(Essay) UFO: Extraterrestrials, or "a modern-day lens of a classic's shortcomings"

Sorenson

Although I initially did include a TL;DR for this document (which still exists under the In Conclusion section) it is advised that anyone wishing to respond to this essay fully read it instead of relying upon the TL;DR information, as important details are within the main body of the text that were unable to be transferred to the TL;DR without making it an essay of its own.

EDIT: An addition has been made in section 2 at the end of problem one addressing an overlooked issue, transparency and the lack thereof and the inability to avoid such. Also, a classier title and an adjustment covered in the paragraph above.

What the hell am I talking about?

I just spent the last several days playing through the titular title, which I've been in an on-and-off struggle with for the last year or so. I will say that I certainely could have put that time towards something far more rewarding and enjoyable, but I won't say that I wish I hadn't spent that time playing it, as for as generally shoddy a game it is, the lessons I've learned from it are definetily worth the time invested, if not for reasons unusual.

For those who don't know, UFO: Extraterrestrials (not connected to the UFO: AfterX series by Altar or the original UFO: Enemy Unknown) is an oft-claimed "spiritual successor" to the illustrious and acclaimed X-COM game series in which the player, in control of a newly-formed world defense agency, fights alien invaders to procure technology to research and allow them to upgrade their own technology so as to fight back. While many say "spiritual successor", a better term would be "shameless clone" - UE copies a good number of X-COM's mechanics and conventions and often to the letter (very much so, to the point of where several bits of the game are lifted straight out of X-COM and only given the legal bare minimum of changing). The die-hards had been clamoring for a remake that updates the graphics and nothing else for years, and they got it and loved it.

The rest of us? Well, you can see what most people thought of it.

I already know what some of you are thinking. "Oh, it's just some shitty Eastern European developer" or "these reviewers didn't give the game a chance" or "these people are just too stupid/casual to get it". You think those thoughts every time that a literal rehash of X-COM comes out and it gets the shit beaten out of it in the ratings. And I'm telling you folks thinking that right now that you're full of shit. The reason that these games wind up being panned so broadly and/or being shunned by the masses isn't because it's a case of bad developers or unfair/untalented reviewerss (well, not entirely at least) but because they're trying to adhere so tightly to conventions and mechanics that simply aren't feasable today. Just because something worked 15 years ago (and was the only thing available, as well) doesn't mean it's going to work when technology and game design has passed it by by almost two decades.

I would also like to say, before comments about such come up, that this is not an attack on the turn-based and side-turn system in general, as they are many different games that have utilized such systems over the years without succumbing to the problems I am about to outline, including the Super Robot Wars and Advance Wars series' and Laser Squad Nemesis, which is interesting for its turn-based concurrent-action system, if what I've read is correct. While they are fundimentally similar to the system used in X-COM, they are also signifigantly different in design and possess their own particular systems that allow them to function nominally. This is an analysis of the specific set of mechanics used in the X-COM games and those that have tried to copy them, and as such may not and will not nessecarily translate to other similar-but-different systems.

What follows is why the X-COM mechanics system doesn't work, and why the X-COM-specific squad TBS diehards need to take off the rose-painted glasses.

Why are X-COM's mechanics flawed?

Having finished playthroughs of the original X-COM, X-COM: Apocalypse, the Altar UFO Games (save Afterlight due to a bug, but I was close enough to the endgame to count) and just recently UFO: Extraterrestrials and thus being exposed to numerous methods of play and mechanics, I have identified two key flaws of X-COM's mechanics that form the underlying problem of its unsuitability for modern-day gaming. Before I gut this sacred cow, it'd be a good idea for me to identify just what I'm going after in the first place.

At its heart (and thus excluding the geoscape aspects which're interchangeable enough) X-COM is a side-turn-based tactical squad game with elements of statistically-derived randomization and retribution. More specifically (and clearly) this means:

Side-turn-based: The player(s) move their elements around the board in accordance with the rules established for such, each player taking actions with ALL of their units before ceding action to the next. Chess, if you will, but the board is several dozen squares to a length, each player moves their entire side on their turn, and each piece has a gun and the queen can mind-control enemy units.
Tactical squad game: Each player operates with a number of units usually between six and twenty, and is encouraged to make analytical and tactical decisions in terms of loadouts and action.
Statistically-derived randomization: The utilization of chance mechanics (random number generators) in order to perform specific functions. Rather than a pure virtual dice toss, however, the game (sometimes) factors in various attributes of game entities in order to determine its pass/fail threshholds. Examples of this include the 0-200% damage rolls for attacks, accuracy checks, psi strength/defense/attack checks, and so on.
Retribution: A means by which, if a unit fails to use or "reserves" some of their possible movements/actions on their turn, they are able to act (usually by shooting and killing) on the enemy's turn if certain conditions are met. Examples of this include the innumerable cases of rookies getting one-shotted when stepping off the transport or going around a corner, the interrupt system in Jagged Alliance, and so on.

Doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with there, right? On the surface, no: it pretty much sums up everybody's favorite anti-alien-invasion earth defense game. Each one of these elements, however, feeds into the problems that plague games that try to mimic X-COM precisely or impliment these kinds of mechanics, and is the root from which the mass' developed disinterest in the gametype comes from.

