It's very easy to nitpick. What's not easy is to revive a long-dead genre. Like it or not, Firaxis' Xcom did it. I know more players who have played only Enemy Unknown than those who have played the originals. If it was so easy to make people love the old Xcom, then why didn't anyone play Xenonauts?PhoneLobster wrote:Really now? Unquestionably? And not just OK, but great?Zinegata wrote:Xcom 1 was in fact their last unquestionably great game
Now, the Firaxis Xcom isn't perfect. The ending was rushed and the end game was so-so. The thing is, the original Xcom also had a bad end game and final mission. Most people just don't realize this because of all the love for nostalgia.
The reality of the original Xcom end-game was that it quickly turned into a slow slog, because you ended up micromanaging so many bases and soldiers. In real life squad sizes are limited to 10 for a reason. In real life multiple bases have different commanders for a reason. Sure, it may seem epic the first time you fill the map with bases each with its own purpose, but you don't actually need them to finish the game.
Indeed the final mission in itself could, should the map spawn in a specific way, be done in just 2 turns and be solo'd by one guy with a blaster bomb. Which makes all of the prep seem really silly.
Firaxis' Xcom was in fact a pretty damn great game that was a proper "reboot" of the title for the modern era. It's basically the Jurassic World to the original Jurassic Park; or the first Michael Bay Transformers movie to the original Transformers animated movie.
Edit: Oh, and I do also love Invisible Inc and can't help but feel Xcom 2 stole much of the campaign structure from them. That said, Invisible Inc in many ways may never have been released without Enemy Unknown.