Yeah, sorry. There’s no way I’m paying more than $15 for this.
Quaro
4544
Do we know they didn’t change the council missions? I would love if those were randomized even a tiny bit.
garin
4545
I will definitely get it, because it’s an excuse to play yet more XCOM. But the Australian list price for this is $50, which is ridiculous. I got the base game for $33 (GMG) at release.
If it was $30 like you’re all complaining about, I don’t think I’d even blink.
Don’t you mean council mission?
Was there even more than one unique one in the original game? I must have got it 5-7 times, but it was the same one. Not to mention it was no better than the average map with nothing special or interesting about it.
There where several. Taking a prisoner back for questioning, rescuing a general, getting a scientist out… And allthough they weren’t mindblowing, I definitely felt they where better then the average map, if only because the defenseless scientist/general/prisoner required another approach…
garin
4548
There are also the bomb disposal missions.
Quaro
4549
It’s nice that shows missions have different objectives but when you replay the game, they are exactly the same every game.
There are also the bomb disposal missions.[/QUOTE]
And they have multiple maps too. I’ve seen at least two different bomb disposal maps, both were interesting enough (although I was disappointed to find that they’re still fielding all Thin Men when my troops are using plasma weapons and uber armor, making the mission incredibly easy).
And I just played a council mission at an observatory, that was a neat map setup too.
I haven’t quite finished my first playthrough yet (I assume I’m close…), but I don’t quite understand all of the angst about the council missions. As mjgreeny says, they’re at least as interesting as the ‘abduction’ missions (which–strangely–always take place on a deserted map with no civilians present), and I’m already a bit sick of the terror missions since I’ve seen fewer than 10 total and yet I’ve seen some very similar (if not identical) maps several times over.
Either way, I’m skeptical about the value of this DLC too. More maps and classes seem neat, but I’d rather see more early/mid-game branching instead of padding the end of the game with super-unit upgrades and enemies. I feel like the combat (and line of sight) mechanics are too restrictive, forcing such a slow, plodding, move+overwatch treadmill, and the overall arc of the game seems so linear, that it’s really hard for me to imagine wanting to play through the whole game again just so I can unlock some neat end-game upgrades.
[edit: @Quaro: I see, so you’re saying that you’d like to see the bomb/hostage/enemy spawns randomized in the council missions? Are they more randomized in the other missions? I can’t tell for sure, but I’ve started to feel like the non-council missions are somewhat predictable in terms of enemy placement (although I don’t know what the enemy units will be).
Quaro
4551
Exactly, council missions have less variation relative to regular maps, so when you hit the same one again it sticks out like a sore thumb. The non-council missions at least have different enemies, might be all sectoids in the first month, could be sectopods at the end of the game. Council missions have thin men in the first month, in the last month, in the same locations, same ambush times, same dialog from the person waiting in the same spot, everything.
I think they slightly increase the number of thin men in the late game but that’s it, so they are also too easy relative to everything else after a certain point in the game.
True, but I didn’t mind, I usually used them to lvl up some rookies…
garin
4553
You also don’t have to do the Council missions-- there’s no penalty for ignoring them.
Were the bomb missions council missions or were they just a different objective? I suppose it doesn’t really matter, they were pretty crappy missions anyway.
Razgon
4555
Thats some insane pricing for something that most people never will play, seeing as they have to replay the entire game once again.
And that makes, what, 6 or 7 sour, sarcastic remarks in the last few pages. Your really don’t like this game, do you?
I guess I’m lucky I never played the original xcom, and that I’m also a sucker for little things like customizing my soldiers and all. If they add realistic accents in the dlc I will very very happily play all those crappy missions again…!
No, i generally liked the game but it suffered from extremely bad map design and being very repetitive.
It is at least partially because of the maps that the game loses steam (for me) about 2/3 of the way through. I just got tired of playing the same maps over and over again and even when they are different, they aren’t THAT different. The fixed scenario maps also were bland and uninteresting, not having any special “WOW” encounters at all.
I don’t see this new DLC changing any of that and $30 is just insulting unless everything i’ve heard about this DLC is hugely understating how much content it has.
Wolff
4558
Well I am sucker I guess then. My hope is the additions smooth out the difficulty on ci and ii.
I’m curious about playing through on Ironman classic, do you guys find that you’re constantly losing and rebuilding characters? I feel like that would be extremely frustrating and tedious, not because I can’t stand to lose characters, but because low-level characters have such horrible aim odds and low will (leading to annoying panic episodes).
