feels like we are judging it too harshly while letting other games off easier that release in a similar broken ass state. Well written either way Dan

Avatar image for christoffer
Christoffer

2409

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Yeah, I'm going to put this game on the shelf for a while. Maybe I could put up with all the issues but I have other games to play while they work on a patch. The way I ended up playing this, just to compensate for all the bugs and possible crashes, wasn't fun at all.

Avatar image for cronstintein
Cronstintein

40

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Cronstintein

I'm personally really curious as to WHY the performance is so bad. What I'm seeing on screen doesn't make me think it should be especially taxing on a decent PC. The destructibility? The fact that the environments are stitched-together independent physics objects? I really don't know.

As for the gameplay, I think it's terrific and a big step up from the last offering. Especially the strategic layer. The difficulty is more reminiscent of the original source of inspiration, XCOM:UFO Defense by Microprose. If you only want to play it once, I don't see the problem in putting it down to easy.

One thing your article neglected to mention is the excellent change in mod support, compared to 2014's game. You can easily make targeted balance changes, without requiring a computer science degree, through the .INI files. The mod community have already got a plethora of mods out on the Steam workshop and Nexus.

Avatar image for deactivated-5dac8b1b10957
deactivated-5dac8b1b10957

462

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@jclast said:

I don't understand people thinking that the 2 stars both came off for technical issues. Couldn't it be that 1 came off for technical issues and 1 came off for multiplayer that didn't do anything for Dan?

That wouldn't make sense. Besides the tiny paragraph at the end of the review, I haven't heard him mention the multiplayer once, not even in passing.

Avatar image for juggaloacidman
JuggaloAcidman

427

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 4

At first the cutscenes didn't work for me. Acouple hours on the forums and I fixed the issue. Then, no voice audio in cutscenes. More time on forums, fixed it. Then, no audio in game and central's portrait disappeared when he talks. More forum time, fixed it. Basically what I'm saying is... Almost all of the issues have work arounds if you really want to play Xcom 2 now. Otherwise, I'd wait a bit.

Avatar image for allodude
allodude

629

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@walkertr77 said:

I've got about 35 hours and no serious technical issues thus far (the frame rate can be kind of rubbish) but pressing caps lock a couple times speeds up the loads when coming back from missions, which is one of the most fucking mental things I've seen in a game for a while.

Wh- ....How is this even a thing?

I read something about Caps Lock disabling animations in your ship, speeding up load times. Kinda nuts.

Avatar image for klyith
Klyith

94

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jclast said:

I don't understand people thinking that the 2 stars both came off for technical issues. Couldn't it be that 1 came off for technical issues and 1 came off for multiplayer that didn't do anything for Dan?

Or he just didn't like the game so much that it would have been a 5 even if the performance problems hadn't been an issue? Dan says he enjoyed the game and all, but it also sounds like a frustrating experience to have such a hard time on the easiest difficulty. Watching the QL, he plays xcom the way I play Dark Souls, ie being impatient and getting punished for it. I couldn't give Dark Souls 5/5.

Also, the game got big props from some other places for the excellent mod support, but mods don't seem like a "Dan" thing.

Avatar image for r3dt1d3
r3dt1d3

300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

3/5 seems a bit harsh since the review makes it sound completely above average but it's GB so I don't expect the score to mean anything anyway.

I'd assume Dan would have given roughly the same to the previous game as well since it also had a lot of technical problems.

Avatar image for purpleeye
PurpleEye

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By PurpleEye

I disagree with Dan. Didn't have a lot of technical issues or glitches. The main issue is framerate sometimes drop below 40 fps. But hey this is TURN BASED strategy game so it's not a big deal I think.

Avatar image for deactivated-64162a4f80e83
deactivated-64162a4f80e83

2637

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

People saying 'I haven't had any bugs' whilst ignoring the fact many many many many people have had bug as some sort of rational as to why these aren't valid criticisms are pretty out there. The game is fun, but it runs like shit for many and has a lot of issues. It'll be a great game in 6 months time but for now it's a deeply flawed classic.

Avatar image for klyith
Klyith

94

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm personally really curious as to WHY the performance is so bad. What I'm seeing on screen doesn't make me think it should be especially taxing on a decent PC. The destructibility? The fact that the environments are stitched-together independent physics objects? I really don't know.

I'd also point to the crazy amount of customization possible for soldiers, all of which is all being dynamically layered together. If you look at mods that unlock full mix-n-match of all parts you'll see how deep it goes.

But there are definitely some graphics settings that seem to impact performance even on high-end machines. Anti-aliasing seems to be a big culprit. The funny thing about a lot of the complains is that people with older PCs are generally having worse times, so backing your settings down to Medium might help.

