XCOM 2 is not only a brilliant game in its own right, but also improves over XCOM 1 in every form- graphically, mechanically, and thematically. Sweeping quality of life changes, such as the ability to press the tab key to move to the next unit while the previous's animation is completing, make up for the games occasional trivial turn cycles. XCOM 2 is unique in that the campaign can be "lost"- and it is a very real threat on the "Veteran" difficulty, adding a degree of substance to decision making. Consequentially, due to the length of the campaign, the total amount of time I expect to spend with this game is wholly unpredictable.
I have only played this with the "War of the Chosen" DLC, which I got on sale; so I cannot speak to the value of the base game. However, I can testify that the experience currently feels complete and engaging.
There are a few things in XCOM 2 which don't quite work. "Lost" elements of missions do not work well with the tactical strategy genre compared to missions with fewer, more complex enemies. The exact mechanics of the grand strategy campaign are not immediately intuitive. Lastly, the maps which missions take place on are far bigger than they need to be, often making the game feel like a sort of walking chore.
On the other hand, some things XCOM 2 did especially well make it a deeply engaging experience. The strategy layer's Avatar project provides a solid baseline for reading the general state of the player in terms of where the game expects you to be. On a tactical level, the idea that a mission's outcome is very analogue (with a wide range of outcomes based on the soldiers being wounded and killed), which negates the grind of easier missions; they can still be handled with care with meaningful incentives.
I have only played this with the "War of the Chosen" DLC, which I got on sale; so I cannot speak to the value of the base game. However, I can testify that the experience currently feels complete and engaging.
There are a few things in XCOM 2 which don't quite work. "Lost" elements of missions do not work well with the tactical strategy genre compared to missions with fewer, more complex enemies. The exact mechanics of the grand strategy campaign are not immediately intuitive. Lastly, the maps which missions take place on are far bigger than they need to be, often making the game feel like a sort of walking chore.
On the other hand, some things XCOM 2 did especially well make it a deeply engaging experience. The strategy layer's Avatar project provides a solid baseline for reading the general state of the player in terms of where the game expects you to be. On a tactical level, the idea that a mission's outcome is very analogue (with a wide range of outcomes based on the soldiers being wounded and killed), which negates the grind of easier missions; they can still be handled with care with meaningful incentives.