Problem 1: Time: Put straight, games of this type are simply not chronologically friendly. Single missions can last for several dozen minutes or even in excess of hours depending upon the nature of the mission and the scope of the playing field, as well as additional mitigating circumstances (read: LOADGAME LOADGAME LOADGAME) and time is simply something that is in short supply. Between jobs, social lives and other commitments, players can have very little free time left in which to enjoy their hobby, and games that are time-intensive for what might be miniscule games are simply not attractive to the millions of average gamers whose millions of dollars fuel the dreams of us far-fewer-in-number gamers. Also nessecary to consider is the societal Need for Speed(tm): we want our stuff and we want it in a few minutes or right the fuck now, and games too slow-paced to sate this are looked over for titles that know and fulfill this need. So why do X-COM's mechanics feed into this problem?

Firstly, the nature of side-turn systems creates a suspension of time: while this means you don't have to worry about time (like the enemy using theirs wisely) this also means that there is no way to plan FOR time. Each unit must be moved individually during each round, and then during each round you must sit by while the other player conducts their own actions (and depending on the game the time invested in such can be signifigantly longer due to sheer numbers). Factor in enemy intelligence and nuances, and what could have been done in five minutes might be extended to ten, fiteen or more. Factor in engine particulars such as animation and command processing speed (one point X-COM has in its favor is its ultra-high potential speed from settings adjustment and CPU power) and that fifteen minutes is amplified by chugging and slowed movement. Factor in repetition (specifically the fact that you'll be doing several dozen minutes over the course of a playthrough) and you're looking at hours upon hours of wasted, needlessly-spent time.

Secondly, there is the issue of the extrordinary amount of micromanagement that must be done during each mission. Depending upon the particulars of a game, in addition to the aforementioned by-round management there is also the matter of action-oriented adjustments that must be made, settings that need to be put in place, and various checks and safeguards to be enacted. If you need to do a sweep of an area to draw out an enemy, you are forced to set up each movement of your units, wait for the enemy to move (or not) and then repeat ad nauseum until finally you discover the enemy's location. Even the addition of a simple waypoint or action continuation system would give considerable alleviation to this problem, but very few games of X-COM's general make offer such a system, and it's unlikely any that willingly thrust themselves into such a mold will offer such.

Finally, X-COM's mechanics are time-hoggish because they encourage you to be slow. The nature of the side-turn and reaction fire systems means that you don't dare extend yourself out too far because of the potential for enemy reaction, literally and figuritively. Since many games make use of a fog of war and limited perception ranges, you have no way (particularly in open areas) of telling if you're walking straight into an ambush until the unit you were moving gets turned into swiss cheese from three enemies just beyond his visual range; and by extending yourself, you risk spending too much time to react yourself and putting you in the bullseye for enemy units two units away behind a door to pop out and do with you as they please throughout their entire turn. By moving slowly (or just camping and hoping for the mercy of the enemy AI to deliver themselves into your crossfire as you spam "End Turn") you reduce or eliminate the risk to your own units while reaping the rewards, like a dog hiding under a table to grab scraps rather than trying to beg or snatch something from up top. While the active mind scoffs and condemns the tactic, we are nevertheless psychologically taught that this is the best way to go, and thus so many people submit to it, and so many gamers who try the demo see that this is the best way to play and give up because of how time-intensive it is.

(An additional factor contributing to X-COM's time-unfriendly manner is its opaqueness in terms of enemy activity and localle layout, and is one of the key differences that sets it apart from games that use similar mechanical sets. Games such as FInal Fantasy Tactics, Super Robot Wars, Fire Emblem, and Ogre Battle, while also operating on a turn-based or side-turn system, also possess transparency that immedietly provides the player with much of the information they need to plan out their actions. X-COM's opaqueness, as much a detriment, is also an asset as it feeds into the game's atmosphere and the feeling of dread regarding the unknown the player experiences from not knowing where the enemy is or what kind of environment they're even up against. One may alleviate this problem through a number of ways, such as increasing perception ranges to allow line-of-sight viewing until solid surfaces are reaches, or the provision of illumination of the entire environmental map while still requiring line-of-sight triggering of enemy units and important structures, thus still requiring the player to search an area but also allowing them to plan and plot routes for units to take.)

Problem 2: Balance and Fairness: Balance and "fairness" is a touchy subject in games in general, and for good reason. While one wants for a game to be challenging and for said challenge to be appropriate to the subject matter at hand (in the case of X-COM, for example, one can certainely expect and understand a sizeable alien advantage) one cannot push too far to that extreme without alienating the playerbase out of sheer frustration. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and X-COM for much of its numerical values did an excellent job of straddling the line between challenging and rape; in terms of root concepts, however, there are several areas that, given modern gaming capabilities, unnessecarily and, I believe, unfairly (for all the word's worth in a discussion of this sort) skew the game against the player, as well as creates circumstances and characteristics that're both antiquated and unbecoming of modern-day gaming, in which we have expanded our design horizons exponentially from the early 90s.