But beyond plain FPS problems, there are real bad bugs with the game. Dan had turn hangs and a crash, other people have everything up to save corruption. Overall it might be worse than xcom 1 in the bug department. Xcom 1 was very mildly buggy for most people -- if you played 12 hours you'd see a teleport or two and maybe a turn hang. Xcom 2 is super buggy for some people and fine for others. The game is just lucky that most other reviewers weren't hit as hard.

Avatar image for driadon
Driadon

3265

Forum Posts

763

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

Not shocked to see people going nuts over the star rating, but at the same time have people forgotten what the stars mean?

1- Would not recommend to anyone ever

2- Would only recommend to the most serious of fans

3- Would recommend to fans of the genre

4- Would recommend to most people who enjoy games

5- Would recommend to everyone

The concept is, really, to do away with arbitrary numbers and focus on just a direct recommendation system. Even though this review states some very high praise - and some low-lows - it would still make sense for it to be more of a fan thing.

Avatar image for mirado
Mirado

2557

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't understand how there can be such a disparity in the perception of this game's difficulty. I've seen people say it's too easy, and others say it is far too hard.

My take? Outside of the final mission and its hot bullshit, this game is far easier than EU. Why? Let me break it down:

  1. EU had mostly stationary pods, meaning that you'd bumble into them, giving you less actions to deal with them before they had a chance to fire. In XCOM 2, most pods patrol, meaning they run into you on their turn, giving you the full complement of actions to kill them before they can shoot.
  2. XCOM 2 has an entire class which basically utilizes the most broken thing from EW (Memetic skin) right out of the gate. A single Ranger will always make sure you get the drop on your enemies if used correctly.
  3. Mimic beacons completely break the AI. They will ignore everything else to try and kill those little glowing orbs, and they even allow you to give the beacons dodge bonuses to make sure they survive the full turn.
  4. Grenadiers completely change the RNG in your favor. With two or three Grenadiers, you will always be fighting enemies that are out of cover, giving you huge boosts to your aim and crit chances.
  5. The strategic game is far easier. You never have to worry about adjacency bonuses (so building placement is simpler), you don't have to deal with panic or an air game, and the fail state is far easier to mitigate, with a variety of options to push back the clock.

Some will mention that the turn timers are a sign of the increased difficulty, but I never found them to be an issue. In fact, the turn timers are the only thing keeping this game at EU/EW's level, and the game really shows its weaknesses once you get into missions that remove that limit.

The only time I ever ran into any trouble once I built the 2nd tier of weaponry was due to things I regard as bugs (all access to a rooftop extraction point breaking but the point doesn't move, aliens spawning on top of the objective you are trying to protect, units breaking the floor under them and falling to their deaths), and the final mission, which is a huge out of nowhere difficulty spike.

I'm not some pro XCOM streamer. I don't even consider myself very good at the game. And I agree with the majority of Dan's points, especially regarding the technical issues the game is having. I just don't get how more people aren't smashing this game into the dust on Commander and higher. Hell, you don't even have to possess a tactical mind; just grab a load of mimic beacons or Psi-Ops and watch as the AI leaves itself out in the open, tripping and bumbling over itself to kill something that isn't real.

I understand that some people are better at certain games than others, but I was pretty sure Dan played the first game, and this is easier than that, so I don't get how he had such struggles on even the simplest level of challenge.

Avatar image for thomascro
ThomasCro

535

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Whoah....

Avatar image for plasmaduck
PlasmaDuck

230

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By PlasmaDuck

Amazing game, terrible performance. If you got a beastly PC (I7, 980 level) you'll probably be fine but otherwise wait for a few patches. By that time, there will probably be a plethora of mods available too.

Avatar image for kubqo
kubqo

486

Forum Posts

867

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By kubqo

I wonder if i should even try getting into this. Cause maaan, i fuckin loved first XCOM, but at the same time, i think thats the only turn-based strategy i got into. And hearing this one is more difficult from the get-go, i probably won't have as much fun with it.

Maybe in a year, GOTY edition with all the DLC packed in and at half the price.

Avatar image for jangowuzhere
Jangowuzhere

134

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

I've had a lot of technical problems, but none of them were bad enough to actually annoy me. Even the game performance is okay in my experience. Sure, it's dropping below 15 fps every time an explosion happens, but this is a turn based experience free from quick reactions and accurate aiming. It doesn't impact the "playing" part of the game that much if at all.

Avatar image for larmer
larmer

1268

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By larmer

@plan6: I disagree. An old turn based strategy game I love is Jagged Alliance, and you can tell top to bottom that thing is designed to be interfaced with keyboard and mouse. An big open map you roam around in isn't outdated design. Neither is manual aiming, inventory/trading, or going prone for better aim. Those are great features that lend themselves to tactical strategy. Just looking at the interface of XCOM, it's very obvious it's designed to be played with a controller. Not that that's a bad thing. My point is it's very much a console-style game.

