My opinions follow.
- The 2 action critique isn't very good. I recall time units essentially forcing two actions. The recollection is so strong that I'd bet money the number of actions taken by all players of the original would spike at two, occasional actions taken without moving. The new mechanic is a very useful abstraction and functionally (and probably statistically) identical to the original.
+1 to the new game
- There are more kinds of actions that can be taken that are presented better. An improvement on the original.
+1 to the new game
- The original did a reasonable job with cover. Formalizing the mechanic, though, was a good move and eliminated "but she was behind the *$%^ing wall!!" <controller flung at television> frustrations. That's merely an emblem of the march of good game systems design. Good went to better.
+1 to the new game
- No facing in the new one, but replaced by flanking. I like flanking better, especially the clear feedback of the implementation. Would both have been better? I'm not sure. It could have created inept complexities that the game just didn't need.
+0 to the new game
- No intentional terrain destruction by rifle. Minor issue. Rifles don't explode walls, so that was silly in the original when it happened. Plasma rifles might, but it's not a lot of skin off my back.
+0 to the new game
- Limited inventory. A very good idea with an ok implementation. I really disliked the inventory space in the original and thought that while not as bad as your average RPG inventory, soldiers could carry too much. Likewise I enjoyed the tactical economy the limitations created. I had to think long and hard about who took what and when: "man, arc thrower or medikit, arc thrower or medikit?" But it would have been nice to reload the launcher and have more than one grenade. Surely some of the area effect mechanics could have been manipulated to accommodate that. And then they have the heavy carry two large weapons. ??? So much for the "carrying too much" point. Yeah an ok implementation.
+1 to the new game and -1 to the new game
- 6 soldiers. Eh. I get the game balance decision, but I don't think it was a good one. Yeah, 4 is a fire team but you need around 8 to have a credible squad, especially if you're talking multi-role. Enemy generation could've scaled to match easily. Also, 4-6 dramatically increases the effect of mind-control and death. Of Noah Antwiler's many critiques of the game, this is really the only one I wholly agree with and not a good design decision.
-1 to the new game
- The depth of the strategic base building was far greater than the original and I very much enjoyed it.
+1 to the new game
- Single base isn't a big deal after thinking about it. The only advantage multiple bases offer is time proximity and the ability to have more than one team in transit at once. Neither are major complaints. The only highly time-intensive response required are the interceptors and there you have lots of bases. Not a major point of contention honestly.
+0 to the new game
- Plot. Good and bad. It's great that they provide solid and clear direction early on, something I thought was a weakness in the original. It's also campy, pulpy, and over-the-top which I appreciated. The on-rails linearity was too much. It limits replayability because it imposes too much narrative structure. There's lots of emergent gameplay but the plot's forced march only allows the gameplay to hang off the plot in about the same order. So I essentially play the same game twice. That was a clear design mistake and a clear regression from the original in my opinion. Also the ending was forced and clunky; on the order of less good Star Trek episodes with some silly deus ex machina stuff.
-2 to the new game
- Economy. The difficult choices were well executed and eliminated my greatest critique of the original: cheating by selling manufactured equipment. You still can, but it's mostly luck of the draw in your shady member country dealings. Yet the feel of it is kind of artificial. Why do member countries want munitions less than their insatiable need for alien bodies?
+0 to the new game
TL
R: There are critiques to be made, sure. Yet most of the game design decisions, especially in tactical that people presume to be made for "accessibility" are simply good design based on modern theory. Of these decisions, I'd really only call plot linearity, squad size, and grenade/rocket inventory my true criticisms. It's a very good game and definitely an "XCom".