The issues of retribution and turn-based helplessness have already been discussed, so instead a good place to begin is the matter of the mechanics' hardline statistical reliance for success determination. As X-COM uses a simplified system of attributes and modifiers for its mechanics, success in any action is heavily bound by the ruling attributes - this is nothing new and nothing that can be avoided outside of a conversion to a purely skill-based system. The problem lies in that X-COM runs many of these numbers in the low end of the spectrum: attributes, effective action ranges, range success diminishing rates, and so on, the result being the oft-occurrence of the "whiffing effect" - continual failures to accomplish a task (in most cases firing a weapon with accuracy) due to extremily high range penalties and by-the-numbers calculation, never mind the absurdity of literally missing the broad side of a barn at 20 meters. Until a unit's accuracy attribute rises to substantial heights, the only way they'll be able to reliably hit targets at range is either with aimed shots (which are time consuming and may require the expending of all of a unit's actions, leaving them helpless in the event of total failure) or to close in to short ranges, which leaves them vulnerable to reaction retribution.

(A valid concern of the mechanic is that, by changing its functionality to give players the potential for long-range conflicts with higher rates of success, you must also give this to the enemy who, thanks to their usually superior equipment and attributes, will be able to dispatch a player's own units with high rates of success. There are, however, a good number of games that've deployed mechanics alleviating the short-range whiffing issue while ensuring players aren't immedietly eliminated by present enemy forces, so analysis and variation of such are potential routes for a solution)

In addition to the whiff effect, another mechanic that attributes to the frustration and repetition potentially generated by X-COM is the randomization of damage by the use of a wide-ranging scale (in this case, from 0 to 200 percent of a weapon's statistical damage, 50 to 150 percent in the case of explosives) that leaves the player at the mercy of chance. One might surmise that this was an early attempt at a faux system of locational damage - the low end of the spectrum being grazing near-misses or hits to limbs and other less-vital areas, while the high represents central torso or even head shots - but as the game already uses a system of locational damage for its critical wounds system, such a reason would be without merit as the game could simply apply standard damage and reduce it based on the damage blocking capability of the area struck (a system which I believe X-COM Apocalypse uses).

The higher end of the damage spectrum also creates a problem in that, even with the most sound of tactics and sturdy of equipment, one can be, as they say, completily screwed over by the random number generator: with such a large range, their is a 25% chance of every succussful attack doing only 50% of its standard damage (which often means your attack falls below the armor threshhold and is thus negated) and a 25% chance of every succussful attack doing 150% of its damage, which can be enough to take out even the highest echelons of units depending upon the value being multiplied (heavy plasma, which can appear right at the start of the game and can be carried by any non-terror unit, does 115 damage, giving it a 25% chance of being able to instantly waste any mid-range player trooper in the highest-grade armor assuming health of 50-60 and a frontal attack with armor rating of 110). While lethality is certainly a part of the X-COM identity, and the concept of "critical hits" one that has flourished and appeared in innumerable game systems across all genres and rulesets, that this sort of occurrance takes place at relatively frequent intervals compared to other titles which employ bonus damage systems means that a substantial degree of a player's fate lies purely in the hands of chance, as opposed to the player's own skill or lack thereof. While the nuances of this system can work for the benifit of the player, as evidenced by any player who remembers the one lucky bastard that nothing could seemingly kill, does not serve as a balance of the system as players, buyers, and reviewers remember more vividly how this system works to the benifit of the enemy by letting them one-shot even your most hardened units while sopping up rounds like nothing else.

Summing the above into a single statement, X-COM's mechanics are no longer viable due to a combination of time and labor intensity, mechanics that reward extremily slow movement and camping tactics, and a far too high emphesis on random elements beyond the player's control that can easily turn the tide against them.

How could X-COM-likes succussfully operate?

Having identified the root elements that lead to the problems plaguing X-COM's mechanics, I suppose it's about time I stopped bitching about them and actually started looking at ways in which the mechanics could be amended to solve these problems. This is not to be considered a full-blown game design document, as some have stated they believe this to be, but are simply broad, generalized systems within which the specific and detailed mechanics that truly define a game are constructed.

Before proceeding further, I wish to state that nothing of X-COM's mechanics is intrinsically tied to the ideals and nature of the franchise, despite whining to the contrary. Changing an element of gameplay is not "dumbing the game down" as certain groups like to screech, nor is it pissing on the ideals behind the game concept in general: mechanics are simply a means to an end, and there are many ways to reach that end that some individuals might not have thought of or simply refuse to look at. I believe someone at Troika summed it up well enough, paraphrasingly said: "Bugs can be fixed, but bad game design is forever." That said, what is X-COM?

