What Is Happening To Computer Games?

Before I venture into the bulk of this piece, let me first introduce myself and a little of my background as a gamer.

I'm a fan of strategy, RPG, and big sandboxy games, where I can build stuff, evolve, and tell my own story. I'm a fan, especially, of the Rome/Medieval II Total War games, and the X3 games, especially Reunion and Terran Conflict. X3 is one of the most in-depth, immersive, and beautiful games I've ever experienced. In my early days, I played things like Sim City, Dune 2, X-COM, Civ, Master Of Orion 2, Transport Tycoon, and a little later, titles such as Baldur's Gate I and II, Wizardry 8, and Jagged Alliance 2, just to name a few. I fared somewhat in consoles in my day, but I'm mostly a PC gamer. I'm sure I'm forgetting many memorable titles in this introduction.

A few mods by devoted communities have greatly enriched my gaming experience. For me, Medieval II Total War became unplayable without Stainless Steel, while Third Age Total War is also a remarkable masterwork of equal quality. Prophesy of Pendor elevated Mount and Blade Warband to a whole new level, and it's a mod I vividly recommend to anyone who hasn't tried it. A few lesser known or independent games have also caught my eye. A word to Simutrans, a community-created transport simulator, closely related and inspired by Transport Tycoon, that's as realistic and complex as you'd wish for such a game. For me, I realized that the effort of a dedicated group of modders and fans can often give games the depth and oompth a game needs to get to another level.

In-game screenshot from X3 Terran Conflict. Taken from manapool.co.uk

I'm currently without a computer capable of handling most modern games. I've left my I.T. job and career to start my own self-employed life fairly recently - which, btw, is not related to I.T. or gaming. Because of budget, time, and mindset constraints, I'm at the moment mostly reduced to watching LP's on Youtube, as far as games are concerned. Still, I had still been looking forward for the sequels of some of my preferred games, harboring the hope of maybe playing them. I had been anticipating most specially, the new X-Com, the new X Rebirth, the New Rome Total War, and the New Mount and Blade (the latter yet to be released).

I ended up not being able to play these, due to the constraints I mentioned. But, the truth is, I thought I would severely miss not being able to play these games.

But I don't.

It is the opposite: I'm consistently being grossly disappointed by the releases I so eagerly anticipated, often in a surreal manner. I'm getting a little concerned, and this is the reason I'm writing this. I know, I know, "you must actually play them", you'd probably say. But, hear me out.

This Weird Vibe

I'm spotting a certain trend when it comes to these new releases of the games I like. And no matter how much I try to see things from a different perspective, and be tolerant, that same nagging feeling keeps lurking about.

It all started when I took a peek at the the latest Sim City. I thought to myself, "does that territory ever expand? It must, right? Who would ever think doing a Sim City with such small terrain area!? lol" But, alas, such was the case: they did do it that way. This was when I first noticed the weird vibe.

Next, the new X-COM. It's a laudable, thought-out effort to modernize the old one. I has merit, it's its own game, and it's probably the least guilty of the trend I'm getting at. I played it some time, I made a review in this blog. I made a real effort to truly enjoy it, not to judge, and to appreciate the effort. I did. But, well, I want time units. I want an inventory, and in-depth soft-defined squad roles based on soldier abilities. I want to shoot at walls, at the air, at mosquitoes if I so choose to. I'm sorry, but I do. That's just me. I find a pity that re-doing a classic meant removing some of the good in-depth things the game had. And the graphical capabilities were so nice... oh well.

Total War Rome 2

Next, the new Total War Rome 2. That was probably the one I anticipated the most.

I don't really know why, but I don't really like the feel to the game, even though the visuals are a step above obviously. I don't like how the units collapse into each other instead of holding their lines. I don't dig the ancient-egypt-style-drawing unit cards. I don't really like that thing about capturing victory points. I don't think patches can actually address this in a significant way.

I am understanding about bugs, glitches, fps issues. That can be patched. I'm not enthusiastic about meeting deadlines with less than polished games, but at least those kinds of things can be fixed. What can't be fixed, though, is the principle behind the game development. It's the brains, the ideas, the direction, and above all else, the self-demanding quality control behind a game.

Rome Total War, and to a degree Medieval II, had AI issues. But I was willing to overlook them because the game's ideas were great, and their execution adequate to them. Some mods took the AI one step further. I liked hoplites and pike phalanxes. I likes archers, elephants, and the battlefield atmosphere. Again, the AI was the bottleneck. There was also the issue of potentially becoming overpowered and being able to steamroll the AI at some point, leading to mid-game quitting out of boredom. So, one would assume these things would be better handled in the sequel.

Instead, from my (honest) perspective, I feel as if the devs started all over when it came to the AI. Enemy armies split and attack one unit at a time constantly, there's no such thing as keeping it together and making one concerted attack. No lines are held, and there's less than desirable waiting for reinforcements. And again, as far as I can see, once you gain some territorial mass, you can't be stopped.

