I think a problem that XCOM has is that its visual representation is a lot less abstract than its underlying system.
Compare it to something like Advance Wars (abstract representation, abstract mechanics) or Dwarf Fortress (abstract representation, detailed mechanics). Those games don’t have this kind of problem. (Dwarf Fortress has a different but related problem, which is that it’s hard to see what’s going on at all).
For a lot of players, XCOM’s graphical fidelity brings in a lot of real-world (or other-videogame) expectations that the rules don’t support. You kind of have to ‘unlearn’ the associations between what the units are doing on the screen and what’s happening inside the system; they’re supposed to be seen as pieces moving on a board rather than characters in a realistic environment. I saw a few designers on twitter expressing bafflement at this image, but I think it’s actually pretty common for players to initially misinterpret games as being more naturalistic than they are, then over time internalise the rules and/or get frustrated by the incoherence.
It certainly doesn’t make XCOM a bad game, but ‘the hit percentages don’t make any sense’ holds weight as a complaint: the systems are understandable on their own, but they’re not served well by the representation.