Above all else, X-COM is a game of strategy, far-reaching in scope: While certainely limited by the inherent capabilities of a game's AI, X-COM is rooted in intelligent tactical decisions, rewarding players who cover all their bases and explore every possability and punishing those who are ill-prepared or simply charge in with gusto.
X-COM is a game in which war is fought on multiple fronts: From the ground to the seas, skies, stars and beyond, X-COM is about fighting the enemy on every front they dare tread. It's about house-to-house urban combat, suspenseful submarine warfare, and hotshot jockeys dogfighting in the skies and space near and far. This is WAR, son.
X-COM is a game, in a way, of the 4X variety (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate): The gathering of knowledge from initial encounters, the expansion of your military, scientific and industrial capabilities, the development and utilization of advanced technology and the the combination of all of the above to deliver hot, firey vengeance upon the filthy xeno invaders.
X-COM is a game of equal-opprotunity powergaming: When the game starts out, you've got piddling pathetic ballistics weaponry up against high-tech plasma particle accelerators capable of reducing your men to a pile of goop. Just as you're catching up with laser weapons and armor worth a damn, the enemy unleashes robotic mobile turrets and infectious zombiefying biological weapons. When finally you've dealt with that and've unlocked the secret to plasma weapons and power armor, you get mind-controlling alien commanders and remote guided rocket launchers. And so on and so on and so on.
X-COM is a game where you can control how to play: A good game allows for any viable tactic to be realized. Some people set up an undefeatable world-wide air superiority network to shoot down even the biggest and baddest of UFOs, while others purposefully let them land to loot the goodies within. Some people prefer to conduct their operations like a surgeon with pinpoint strikes to eliminate the enemy, and for others the obvious solution to killing aliens inside a building is to blow up the entire building.

Nowhere in those ideals is a call of nessecity for a side-turn tactical squad game with statistically-derived randomization and retribution - you could do all of that with any sort of system provided that the system is well-developed and well-balanced (a factor which helps the original X-COM and has allowed it to stand decently enough against the test of time in spite of its flaws and limitations). Many so-called spiritual successors to X-COM which have failed to meet the standards of the original not (entirely) because of development and programming issues, but because they violate the core principals of the X-COM ideal.

But enough about that: it's time to actually suggest something.

The biggest offender and the bearer of the greatest load of the problem X-COM's mechanics suffer from is, naturally, the side-turn system: as explained, its nature is time and labor intensive and inefficient, and unspeakingly promotes tactics that're unbecoming and which contribute to its time-wasteful nature. It is therefore nessecary to transition to a system in which time operates in a linear and/or continuous manner - real time, basically - though the specifics of each potential mechanis use carry its own implications and impacts on gameplay. While there are numerous real-time approaches, the two most likely and appropriate candidates are real-time strategy, such as that used in Apocalypse and the Altar UFO titles, or real-time first-person of the less macho and more tactical sort, such as ArmA, Operation Flashpoint, STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, the Penumbra series, and the ill-fated X-COM: Alliance.

RTS (in the general form of isometrically-styled concurrent-action titles such as X-COM: Apocalypse and the Altar UFO titles as opposed to the specific style of real-time strategy popularized by such games as Starcraft and Command & Conquor) is the natural choice for a replacement mechanism for X-COM: many of the strategic conventions of X-COM are present from the transition between systems, but the addition of the ability to pause, slow, and accelerate the flow of time means that the problems of time, labor, and fairness are dealt with signifigantly: one may pause the game in order to issue commands and set movement waypoints, then set the game into motion in accelerated time until something of interest occurs. The non-suspension of time and the concurrent action of both the player and enemy units also means that no side is inherently helpless in an encounter, and if the player reacts in an intelligent or overpowering manner they may emerge victorious whilst acting foolishly or without preperation may result in defeat. The player has far more control over their destiny and must no longer be subject (at least nowhere near the level of original X-COM mechanics) to the whims of the random number god or a retribution system.

A realtime system also promotes the use of sound tactical decisions in that, because time is a shared resource amongst player and enemy, the enemy may be able to conduct their own actions as the player is conducting theirs, though this again is limited by the capabilities of enemy AI in the first place. If a player is to camp an enterence and waste time simply waiting for the enemy to come out and be shot, they are vulnerable to counter-camping tactics such as the use of copious amounts of high explosives and/or suicide units (Apocalypse Poppers, for example, can easily ruin the day of a squad camping outside the enterence of a UFO) wall-breaching or wall-passing weaponry, psionics not limited to line-of-sight, gas, terrain deformation, teleportation systems, or an all-out zerg rush with every single gun blazing and grenade flying, a tactic available to the enemy due to the inherent valuelessness of enemy units (who are often clones, cybernetically and genetically-modified creatures, and so on and thus expendable). This is not to say that an RTS system will magically make the problem of camping magically disappear, as there are still benifits to such actions - a sniper or rocket launching troop in a strategically-high location offers a great advantage, for example, and positioning troops to watch particular areas for activity whilst others conduct a sweep is quite sound) but it removes the system-inherent boons that made camping and its ilk particularly viable.