Where is this in Rome 2? Picture from http://qr.ae/GtZyN

I'm a fan, not a troll, and I don't want to be unfair and be gratuitously bitch'n without weighting my words. Some things took a step ahead. Cities growing, capitals and minor cities, controllable fleets, step-by-step faction objectives. But here's the thing: the AI is a huge factor. The AI determines if army fights are intense, or just 'meh'. The AI determines if you're facing the evil rival empire by mid-game, or simply more of the same meaningless battles. These things are the bread-and-butter of the game, and I saw no improvement in this regard. Once you go past the first minute of 'ohhh, look how nice it looks', things such as immersion and gaming experience, which are more in-depth aspects, depend directly on how the AI feels. And where are the family (or maybe political) lines? Where is it shown clearly see who's related to whom? How is politics of meaningful relevance in the game? And wtf is that thing about any unit being able to bring down a gate with fire sticks? What?

The game doesn't take itself seriously (enough). I feel as if things that were broken weren't fixed, and vice-versa. We're running circles without leaving the same spot, updating and tweaking things and tracking back on others, while not truly focusing in depth on what had the most room for improvement. There's less caring about the core principles of the games, and for the established fanbase eagerly awaiting for them. That's the trend I'm seeing. 

X-Rebirth

The new X Rebirth really touched a nerve. I'll explain.

I don't mind the humanoid figures of characters, I actually think they're just fine for that game. No problem at all. I like having to hire actual pilots to fly your ships, instead of trusting the holy spirit to materialize an entity in a vacant ship. Hiring people, perfect. Epic graphics, perfect. I don't really have anything major against highways and such. I don't mind too much the animations of you walking inside your ship, even if it's always the same repetitive animation. Okay, fine. What I could bitch about would be crawling around in copy-pasted station interiors with hardly anyone inside them, those conversations- ah, and robbing lockers and boxes of items (which doesn't make any sense at all IMO, unless you really focus the idea of a rogue-style space smuggler). The idea of bringing life to the inside of stations was potentially great, but it's probably not done ideally. But still, that's not what struck me. Do you want to know what did?

You fly always the same ship.

It took some time to sink in, like surreal bad news.

What.

What?

This is the same as having an RPG without loot. Starting from the bottom with a paper-armoured ship and basic lasers, and always striving to expand to a better ship, then to a better ship, then to own several ships... that's what X is about. It's about writing your own story. It's about changing not only props and peripherals, but switching to better rides as you go through. But no matter how many power-ups you get to your ship, it's still the same ship. But what's the problem? Let's go into the RPG analogy again.

"You are Ron the Mighty, and you'll carry your great sword Excalibur throughout the entire game. You can pick up many power-ups, improvements, and special abilities for your sword. Your sword talks and gives you directions. Your sword will be able to perform miracles and change the weather by the end-game. But you may never actually hold another sword. Ever. Again."

Facing such an RPG, chances are I'd drop it immediately - save for some other special trait the game would lure me with. And, no doubt about it, some would still enjoy such an RPG, and will enjoy X Rebirth for that matter. No doubt about it. But not me. I'm in it for the loot.

You want to improve or exchange weapons? Shields? Maneuverability? Cargo capacity? Fine. Do it. But you could do it while still being able to also pilot different ships. And no, flying drones is not the same. You want to have co-pilot, engineer, a ship crew? Perfect. But make them all hirable including the co-pilot, interchangeable, storable in the headquarters. Are capital ships unwieldy, slow, and difficult to fly? OK. Then do something about it. Make the experience of flying them rewarding in some other way, or slow-but-still-fun, if you can. You know, improve the game. But don't remove the gameplay option altogether. Are the menus and the game complicated and with a massive learning curve? Fine, make a proper tutorial on how to handle the menus, on what the systems in the universe do, about the races, and about flying your ship. But don't change the essence of the game.

You wanted to make the game better than the previous ones? How about being able to land on planets? How about the possibility of dynamically exploring/generating completely new planets and sectors in the universe? How about giving your player and team RPG stats? How about each pilot having differences in behavior when attacking, defending, etc? How about being able to modify, design, or customize ships on top of the models that already exist? And weapons. And shields. I don't know. Some ideas at least.


A Matter Of Gut Feeling

Let's place a honest disclaimer here. Maybe I'm getting old - for gaming at least. When you're young, experiencing video games has a significant impact on you, that kind of "magic". And I guess that as we gamers get older, we want more. Subconsciously we expect to re-live an evolved version of that original, magical experience. We expect the same feelings of wonderment as we ventured into Ultima Underworld's darkest corners, or found our way through Super Metroid's suspense atmosphere. Back in the day - at least for me - it wasn't that much about power gaming or reaching objectives: it was going into a different world and getting shit scared as we turned another corner and a giant spider jumped on us. For that reason, I have to give a little leeway to the gaming industry as I'm writing this: I may indeed be growing out of games. I don't know.

Still, my maturity notwithstanding, one thing time also told me was to trust my gut above anything else. And this nagging feeling most certainly is that. What worries me is that I'm being disappointed, not in a "you could have done better" kind of way;  not in a "you didn't make the best option here" kind of way; but in a manner that is almost surreal. I feel as if the companies and designers that own the games and franchises are disrespecting and throwing out the window the expectations and eagerness of the fanbase their games have already garnered, without care or remorse. Never in my wildest dreams would I come up of developing a Sim City game with such a small map; I'd feel guilty and unethical over it. Never in my mind would I dare to come up with a X Universe game where I couldn't change ship.