I’ve (mostly) decided that I would never replay the game on Ironman because of the occasional glitch with mutons spawning in the middle of my squad, but I do like the idea (in theory) of fighting something more like a war of attrition with the aliens. Among other things, my normal game has become less interesting now that I’ve leveled everybody (plus backups) up to colonel.
On the other hand, I have very little interest in upping the difficulty because my understanding is that it just changes the odds to make things more punishing (lower chance to hit, higher chance to get hit and suffer criticals, etc.), and the game’s mechanics (especially the alien free move) already lead to a tedious tactical pattern where I have to crawl my squad forward 10 feet per turn with constant overwatch. It’s fun in small doses, but I also find myself getting bored and dashing my characters forward for the thrill of getting the mission over sooner…
I really wish the game had a different approach where you were forced to deploy multiple squads simultaneously (why should a planet of billions have only one six-person squad to deploy during alien abduction events?). Thus the choice would not be where to go, it would be where to send your best squad(s). Then I could be sending ‘rookies’ (who, in my mind, should already be highly skilled and not at all panic-prone soldiers) on the other missions. If I send the green squads on easier missions, many of them should survive and level up, if I send them on tougher missions, I may lose the squad and the mission outright (I’m assuming these battles might be auto-resolved, since all of these tactical battles would be too tedious to play manually). That would make more sense to me than the current system that forces you to focus on a single group of 6-10 squaddies because spreading yourself out is just a waste of experience.
Basically, I think I like the strategic elements of the game, managing my resources and prioritizing missions more than the tactical gameplay. The tactical parts are great, and they could probably be improved by more map/alien variety, but I think I’d rather that there were more things going on between missions. Now that I’ve finished all of the research, my only tasks are queuing new troops for psi training and running the clock, waiting for the next mission.
Quaro
4560
What you say is somewhat true but it is still find it MUCH more fun to play ironman on whatever difficulty is appropriate.
If you are constantly losing characters, and getting new rookies, it isn’t a tedious grind to replace them and level up them up. It’s that you could lose the ‘war’ just like you could lose a game of Civ after 20 hours. So heavy losses mean you have to weigh skipping the most difficult missions that will kill your troops, vs risking doing them anyway to keep panic down. It’s not tedious to have rookies replace experienced soldiers… it’s TERRIFYING. I briefly tried impossible-normal and it just felt pointless. It was a grind of missions I had to tick off a list instead of a campaign strategy war game. Ironman any-difficulty FTW.
It’s also a stronger incentive to maintain a larger squad of leveled up soldiers.
The exception is the late game where even on ironman, it becomes almost impossible to lose and grindy. With satellites over every country you can skip missions without any real consequence and the aliens never seem to ‘push back’ once you get to that point. So a full squad wipe means you only get increased panic from terror missions which isn’t enough. REALLY hope they have the aliens shooting down satellites or nerfed satellites.
The most exciting experiences I had with this game were my first two ironman-classic attempts. The first was a pretty quick failure because I didn’t know how the game worked. The second was amazing and nailbiting at every moment and eventually led to a loss screen when I simply HAD to attempt the alien base to keep panic from spiraling out of control but I wasn’t appropriately tech up and couldn’t pull it off. The feeling of being against a wall and risking it all, and then the heartbreaking close battles inside… just great. I could have stopped playing X-Com at that point and had a good time, just like you could play a game of Civ and enjoy it even if you lose.
JFrazer
4561
Didn’t the original X-COM allow you to establish multiple bases and sent teams out to multiple sites at once? For some reason I remember having 2 squads out at a time; one heading out to a downed saucer and another at a terror mission.
That would make the new XCOM so much more interesting. As MrPinguin said, it would lead to major decision making moments. You have 2 hard missions active. Do you break up your team of vets, sending half to each mission with some rookies in tow? Do you ignore one of the missions and just send your vets to the other? Or do you risk a full team of rookies at the other mission? And how do you split up your limited equipment since you can’t really afford to supply 2 full teams with elite gear?
As it is right now, the game gets downright boring at times once you have a full squad running around with plasma weapons and titan armor.
Quaro
4562
You can get a bit of that effect by bumping the heck out of injury and recovery times, so you can’t do two missions in a row with the same people. At least one of the mods does that.
Anything more would require pretty big changes.