First-person systems (not nessecarily shooters even if shooting is an inherent activity of X-COM) offer a particularly interesting means of conducting a game. While such a perspective limits available information and the amount of control you have over your available units as compared to the omniscient nature of the third-person eagle-eye perspective of strategy games, in exchange for such a loss the player receives two considerable benifits: an enhancement of the perception of the visuals, audio, and general game atmosphere (for an excellent example of such, see STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl) and an increased determination of operation result on the inherent skills and capabilities of the player, certain untranslatable aspects excluded. Depending upon the nature of the ruleset in question, this can also give considerable streamlining to the game in terms of nessecary actions: a skill-based game will have its actor attributes possess a far narrower range of effect as compared to the more overreaching power of those in X-COM original, so such statistically-derived occurrances like the whiff effect are far less prevelent. Furthermore, while the player is controlling a unit in particular (though they are not bound to that particular unit in the slightest and can thus switch to others in the event of death, disablement, or other control-arresting factors) other units will be operating under computer control factoring in player orders. Depending upon the depth and functionality of the player order system (which WOULD be a nessecity for a game concept as X-COM) they may be able to reduce their workload by as much as 90% compared to side-turn systems through the use of squad and soldier-level orders, including position holding, area sweeping, placement of devices of various use, and so on.

A first-person system also a possability unavailable with the original X-COM mechanics, as well as an economic incentive for mainstream gamers (because YES, game design has to take the mainstream into consideration - they're the ones whose money makes our dreams a reality, after all). By introducting a direct-control skill-based means of gameplay with constant continual timeflow, it would be possible to construct a squad-based game in such a way as to incorporate a multiplayer aspect for combat sequences - trusted friends of the host (because a game with permenant consequences like X-COM would be simply impossible to have with open multiplayer due to inherent human stupidity and jackassery) could connect to their game prior to combat initiation in order to state loadout requests and to plan strategy, then play through the mission as a team: at the conclusion of combat, the host player reaps the rewards of their operation (and the consequences) and other players either remain connected to observe the host player's activity in non-battlescape elements of the game and partake in further operations or disconnect. Furthermore, this direct-control system, as a medium found appealing to millions of gamers the world over, ensures that the target audiance is as wide (and potentially profitable) as is possible. This profitability is a double boon: first it generates money for the developer, which they may then apply to sequals, expansions, and other projects that would only be good for us players, and secondly its profitability spurs other developers into entering the X-COM "genre" (for lack of a better term at this moment) which, while likely producing copycats or dude, also has the potential for something completily different, innovative, and absolutly smashing.

In summery, in order to alleviate the problems of X-COM's mechanics without compromising certain vital characteristics, the most viable solution is to make use of a concurrent-action temporally-linear system (a real-time system, though not at all mandating strict continual flow of time) of which the two most viable sub-groups of such are the isometric real-time strategy system and the real-time first-person system, each one of which carry their own advantages and possabilities.

In Conclusion:

Hopefully having read and noted the particulars of the information above, my beliefs and statements can thus be brought down to six key points representing the problem, the contributing factors, potential solution, and a specific statement in regard to a specific audiance:

*The reason X-COM-inspired games like UFO: Extraterrestrials generally fail and are shunned by the populace is because their mechanics are simply outdated and unfeasable in the modern gaming day.
*The reason X-COM's mechanics are unfeasable is because of their time and labor intensity for relatively little payoff as well as their inherent imbalance and psychological promotion of time-wasteful tactics, as well as their high allowance of the whiff effect and uncontrollable random elements.
*X-COM's identity and ideals are not at all tied to the mechanics it used, but are ethereal concepts that may be realized with any number of different mechanics setups. The failure of previous X-COM-like games is due to neglect of these basic ideals, flawed development, or strict adherence to X-COM's mechanics in the flawed belief that they are tied to the genre's identity and ideals.
*A real-time system would alleviate these problems by allowing for the more efficient use of time and the reduction of micromanagement and the removal of mechanics-inherent boons to time-wasteful tactics, and the reduction of statistical influence over action success reduces both the whiffing effect and the power of random uncontrollable elements.
*Furthermore, a real-time system opens a number of possabilities for an X-COM-like game depending upon the particulars of the game in question, as well as makes the game more approachable and appealing to the masses whose money is an undeniable nessecity for a revival of the X-COM genre.
*While X-COM is certainely a great game that did a great job with the means its creators had available to them, it still has much room for improvement. People who say that X-COM is perfect as is and that a remake should do nothing but update the graphics and audio are either blinded by the glare of their rose-tinted graphics or [strike]retarded[/strike] fanboys who need to wake up and face the realities of X-COM's problems. Furthermore, their zealous belief in the sacredness of X-COM's mechanics is what makes developers simply copy the mechanics in their own game and thus fail to produce a noteworthy product, stunting the growth of the genre and robbing gamers of potential titles that're ignored because of the beliefs of the zealous.

Morkath

Sorenson wrote: »

*People who say that X-COM is perfect as is and that a remake should do nothing but update the graphics and audio are either blinded by the glare of their rose-tinted graphics or retarded fanboys who need to wake up and face the realities of X-COM's problems. Furthermore, their zealous belief in the sacredness of X-COM's mechanics is what makes developers simply copy the mechanics in their own game and thus fail to produce a noteworthy product, stunting the growth of the genre and robbing gamers of potential titles that're ignored because of the beliefs of the zealous.

Saying anyone who disagrees with you is mentally deficient is not a valid way of arguing your point.

lowlylowlycook

Did you just complain about X-Com wasting its players time then expect me to read that?

Dsmart

xcom is perfect

kaliyama

Your criticisms of the game are that it's a turn-based, tactical shooter game where you can fail at tasks and have to move tactically by saving APs and covering each other.