I don't want to discourage those that like these releases, or those that kind of dislike them, but find reasons to enjoy the games and remain loyal nonetheless. That's okay. That's a good principle to live by. I try to be understanding and see the other side too. But my gut feeling keeps telling me, tolerance notwithstanding, there's some shit that's seriously wrong.

I feel the fanbase in general, even the most die-hard and quick-to-complain individuals, are actually very thoughtful, tolerant, and understanding. We understand when a company is pressured by the market environment to leave some polishing to post-release, patches, or even community modding. We understand budget constraints. We get what challenges are. We do. The more us gamers grow into adults, the more we get that, for obvious reasons. Developing a game is a complex journey, like making a classic movie, like a tough life choice, like so many other meaningful things in life. And in the face of some of these kind of peripheral characteristics that don't come out perfect, that could have been better, that aren't as polished as desirable, we may complain somewhat, yes, but we are willing to circle around those things and make an effort to enjoy it nonetheless.

What stikes a nerve, however, is when we (or me, at least) detect than, beyond challenges, beyond difficulty, there was a lack of fundamental care, commitment with vision, dedication, into following the promises and potentials delivered by the previous game. We anger when something that was dear and close to us was treated like 'some other thing'. That is when a degree of anger appears, this is when angry reviews and cursing come out. But honestly, in that sense, and in my mind, they are justified.

I know these are just games, you know, and I'm aware they would try to appeal to different markets, make the game more accessible to younger crowds, newer gamers, to consoles, or try to make the games easier and more accessible. I know they want to grow, they want more success. Who wouldn't, right? But none of this matters if you grab a game and torn apart its original principle, reduce the universe to a tiny map compared to the previous games, and shred away its complexity and depth. Because then that's the message that comes across: we're being treated as sheep, and the purpose is to make as much cash as possible, regardless of care. So let's just send out some crap even if it's not stellar, and hope they don't complain too much. That's the worrying trend I'm sensing.

No proof, no inside stories, no rumors; just looking at the games themselves, and listening to my gut feeling. You may need concrete evidence to point fingers and know what actually happened for each case; but you don't need evidence to sense what is going on with the big picture.

An Appeal

If you want to make a different game, do it. If you want to make a game for the kids, for consoles, for a wider audience, that's fine. Launch a spin-off, an "inspired by" game, something with a different ideal, a different purpose. But please don't hijack the X Universe and throw fixed plot elements, a voice, a special ship, and a woman co-pilot to babysit you through. Please don't remove my choices. Please don't dumb down or discard that which already works, and that which already made the game unique and good. There is also the audience, the generation, of now less-than-young gamers out there, who look forward to the greater challenge, who eager for it, and to which you could (should?) also cater.

Let me choose which sword to equip, which crew to hire, which ship to fly. Let me write my own story. Have respect for the games you create, for the fanbase and their expectations, and most importantly, for yourselves. All I ask, is that you care. 

Because we can tell when you don't.

XCOM Enemy Unknown - Review

This is going to be a review of XCOM Enemy Unknown, and in this review there will be direct comparisons with its spiritual predecessor, the 1994 game UFO: Enemy Unknown (or X-COM: UFO Defense). 

Why Compare This Game With the Original?

When older gamers talk about the original, and they compare this new game with said original, I often read comments asking: "Why compare this game to the original? They are different games. Enjoy this one." So let me address such a question right away.

Short answer: 

Because it's XCOM.

Less-than-short answer.

Around my teens I was blown away by X-COM's two games. In my book, they were one of the best games ever made, even to today's standards. Without going into the "best game ever" idea, the original XCOM a game that can certainly make a solid case for that title. X-COM set the bar extremely high, and that is precisely why everyone, for so very long, has tried to pick up the franchise and remake it, modernize it, "re-imagine" it, and so forth. In my opinion, you can assess and play this game by itself, but ignoring the existence of the original is impossible for me personally, and it doesn't make sense otherwise. It's XCOM.

Playing the original had a magical thing to it, and there's always the expectancy to remake it with today's technology. It did have some quirks, but the underlying game mechanics were awesome. And why would we want a new game if we can just play the old one? Well, duh, it's old! How many times can we play something over and over? Naturally we want magic v2.

"Re-imagining", to me, is a buzzword used by Firaxis to allow them a little more freedom to develop their game, while perhaps taking a little more expectation off their backs. After all, that was their intention: redevelop the game, as if they were making it today anew, while not necessarily copying everything from the original. But, you know what? This is XCOM. And it's by XCOM standards I'll be reviewing it. It makes sense no other way.

Overview

This is an engrossing and addictive game. You can tell by looking at it, and playing it, that every single detail was designed and balanced with care, to make you have a specific kind of experience when playing it. Not every aspect survived from the 1994 game, but the goal was not to stray too off, and to capture its spirit in a modern design.

