Got currently 60h in and basically just started with the story). I was not sure if i liked it at first (1st person, city complexity overwhelming, shooting, character skills) but after the first few hours i got into it.
I wonder who designed the color palette. The game might be good, but if you don't see whats happening, whats important, where you troops are, whats the point?
Sadly it must be compared to XCOM and does not stand a chance. But it is not a bad game. Some nice ideas there, the game runs smoothly and looks ok. Cons: Of course there are some questionable choices also. Namely too much choice with unclear consequences. If i use a Scope in XCOM, i see my percentage to hit go up. I give the scope to the one with the best accuracy and he hardly misses (of course, only if he stands directly besides the enemy). Good job, i say to myself. However, here, if i move the trousers (hit percentage perk, really) from my sniper to my assault, i don't really see any difference during combat. I also gave my "sniper" an assault rifle, just because. It might be too early in the game but the start feels too easy and decisions are without real consequences.
I've got the game in early access, and it was actually already very well playable half a year ago. Superior to the first installment in almost every way. The upside is, that the stats of your villagers are now easier to understand (more individuality) and you get to know your party better. The downside here is that the combat therefore becomes more complex and, in my opinion, it is very difficult to plan out an optimal strategy (like i would in thea I). I end up accepting damage more readily.