The UFO series that tried to emulate X-Com generally failed not because they copied x-com's mechanics, but A) poor translations and bugginess, and where they deviated from x-com's mechanics. Additionally, we see that TFTD and Apocalypse can be punishingly difficult. The problem isn't so much with the gameplay interface or pacing but with balancing difficulty, progression and pacing to make a game exciting and fun. I love X-Com and -hated- the UFO games. I don't know how you got through them.

The alchemy that makes X-Com one of, if not the, greatest game of all time is hard to mimic. Tossing in RTS buzzwords or trying to make another game that isn't x-com isn't going to make a better x-com style game. There's plenty of markets for grognards and the "intelligent" PC market - look at matrixgames, Paradox Entertainment, Stardock or the Dominions 3 community.

I think you need to think your points through and edit them more extensively. You complain about how x-com encourages us to play slow (i.e. think tactically and clear rooms/areas the way a real military squad might), and then think about RTS models of "less macho" games like ArmA or Rainbow six. ArmA, at least, has a much longer single play session length than X-Com has, and both of those games encourage the same cautious and tactical play-style that x-com does.

lowlylowlycook

Well it's clear that in the future all games will be FPSs with RPG elements so I don't see why X-Com should be excepted.

Axen

Real time? Seriously? Did you miss the part where it is a Turn-based strategy game? There is nothing wrong with TBS games. The mechanics can work. Just look at Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, or any other "tactics" styled RPGs. There is a market for them.

Now before you say "I am talking about X-Com not those games" let me stop you right there. Your arguments can easily be applied to most all TBS games. It's true, these games do not have to be turn based. However it turns out most people who enjoy these games like the turn based aspect because it allows them to methodically plan out their moves and strategies.

The recent "spiritual successors" have a lot more wrong with them then being based on "outdated" game mechanics. Stuff like shoddy graphics, copious amounts of bugs, and next to no marketing.

kaliyama

Axen wrote: »

Real time? Seriously? Did you miss the part where it is a Turn-based strategy game? There is nothing wrong with TBS games. The mechanics can work. Just look at Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, or any other "tactics" styled RPGs. There is a market for them.

Now before you say "I am talking about X-Com not those games" let me stop you right there. Your arguments can easily be applied to most all TBS games. It's true, these games do not have to be turn based. However it turns out most people who enjoy these games like the turn based aspect because it allows them to methodically plan out their moves and strategies.

The recent "spiritual successors" have a lot more wrong with them then being based on "outdated" game mechanics. Stuff like shoddy graphics, copious amounts of bugs, and next to no marketing.

The thing is, you don't have to have fancy graphics for the demographic who likes those games to buy them. As long as you have clean design and art, you can do it on the cheap with sprites that will present well. Again, the matrixgames line and stardock are good examples of this. The "shoddy graphics" are an attempt to use big-budget 3D modelling without having the budget for it, so everything looked muddy and ugly.

Icey

Dsmart wrote: »

xcom is perfect

Mr.Sunshine

Icey wrote: »

Dsmart wrote: »

xcom is perfect

Bolded.

X-com is the only game where I gave a shit about my troops. Played it like a goddamn RPG, I remember the fucking names of the only two guys that survived from their very first mission all the way to the last. RTS's aren't even in the same fucking buliding when it comes to that shit.

Per-fucking-fection.

Sorenson

Axen wrote: »

Real time? Seriously? Did you miss the part where it is a Turn-based strategy game? There is nothing wrong with TBS games. The mechanics can work. Just look at Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, or any other "tactics" styled RPGs. There is a market for them.

Now before you say "I am talking about X-Com not those games" let me stop you right there. Your arguments can easily be applied to most all TBS games. It's true, these games do not have to be turn based. However it turns out most people who enjoy these games like the turn based aspect because it allows them to methodically plan out their moves and strategies.

And as noted, those games also differ substantially in particular areas and style: games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Super Robot Wars, the TBS Ogre Battle games, Fire Emblem and so on possess a certain transparency and directness, not to mention a smaller scale, which reduces time wasted on meaningless actions and instead allows players to spend their time on actual gameplay and planning - even Jagged Alliance at least throws the player a bone by allowing them to move freely when not in direct combat situations. In X-COM games, there is copious amounts of time spent searching for enemies and micromanaging the efforts of each unit, multiplied tenfold in some circumstances by eratic AI behavior. You really can't immedietly apply my arguments to the aforementioned titles because as similar their structures are to X-COM the differences change the nature of gameplay to a considerable degree.

Dsmart

Xcom is the most brilliant example of how to have narrative in a video game. Let the player fill in the gaps, it works oh god does it work.

JerikTelorian

Sorenson wrote: »

Axen wrote: »

Real time? Seriously? Did you miss the part where it is a Turn-based strategy game? There is nothing wrong with TBS games. The mechanics can work. Just look at Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, or any other "tactics" styled RPGs. There is a market for them.

Now before you say "I am talking about X-Com not those games" let me stop you right there. Your arguments can easily be applied to most all TBS games. It's true, these games do not have to be turn based. However it turns out most people who enjoy these games like the turn based aspect because it allows them to methodically plan out their moves and strategies.