It's easily something that was made with love and care, and the product is successful, of high-quality. There's no arguing that. Visually entertaining and tough-as-nails battles, steep difficulty from Classical and above, and a dash of RPG leveling up your soldiers. Extremely small squad sizes (4-6) make you value each individual soldier tremendously, and I assume that's exactly what the devs aimed for. In fact, on higher difficulty battles, if you lose one of your four soldiers in a battle, the odds quickly start stacking against you.

I personally tend to frown upon the tactical game mechanics (cover, seeing and firing through corners, etc) as it's implemented, mostly because can be a little counter-intuitive at times, and because cover values are a little arbitrary and hard-coded into the map tiles. However, the resulting game experience is a intricate, very specific game-of-chess-ey challenge with its own set of rules, one you must master in order to survive through the game. You cannot expose your men under any circumstance, and the slightest mistake may cost your mission, if not your game - things can get very ugly very fast.

For this reason, especially in the early to mid-game, your tension levels before each battle are always through the roof, basically because a loss, while not an instant game-over, does come very close. Losing a battle means you lose hard-earned veterans, which are hard to replace, but far more importantly, countries take a panic penalty, if not outright abandoning the XCOM project immediately, something that affects your funding and can dictate the difference between staying in the game or not. If 8 countries or more leave, it's officially game over.

If you do survive through the early and mid-game, if you get the hang of how the fights work and you have experienced soldiers and high-tech toys to play with, but most importantly, when you manage to cover all countries in satellites, the game can quickly become... well, trivial, or maybe straightforward is the term. Things can still go bad at any time, but you do lose the feeling of being underpowered and vulnerable, because you aren't any more. From this point on, the game, which thrives in being difficult and putting pressure upon the player, kind of loses a little steam, and you're progressing with the game to finish it.

Still, all things added up, this is clearly a masterwork of craft and dedication, destined to carve its own place in the niche and in the minds of gamers. It is indeed a worthy successor to the 1994 game.

But, is it as actually as good as the original?

Streamlining Things

Having found my way across the combat system, my guess is that the devs created the altered battle mechanics, such as the "explicit" cover system, absence of free aiming with most weapons, and so on, not only to remove the slow pace and micromanagement of the original, but also to provide a more strict framework upon which to implement their AI. If you had left a hard physics engine like in the original game (meaning, cover not being a tile value, but the actual objects between a line of fire), as well as the original Time Units mechanic, that essentially meant you had full range of movement and choices, and well as the AI. And that AI would have been way more tricky to implement than this one. Relatively easier to teach an AI to play chess (make choices within a strict ruleset) than to live real life (choose between everything). Also easier to design and balance your classes and its level-up traits.

The original (unmodded) didn't streamline inventory management at all. You allocated gear to your transport craft, and you later assigned those items to each soldier right before battle. But, if you by any chance didn't want to equip all your soldiers exactly the same gear, you had to manually equip each, one over and over, right before each battle. Here, you don't so much have an inventory to customize, rather, soldiers have a strict group of slots where to put items (armor, weapon, sidearm, other), and before each mission it's generally easier to equip them.

Note that this game's simpler 'inventory' does suffer from its quirks of its own. If you deselect a pre-selected soldier from a mission squad, you must get it back temporarily to strip its gear away if you need it for another soldier. A soldier 'menu' besides the main selecting screen would be nice.

Rather infamously, in battle, the older games frequently forced you to waste a lot of time searching for last isolated aliens hidden in dark corners, which was a relatively big problem - not only a chore, but because that hiding alien could be actually powerful and waste a few of your soldiers as you were trying to reach it carelessly (because you were running out of patience). Here, however, smaller maps, and aliens triggered in groups, completely eliminates that problem, which, frankly, is a fresh approach. Aliens in this game never stay still and hide: they're always teleporting moving around. So the battle experience, in that sense, is indeed streamlined, and you'll never again go "oh, I'd like to pick up XCOM again, but if only for those time-wasting things...". 

However, an interesting phenomenon happens with this game. You soon find out, through experience, that the optimal rules of engagement is to send a soldier ahead to make a first contact, and then either pull back to lure aliens into your overwatch trap, or (especially on Impossible) hunker down and prepare for a concerted offensive move next turn. There are missions with turn-limit that rush you, and as the game moves on and you get better gear you start being less cautions. But a conservative and very though-out approach becomes the default and best tool of survival in the early to mid-game.

Aliens, especially on high difficulty levels, are extremely accurate, even when you're in full cover. Unless you are willing to gamble with your soldier's health, the best defense is being out of sight, and the next best is being hunkered down in full cover. Leaving a soldier within sight of an alien at the end of its turn is one step closer to its death, and the game does punish you heavily for the slightest mistake or lapse in concentration, forcing you to be on your full focus all the time, much like a game of actual chess. An experience which was the result of streamlining things can become a very cautious and slow procedure. So stating the experience is "streamlined" has a little bit of irony to it, even if some mundane time-consuming tasks were removed, and rightly so. The patience-testing delay of chasing that last alien on large maps, and the clunky inventory management, were exchanged for a slow, carefully calculated, chess-like tactical battle on a smaller map and with less units.