If you want old XCOM in a modern PC-centeric game, check out Xenonauts.

Avatar image for plasmaduck
PlasmaDuck

230

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@deathpooky: The game isn't more difficult than Enemy Unknown/Within, it's just different. You get equally fucked in EU the first time a Cyberdisc rolls up and you don't know what it is, like you do here when the Gatekeeper appears. The power creep is still present, by the late game all your troops are nigh invincible superheroes that obliterate everything in sight (and many things out of sight too). If you have slightly more tactical sense than a donkey beating this game on the default difficulty is not hard.

Avatar image for xivspew
XivSpew

89

Forum Posts

1509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

For accepting Dan's article as a well-written, thoroughly documented subjective opinion of one man's review of a game in its current state, and in the same breath read every single comment all in the wide range of agreement, understanding, dissension, and shit-talking with the same weight, I have become madness. Truly, to trust the internet's opinion on a video game website's 3/5 review is to see hell.

Avatar image for trenox
Trenox

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I certainly have my fair share of issues running this game, and it seemed to have gotten a free pass must other places, so kudos for pointing it out, but seeing a 60 meta score for this game is just not right. In some way its more the scoring system your running than the wording of the review I take issue with here.

Avatar image for triumvir
triumvir

644

Forum Posts

103

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

As much as it pains me to see a fantastic and truly 5/5 game get 3 stars over performance issues, it's well earned. The game is a hot mess right now, and Firaxis should be taken to task for producing such shoddy, technical workmanship in a delayed PC exclusive. I suspect that a month or two from now, and after a few patches for performance and balance, this game will be up to it's full potential.

Real shame that it has to be this game, and this dev, but more reviews need to SLAM shitty release builds. It's getting ridiculous out there. This game still deserves the 9s and 10s it's getting, from a gameplay standpoint, but I really wish more reviews had called this technical bs out before launch.

That said, go play XCOM 2, you guys... the game's really fucking good, even with the technical issues.

Fuck the new Sectoids! Playing on Commander and 9/10 mindspins in my Ironman campaign have been mind control. Not always a problem, but Jesus fuck, duders!

Avatar image for ericnstuff
EricNStuff

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Taking off 2 stars for performance? It's not amazingly optimized, and it has crashed once or twice, but damn. This is one of the best turn-based strat games ever we are talking about here.

Avatar image for cale
CaLe

4567

Forum Posts

516

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Why more data is always better: Metacritic = 90.

Avatar image for captain_insano
Captain_Insano

3658

Forum Posts

841

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 15

As someone who has not had any performance issues with the game, the review score disappoints me, because I think the game is much better than a 3 star (really it's a 5 for me). That said though, reviews are subjective based on an individuals experience and it totally makes sense that this is a 3 for Dan.

Avatar image for demonsoul
Demonsoul

331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

There is NO WAY this game is 3 stars out of 5. Who reviewed this game? Waluigi? At a minimum, due to the technical issues, this game deserves 4 stars. I have experienced a few bugs and framerate drops, but the core elements of this game are vastly improved over XCOM Enemy Unknown/Within. I'm having tons of fun with this game and I think it is 5 out of 5 stars despite some minor/annoying technical issues.

Avatar image for charlie_victor_bravo
charlie_victor_bravo

1746

Forum Posts

4136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

Taking 2 stars just for technical issues in this case is fair. Both EU and EW had major issues like getting stuck on infinite alien movement turn, warping enemies, line of sight problems and so forth that are still not fixed even to this day.

"These things will be fixed in the patches"- argument is counting on something that has not happened with previous 2 releases.

Avatar image for pyide
pyide

215

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By pyide

In my two days of playing, I had 5 crashes to desktop, one blue screen of death, and the alien AI completely break twice. Waiting for a few patches before I try again.


I haven't had any outright crashes some 38 hours in, and nothing has completely broke on me yet aside from the keybindings, which was an awful hurdle itself. The solution someone came up with to actually rebind a lot of keys in this game and have them stick for good is absolutely absurd. But it worked.

The performance is pretty rubbish, though. The best decision I made early on was to stop tweaking for a stable 60fps (never going to happen!) and cap it to 30 and max all the details instead. It's been stable and solid, plus it's not a twitch fps. The game was so fucking hitchy before, constantly dropping from 60 to 40 or more depending on the map or area of the map or what was happening on the map. Consistency is far better to me than variability, and so far Rise of the Tomb Raider and XCOM2 are the only games where I've ever had to do this. And both are totally playable and fine. In some cases more so than they would be otherwise. Heresy, I know.