And as noted, those games also differ substantially in particular areas and style: games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Super Robot Wars, the TBS Ogre Battle games, Fire Emblem and so on possess a certain transparency and directness, not to mention a smaller scale, which reduces time wasted on meaningless actions and instead allows players to spend their time on actual gameplay and planning - even Jagged Alliance at least throws the player a bone by allowing them to move freely when not in direct combat situations. In X-COM games, there is copious amounts of time spent searching for enemies and micromanaging the efforts of each unit, multiplied tenfold in some circumstances by eratic AI behavior. You really can't immedietly apply my arguments to the aforementioned titles because as similar their structures are to X-COM the differences change the nature of gameplay to a considerable degree.

What is the goal of your post? Are you presenting to us your opinion on the games? Are you trying to convince us that you are correct? Are you asserting that your view is fundamentally "right"?

While I can see your points, the reality is that some people really, really like the old style gameplay. Some people like taking 10 turns to slowly stalk enemies across the map. This is all just a matter of opinion. Lots of good or even legendary games have funky or flawed mechanics, gameplay, or handling (I'm looking at you MGS-series). However, what is important is not whether or not it "makes sense" from a design standpoint, but if people like it.

People love XCom. It's a great game backed up by tons of nostalgia. People won't sacrifice their love just because a game mechanic is "outdated and unfeasable in the present day". Old games are selling in droves, both to vetrans from the old days and new players who never experienced them.

tl;dr

You certainly have the right to your opinion here, but invariably you'll get backed into the corner by a ravenous mob. It's like walking into a pub in England and insulting the Queen. Don't expect to change many opinions :P

grrarg

Making the game real-time and getting rid of "hours upon hours of wasted, needlessly-spent time" would take away one of the best parts of X-COM: tension. A real time game is nowhere near as tense as hitting the 'End Turn' button and seeing what the aliens will do to your poor exposed squaddie after he burnt all his action points failing to kill a chrysalid.

Furthermore, I reject your notion that there has been an attempt at a modern X-Com. Those so-called spiritual successors you mentioned all messed with the formula in various ways, in addition to being generally buggy messes. We can only hope that the rumors are true that Irrational or someone else at 2K games are working on a modern X-COM.

Shorn Scrotum Man

So all turn based strategy games are too slow and that's why nobody buys them?

Man, nobody better tell Firaxis or they might stop making Civ games that sell like hotcakes.

Sorenson

grrarg wrote: »

Making the game real-time and getting rid of "hours upon hours of wasted, needlessly-spent time" would take away one of the best parts of X-COM: tension. A real time game is nowhere near as tense as hitting the 'End Turn' button and seeing what the aliens will do to your poor exposed squaddie after he burnt all his action points failing to kill a chrysalid.

Why would a real-time system remove tension? Is there not suspension in watching your squaddies going along their designated courses, knowing that at any second some alien asshole could come tearing out of the shadows at him or taking potshots from a doorway? And all the while that you might not have aforementioned assholes attacking, hearing them as they go about their business behind nearby walls and around corners? The answer is yes, of course: the only difference is that the X-COM brand of tension stems in part from the nature of the mechanics and the way in which they may ream you, whereas a concurrent-action system's tension comes first and foremost from the elements beyond our perception that could ream you at any moment because of their inherent capabilities, not because you're mechanically rendered inert.

Shorn Scrotum Man

Sorenson wrote: »

grrarg wrote: »

Making the game real-time and getting rid of "hours upon hours of wasted, needlessly-spent time" would take away one of the best parts of X-COM: tension. A real time game is nowhere near as tense as hitting the 'End Turn' button and seeing what the aliens will do to your poor exposed squaddie after he burnt all his action points failing to kill a chrysalid.

Why would a real-time system remove tension? Is there not suspension in watching your squaddies going along their designated courses, knowing that at any second some alien asshole could come tearing out of the shadows at him or taking potshots from a doorway? And all the while that you might not have aforementioned assholes attacking, hearing them as they go about their business behind nearby walls and around corners? The answer is yes, of course: the only difference is that the X-COM brand of tension stems in part from the nature of the mechanics and the way in which they may ream you, whereas a concurrent-action system's tension comes first and foremost from the elements beyond our perception that could ream you at any moment because of their inherent capabilities, not because you're mechanically rendered inert.

When playing an RTS you might not think alot about enemy movement until you see them because you are busy managing your own guys.

When the enemy is taking it's own turn you have time to sit there and think what the enemy could possibly be planning but be temporarily powerless to stop it.

Seriously, what was the point of this thread? Just to piss off a bunch of people?

Mr_Grinch

Are you aware what TL;DR means? Because your "TL;DR" section is too long and I didn't read it.

Kris_xK

I don't think TBS games are for you. Some of us like them just fine however.

Thanks for stopping by.

Mr Obersmith

Valkyria Chronicles would like to have a word with you.

Archonex

Icey wrote: »

Dsmart wrote: »

xcom: apocalypse is perfect

Fixed that for you.


I'd kill for a new Apocalypse style game with all the cut content/features they were planning to have in Apocalypse added in.