Geoscape and Base Management

In the original game's geoscape you had your base(s) on the lookout for whatever alien activity you could catch, and the aliens had their specific autonomous agendas regardless of your actions. Granted, the game would probably make sure there would be alien activity somewhere near your first base, even if you placed it in Antarctica, but there was a system for aliens and their bases. In this game, though, what happens is more linear and follows more closely what you research. Things appear because of XCOM, and the geoscape simply as a button to "scan", meaning, "advance events". There isn't much to the physical location of things, other than the necessity of placing satellites in certain countries/areas in order to check their panic levels and prevent abduction missions.

Having just one base, to me, isn't that big of a deal. On the original games I really didn't like much having more than one base, and perhaps a secondary one, simply because multiple bases would only increase micromanagement of troops and supplies, and would double the amount of missions you could have. So having just one base, in my mind, is arguably a justifiable game design option.

The game does leave you with one recipe for survival strategic-wise, which is to do a satellite rush as soon as possible - otherwise, the rate at which panic levels rise will inevitably make countries leave XCOM funding. The game does not give you much incentive to focus on improving research or building laboratories, which is a shame. Actually, it's a little the opposite of the original, where veterans have the instinct of boosting research as soon as possible to keep up with the aliens, and much less pressure to focus on amassing engineers and workshops. Being able to cover a continent with satellites gives you a specific bonus and provides added management depth.

However, one thing to notice is that the concept of Satellite coverage itself is a little silly. While in the original you relied on the pure physical scanner range, in this one a few of the satellite slots are the United Kingdom, France, and Russia. Again, this is another area where the game attempted to abstract from pure pure "physical" game features, into a streamlined conceptualization, with mixed results. Sometimes this streamlining gives you more management options and freedom, but it can distance itself from the realism that made the original game something special.

In this game you don't recruit engineers and scientists like soldiers, nor do workshops/laboratories have a maximum workforce capacity. Instead, your base has a generic pool of total engineers, and another one of scientists (god knows where and how they sleep). Engineers/scientists "come" with each workshop/laboratory you build, and are also awarded by countries and through missions.

But, engineers have this contrived mechanic whereby their amount/threshold is a precondition for certain buildings (okay I guess, they staff buildings after all), but they don't decrease item build times, instead they make each item costs less (what?), and, they can build as many simultaneous (non-instant) items as you wish, all at the same time, taking the same duration to manufacture regardless of item amount and parallel projects. Building 1, 10, or 200 satellites always takes 20 days, even with other similar ongoing projects simultaneously. What?

These must be a special breed of engineers, surely able to pull all-nighters and time-space paradox tricks out of their asses at will. Bad jokes aside, this is extremely counter-intuitive and hard to take in, even considering that's the way the game is balanced. Purists such as myself, even if they find the game fun and engaging, can't help but feel a little nagged by these things. In the original, more engineers needed more workshops to work, and could built things faster (or more things in the same period of time). Simple.

Much of the game's fun comes more from its difficulty - as intended - less from the underlying realism of game mechanics.

Soldier Level-Up and Specialisation

Something that received more attention and love was individual soldier progression. In the original all soldiers leveled up with missions, but that wasn't much specialization once they did: you had one recipe for success once you had the tech: everyone with heavy plasmas (perhaps one or two with a Blaster-Launcher), everyone with the best armor, etc. Soldiers did start with specialized "human" weapons: auto cannon (machine-gun), light rifle, rocket launcher, but that distinction didn't follow when you researched better tech - there was no plasma sniper gun, or "shotgun", for example.

In this game, however, that received deserved attention, and soldiers have specific classes and respective weapons, which follow up when new tech is researched. Furthermore, each soldier class (sniper, assault, etc) has a little trait tree that they unlock when they level-up. I just wish the traits were more. There are only two measly traits from which you can choose per level. Not suggesting to turn this in to a full-fledged RPG, but two traits feels a little skimpy. As do the armor/gear strict limitations (no inventory), and hard restrictions on the classes' weapons. Also, soldier's personal stats were reduced from the original array, to just hit points (plus defense), will, and aim.

I do understand. Again, another area where the player's choices are more narrow, in the same train of thought of stricter rules on tactical battle: it's meant to provide a more narrow ruleset to place the AI on, and to reduce your own micromanagement and delay. It works, I think. It does make what it's supposed to do: it streamlines the experience and abstracts some of the chores of equipping soldiers. However, the end result is debatable, because it denies me the juicy pleasure of mixing and matching things the way I please. If Firaxis wanted a more modern and less wasteful game for the new millennium, they did got it: this is a good game. But if they wanted a game for the ages, reducing the array of choice from the player worked against it, in my opinion.

You could elaborate and differentiate a little more each soldier's traits, for example a soldier with naturally high accuracy and low carrying capacity would necessarily had to be the sniper. These would be soft-imposed rules, not arbitrary restrictions - big difference. I guess the biggest critique I can make of the game is that all these abstractions and "optimizations" make it less real and sandbox-y, while more linear and intense. And yes, "real" is important, okay? Because this is XCOM. You can love it for what it is now, but the game exists because of the original. Also, I can mess with my soldiers haircut, race, tone of skin, choose its class traits, but not choose its class...? Hmmm... not sure what the game gains with that. 

