X-Com 1 and 2 (new versions) are great games, even if they moved away from the large squad slaughter that was Enemy Unknown, terror from the deep and partially Apocalypse. I personally really enjoyed looking at black sections of the map and thinking "that will cost 3 rookies to explore"
Everyone is aware of the "95% to hit meme" around X-Com, and if you've played Phoenix Point, the difference is especially jarring. If you haven't, aiming in that game is purely a probability cone, so standing point blank next to an alien means something. In X-Com it doesn't mean diddly squat.
I finally figured out what the problem with X-Com is, and why it's always uniquely frustrating. With it's pod based mechanics, fake stealth and drip fed enemies. What you are seeing on screen has no relevance and only serves as a distraction. Being right next to an Alien and missing is irrelevant because where the character and alien are on screen do not correlate with the game.
X-Com is, for all intents and purposes a very fun card battle game. If it were a Dos prompt game, with exactly 0 visuals, nothing would be lost.
Try it next time you play, completely ignore the visuals and imagine your character as a card drawing a dice based attack against another card.
Those % to hit chances are all effected by the location of your character in relation to them. The Flanking bonus alone takes impossible shots and makes them near guaranteed. Standing point blank to the enemy means a whole lot, and anyone whose ever actually played the game knows it. Everything visual is relevant under that umbrella and disproves your entire point. If you want to drag it to pedantic, literally every game could do without visuals and just be a number on the screen and accomplish the same thing.
The problem with the "95% chance to hit" meme is that its brought on by lack of information. There are a lot of pure raw numbers going on behind the scenes to make that final one, and often times your starting units just literally lack a high enough number even with every advantage multiplier to get to 100%. The game doesn't explain its own mechanics other than a vague notion that is good enough but leaves you with a lot of those Xcom Moments of confusion when they happen.
But that's why the most popular mod for the game was a literal higher difficulty, more complexity one. Because once you have access to more information the game becomes a lot more manageable and predictable to a point of needing more difficulty to return the challenge.
Both of the new Xcoms are littered with issues, like the retarded stealth and pod mechanics, but the RNG to hit thing isn't are egregious as it seems once you actually understand what its calculating and how to work within it (grenades bandaid everything).
I've played the literal Card Battle game that Firaxis made after Xcom 2 (Midnight Sun) and it plays nothing like Xcom.
And even if RNG were really bad, part of the fun/challenge of tactics games like XCOM is making a plan, and then having a plan to deal with if/when the first plan falls apart. It's a management game. And, just like in something like RimWorld or Dwarf Fortress, much of the !FUN! comes from managing those absurd and chaotic situations where everything goes to absolute shit.
I like missing high percentage shots, because it makes you think more and manage the new and more challenging situation. A string of bad luck can lead to some of the most fun gameplay, and the most memorable stories.
I've missed a 100% shot before, back in Long War 1, due to mod number rounding. I remember it a decade later, because that was hilarious.
Also true, but the kind of people to complain about "le 95% miss" are the people who don't understand that to begin with so I skipped saying it.
The game gives you risky situations that you have to take, and then deal with the consequences of. There are ways to remove the risk (explosives) but that comes with a cost of materials or cover for yourself depending on the game. Higher difficulties teach you that those removals are the biggest part of early game strategy to a point of minimal actual firing for a time.
A comparison in a similar genre. Fire Emblem 6 and 7. 6 is notorious for its extremely low hit rates across the board, which means its incredible difficulty is one of its most remembered parts and it makes sure you have to engage with the game with both barrels at all times without a lot of fluffs. 7 on the other hand (as well as every later game) increases the hit rate to be basically 100% on most enemies who aren't specifically designed with dodge and it turns the game into far more of a slugging match of raw attrition where the difficulty comes from adding extra layers (skills, reinforcements) instead of number on number.
Not to mention both Fire Emblem and Xcom are designed with the idea of regular loss of soldiers and needing to replace them with lesser versions, so the loss is part of the intended process. Anyone whose played Xcom through without losing soldiers or having to Abandon missions should know how fucking easy the endgame is with how strong you are.
I won't say I like missing high % shots, but I've found that the people who complain about it endlessly are usually just bad at the game and trying to brute force everything and getting fucked on that. Especially as Xcom is probably the easiest to save scum of any in the genre.
Especially in 2 where turtling forever doesn't work due to the various timers which mean you need to play aggressive. Overwatch kill boxes worked too well in earlier games.