Perhaps the hard restrictions on classes, and the inability to choose a class, are meant to prevent you from using only one or two classes while skipping others altogether? If that's so, firstly, that would be my own choice. But, perhaps more glaringly, that may well be an option of self-defense from the game and its devs, in order to hide any possible less-than-perfect balancing of the game mechanics. Mechanics that should gently, through careful balance, suggest you the need of having all the different classes, for the game's different situations, much like most rock-paper-scissors you have in strategy games like the Total War franchise, or some RPGs, such as WoW and its classes.

That, in my book, is the hallmark of a great game: giving and leaving more choices to the player, while having enough in-depth design to balance those choices appropriately.

What The Game Did Right

- A passionate re-invention of a fluid, streamlined, and solid combat system (tactical), with a decent variety of attack types and enemies, together with considerable management decisions and rationing of resources (strategic), blend in a solid game, true in philosophy to the original.

- Extremely high and punishing difficulty levels, especially in the early game, but with rewarding achievements, make you tense up and glue to the chair, hoping for another day to go by to see if you can pull it off. Resources (money, alloys, ellerium, etc) are not as easy to come by as in the original, greatly increasing the need to prioritize your actions.

- Being difficult as it is, once in a while the game throws you into an overwhelming, suicidal situation, one that makes you sit up from your seat wandering how you're going to play the game when you restart. Yet, you  may just be able to survive such a situation, if you know what you're doing, if you make your moves right, and with a little bit of luck. It'll be just the more gratifying considering its immense difficulty. Such a game has the magical ability of giving you tales to tell, and leaving you craving for more. This is one of those games. It's the best compliment I can give it. It follows on the original's footsteps, which had the same ability, and also on games like Rome Total War, or Jagged Alliance, for example, where you can overcome inhuman odds.

Yesterday I survived a hairy terror mission with 3 groups of cryssalids plus zombies, and a cyberdisk+drones group, with one high-ranking casualty and multiple wounded. Once I migrated the Gaul faction to Rome, fighting with my Spear Warbands every single Triarii group. Once in Third Age Total War I fought a scripted defense force in Moria, which included a Balrog group, and only a meagre handful of units plus the general survived. These are the stories you'll be telling others when you speak of the game. This is one of those games.

- Soldier focus and in-depth specializations, which don't dilute and devolve into a single cookie-cutter class as the game progresses. Reasonably balanced classes which provides variety and coolness to soldiers.

- Existing game mechanics are balanced properly and invite the player into specific behaviours in order to survive: prioritize satellites in order to shield nations/continents from abductions, reduce panic, obtain funding, resources, and bonuses; value defense over offense in tactical battles, making you think things through and be cautious instead of doing whatever, because you're severely punished for losing soldiers/missions; soldier classes and skills are sufficiently different from one another so they are useful and don't overlap each other and become redundant.

- Often overlooked, but worthy to point out: the graphics, scenery, and especially the intricate soldier /alien animations and general movement, are all carefully crafted and fluid; it's something the player may forget when mentioning the game, but it is very well made, and it does add a sense of realism, action, and fluidity to the game. Switching weapons, walking through short obstacles or windows, climbing and descending, all of these small movements are very nicely done, both for humans and aliens. Have you seen the animation of a zombie descending from high elevation?

- Introduction of new concepts or tweaks: country panic levels, simultaneous alien missions which prompt your strategic choice, resources and bonuses from protecting countries/country groups, instant item fabrication, shotguns, scopes, critical hits, soldier and alien skills (mind meld, intimidate, poison shots, high ground, variety of  psionic attacks), alien weapon self-destructing upon owner's death, forcing you to stun if you want to scavenge alien hardware, alien corpses that are usable resources rather than to merely sell. Explicitly notifying that certain alien vessel components are meant to be sold, is a wonderful, fantastic touch.

- Keeping certain hallmarks of the original's design: research and production; alien autopsies, capture and interrogation; discovering how to beat the aliens by said research/interrogation; the cryssalids and their zombie-making ability; most alien names and their conceptualization; psionics; (relatively) destructible scenery; exploding cars and gas pumps; panicking soldiers; countries leaving X-COM funding; intercepting UFOs; taking care not to damage downed UFOs; scavenging alien hardware to use in research; in-combat explosions destroying said hardware.

- Clearly identifying plot research items, and directing you through them. Removal of the "search for the last alien" patience-defying moments, using 'squads' of aliens and smaller maps. Also, having a single base does reduce micromanagement, being the notion of the aliens also having very few bases, and
*spoilers*
overseeing  the invasion from a few mastermind ships
*spoilers*
a plausible notion to go along with that idea. Arguable, but plausible/neutral/acceptable design choice in my view.

- Overall the game doesn't stray too far from the original's philosophy, therefore the sense of vulnerability, urgency, yet evolution of your forces according to your management, all of these elements are present in the game in some way, and in essence remain true to the original.

What The Game Did Not-So-Right

- A streamlining which pulls away from a 'realistic' simulation combat system, namely the dropping of completely free aiming, type of shots, spontaneous/ reaction fire, time units, full-range inventory management, picking items off the ground, fighting in night time, cover being the actual objects between a weapon and a target (instead of a shield drawn in the side of things). Streamlining is a good principle; abstracting may not always work for the best, however.

- Hard restrictions on inventory items and class armament, instead of balancing game mechanics and giving the choice to the player. Not possible to manufacture items for profit (acceptable as a design choice), but the ability to sell excess weapons/items has been removed altogether (save for some council/country requests). What if I want to sell my extra medikit to cut my losses? I can sell sectoid corpses in a grey market, but not a medikit X-COM themselves have researched? What?

- More linear plot advancement; irrelevance of geoscape in terms of 'physical' strategic options, other than satellite placement. No day-night cycle and no choices at that level either. Lack of management depth and design mechanics funnels the game into a single cookie-cutter competitive strategy: satellite rush above other priorities; ignore plot advancement research until ready; ignore scientists and laboratories altogether. It feels what happens at strategic level serves player, rather than giving the idea that the aliens are a tangible organization with a mind of its own. You are being given a series of events, rather than attempting to discern with your radars and ships where the alien craft are, and what they're doing - which happens in the background regardless of you being aware of it or not. In this game there are specific fixed timeline events, such as, for example, Muton Berserkers appearing on month four, always. While there was a progression in difficulty in the original, there were no such strict rules.

- Panic, together with the simultaneous abduction missions, is the single player-pressuring game mechanic in the early to mid game. It's the danger, the chasing monster; the rebel fleet of FTL; it's what challenges the player into making strategic choices and prioritize, and threatens to defeat him all the way. However, once Panic is controlled, the player now has substantial funding, and is now pretty much free to do as he pleases, and when. A playthrough is clearly divided into two stages: the early to mid game until you manage to cover the world in satellites, when you're literally unsure if you'll succeed or fail - where the game draws much of its difficulty from; but then, after that moment, the game then becomes fairly straightforward, or, dare I say... boring? Insert the word to prefer here.

- Pre-made maps sure are hard to overlook, when the originals got us used to random maps. The existing ones are built to go along with the game's tactical mechanics, and I'm sure the devs found it too resource-consuming to develop randomization with their current combat mechanics. In a map, alien groups follow the same fixed off-screen teleport patrol routes (a map is not that large anyway), so when you see a map you already played, you already have a good idea where aliens are. But pre-made maps can get repetitive with multiple playthroughs, and it generally feels a little off once they repeat. Pseudo-generation, with an assortment of area modules, would be best.

- While certainly difficult and tense, the game doesn't quite convey the sense of terror and dread from the original, and especially its sequel, when the curtain closes ("alien activity screen") as the aliens take their turn, creepy suspense music plays, civilians scream in agony as they die in the background, and you are shot dead from the middle of the night by an enemy you can't see - blank screen again. This game is more about action and tension, rather than danger and fear. And again, if you survive the first two months, the tension aspect is pretty much gone anyway.

- Tons of cutscenes, even when 'cinematic cutscenes' disabled; skipping through those (even if/when they can be skipped) can get a chore. Streamlining cut on some chores, only to add another ones. Linear gameplay and cutscenes give the feeling the game was pushed a little away from being a tactical simulation, and a little more to the Final Fantasy / console-ish side of things. I don't want to see those dudes saying the same things over and over again every time I play through the game. Enough already.

- Mobile Weapons Platforms. S.H.I.V.S. aren't all that fragile. An hover/plasma S.H.I.V. on Classic has 18 HP, can fly, and can hit for 11 damage. Therefore, they can be useful, and I understand that in the game's current balance, since your squad size is so limited, they must be designed/balanced as they are right now. As it stands, though, these are useful solely to patch up your squad if everyone is unavailable for an important mission, or perhaps to absorb enemy shots and PSI attacks. They are a stopgap, a very situational auxiliary tool, one you may not use at all in a given game. Granted, you may be in dire need on higher difficulty levels, but with small squad sizes, you almost always want to be using actual soldiers. So weapons platforms in this game have a substantially reduced relevance, if any at all.

You had tanks in the original, useful both early game and later on. If you have your soldiers in Gears-of-War-type power armor and oversized weapons from the start, wouldn't it be fun to use actual mini-tanks, robots, or even mini-mecha? Balance it with uber aliens, or something. Lost opportunity there.

- Bugs/Features are not overly concerning in my opinion, with patches coming out, and all games have their quirks. But a few are consistent and becoming trademarks. These are not overly concerning on their own, but they do reveal some of the game mechanics to the player.

1. Sometimes you gain the ability to spot alien groups being teleported across the map (why the teleporting in the first place?), mostly in occasions when you reduce soldier's LoS through Hunker Down, or using the Sniper's device to reveal portions of the map. 
2. In these occasions it's not uncommon for alien groups to appear to teleport directly into the middle of your squad, instead of at least having some animation of 'wandering' into view. Such features let the player show how AI groups are teleported around, greatly reducing game immersion.
3. When a mind-controlled alien dies, it affects your soldier's will as if a 'comrade has fallen', and your squad may panic as a result. Those soldiers sure got attached quick to that alien (whom they'd never met before, and was trying to kill them just a minute ago). Mind Control isn't quite workable because of it. And that is really a shame.
4. Also, some explosion blasts (grenades, cars) affecting units through walls without actually destroying the walls; being able to shoot or throw grenades across walls; and an assortment of things of that nature. 

Verdict

An actual successor in the XCOM/X-COM series, true to its philosophy of squad management and intense on-the-edge missions. Ignoring the game's re-invented tactical combat and challenging gameplay would be a tremendous injustice to the dedication put into it by the developers. But, does it reach Legendary status? Expectations are high with this one.

Too many eggs were put in the difficulty basket, while stripping some of the depth of the original gameplay. Is it a true fun game? Yes. Is it a game that will break you, one you'll feel you need to take on for the challenge alone? Yes. But, once the initial challenge is gone, once satellites are up and gear is reasonable, once you know what you're doing, the game loses all of its steam, becoming almost boring. Thus replayability greatly suffers once you reach this point.

You'll have nightmares and become traumatized by the losses this game will have you take, as I did. You'll wait for just one more day so that research comes in and you can have better armor, or weapons, before those early game abduction missions. You'll learn to roll your dice, and never feel completely safe, as a crushing defeat is but a stray shot away.

But to be honest, a part of me isn't completely satisfied. I like the graphics, the animations, and the modernization of things. Love it, keep it. But I want to handle inventories (in a streamlined fashion, of course), I want to free aim, and I want more soldiers, tanks, civilians that are actually meant to save, and aliens that behave reasonably on the battle map - instead of teleporting and 'activating'. I want time units. And I still want an actual Earth globe, with actual alien activity - rather than events - that I can fight toe-to-toe.

For these reasons, I don't think XCOM is magic v2. I don't think it matches or surpasses the brilliance of the original, and perhaps it's a risk for anyone attempting to develop the franchise, because brilliance isn't usually all that easy to come by.

It is, however, a worthy game. It's not a consentual improvement, but it's not a complete derailing from what made the original great, either - as, inexplicably, so many companies and developers persisted in doing, and will possibly continue to do, I guess. XCOM Enemy Unknown It's a labour of passion and dedication that will glue you to the chair on its own right.

Annex: Suggestions For Improvement

Standing as it is, this is already a memorable game, which not only succeeds on its own, but manages to evolve some aspects of its predecessor. Having experienced both games, one can only imagine how to take the best out of the two.

- Keep alien 'squads'. This feature helps remove the isolated alien which was programmed to stay still in a dark corner, and helps the player have a notion of how many aliens there are left. Aliens being 'triggered' should mean they've detected you, but they should behave in a reasonable manner off-screen, instead of simply being hopped around. Remove the off-screen teleporting of aliens, replace with regular pathfinding (because there will always be ways of the human player detecting aliens off-screen). 

- Remove tactical abstractions. Have time-units instead of actions; have spontaneous reaction fire instead of overwatch; have carrying capacity and expanded soldier stats, instead of hard restrictions on equipment; have cover be the solid objects on the field rather than a value that decreases chance to be hit.

- Allow free-aiming (always); bullet and laser weapons can't easily destroy solid objects, plasma can. Fire weapons and check if the shot hits the actual intended target, or an object in the way. Keep the ability to fire from behind corners, possibly subjected to reaction fire. Design class abilities and AI behaviour around time-units and simulation mechanics rather than the current rules.

- Remove location abstraction from the geoscape. Remove "event" system and let us have the XCOM vs Aliens across Earth. Get back night battles, flares - line of sight is already implemented. Keep the"panic" concept. Let player place satellites with an actual 'physical' sight radius rather than the current territory coverage (1 satellite for France and 1 satellite for Russia is silly); let "panic" be generated in areas where you physically have less coverage and simply can't see as well. Have aliens be a consistent, "physical" entity rather than scripted events more or less predictably thrown at the player.

- Have the aliens progress and increase their advances/technology/frequency, maybe affected by player success, but still in a manner independent of the player, as a form of keeping the player under pressure throughout the game until its end - instead of the panic mechanic being the sole feature for that. The way it is now, once you reach a full satellite coverage, nothing pressures you anymore.

- Increase squad size, balance with number of aliens, game mechanics, game difficulty, and map size. It's hard to justify having the organization which is fighting an Alien invasion only send 4 soldiers to a battle (!).

- Make it realistic for human early interceptor jets to not be able to catch (let alone shoot down) alien craft - maybe with ground batteries instead, with EMP ground cannons, etc. Or, hint on how top-secret jet technology is so far advanced that it allows you to catch alien ships. Consider leaving alien craft mostly unattended in the early game, at least until you have actual technology that allows you to chase UFOs reliably. Satellites should also be more way more vulnerable to an alien invasion from space - ground arrays instead?

- Option to remove all forms of cutscenes. The dude speaking in the little square at the corner will suffice for the repeating playthroughs.