Lord Yod

Mr.Sunshine wrote: »

Icey wrote: »

Dsmart wrote: »

xcom is perfect

Bolded.

X-com is the only game where I gave a shit about my troops. Played it like a goddamn RPG, I remember the fucking names of the only two guys that survived from their very first mission all the way to the last. RTS's aren't even in the same fucking buliding when it comes to that shit.

Per-fucking-fection.

The_Scarab

X-Com is not perfect, what is wrong with you people. It's good, very very good but there are flaws running throughout the whole thing, and not just technical issues. Don't be blinded by nostalgia nor confused by hyperbole.

Pete0r

Although I like x-com, it wasn't until Apocalypse came out that I found my ideal game. I can see the appeal of turn based, but personally prefer the more 'action-y feel' that I get from real time. From this point of view I felt that the UFO After-X games were a reasonable success. Of those three games I feel that Aftershock was the pinnacle of the series. Not that Afterlight was bad, just that it made a few changes that made it feel 'wrong' to me.

The biggest problem for me in Alite was the removal of random squad members and in their place a fixed number of predefined characters. This meant that you have to manage them far more to keep them alive and keep the squad skills balanced. In Apoc I used to spend time and effort training up an elite squad to accompany the grunts, they'd get all the good weapons, shields, the lot. Then when one of those guys bit the dust it was memorable because of the story I'd made in my head for each one of those hand picked guys.

Having the elite squad picked for me just removed some of that special shine from my eyes.

Archonex

Really, I just want an updated Apocalypse without some of the bugs it had.

That game had fully destructible environments, advanced faction interactions (That were even going to be more advanced, where you could team up with and take over other companies, but they had to push it out the door.), interaction with a world-map that still hasn't really been matched, and a propensity to give your troops moments of incredible badassery if you were playing in the real-time mode.

That game was, and still is, years ahead of anything out on the market. Hell, the last game to feature destructible environments like that was Silent Storm, and it didn't offer the level of freedom, or depth of combat and politics that Apocalypse did.

Lord Yod

The_Scarab wrote: »

X-Com is not perfect, what is wrong with you people. It's good, very very good but there are flaws running throughout the whole thing, and not just technical issues. Don't be blinded by nostalgia nor confused by hyperbole.

X-Com isn't perfect in that the graphics and interface could be better. Aside from that it does everything I want it to do.

I would suggest that the OP try playing games that aren't turn-based strategy, as his claims seem to be analogous to saying Madden is a terrible game because it's about football.

subedii

Sorenson, just how much X-com have you been playing, you seem to have been on a real kick lately.

Ketar

The_Scarab wrote: »

X-Com is not perfect, what is wrong with you people. It's good, very very good but there are flaws running throughout the whole thing, and not just technical issues. Don't be blinded by nostalgia nor confused by hyperbole.

You shut your whore mouth when men are talking. X-Com is one of the 10 best games ever made, and probably my single favorite game of all-time regardless of platform/console/whatever. It is the closest to gaming perfection that FSM has seen fit to gift us with to date.

The closest I would ever want to see to anything like the changes OP proposed would be a possible change to the Jagged Alliance 2 system of real-time movement while not engaged with the enemy that shifts to turn-based anytime an enemy is sighted, shots are fired at your squad members, or an unidentified noise is heard. While I still prefer the fully turn-based play of X-Com, I can admit that something like that would remove some of the tediousness of something like Terror From The Deep where you could spend ages searching for one single alien hiding in a shower or closet on deck 5. Ideally you'd make something like that optional though, and preserve the option to play fully turn-based for those who prefer it that way.

Sorenson

subedii wrote: »

Sorenson, just how much X-com have you been playing, you seem to have been on a real kick lately.

Well, not all at the same time. Everything I've listed is over the course of several years, although over the last six months or so I've been on a spree - Aftermath (straight vanilla, too) about a year/year and a half ago, Afterlight about eight months ago, Aftershock after I did some modding and the like about six, Apocalypse about two or three months (and my first playthrough about three-five years ago) a bit of X-COM from steamabout one-two months back, a smidge of Jagged Alliance 2 a few weeks ago after having everyone tell me to play that, and then UFO Extraterrestrials over the last several days. I just reeeeally like the anti-alien invastion genre.

Lord Yod wrote: »

The_Scarab wrote: »

X-Com is not perfect, what is wrong with you people. It's good, very very good but there are flaws running throughout the whole thing, and not just technical issues. Don't be blinded by nostalgia nor confused by hyperbole.

X-Com isn't perfect in that the graphics and interface could be better. Aside from that it does everything I want it to do.

I would suggest that the OP try playing games that aren't turn-based strategy, as his claims seem to be analogous to saying Madden is a terrible game because it's about football.

Man, did some of you folks even read my schpiel? 'cause seriously, I don't have a problem with TBS as a whole, as I clearly stated during my introduction, just the specific mechanics that X-COM employs. To use your analogy, it's not that I'm saying Madden's a bad game because it's about football, but that the hypothetical version of Madden is bad because its specific action and calculating mechanics lead to a lot of fumbles, time-intensive and time-wasteful micromanagement, and system-enforced helplessness as your quarterback gets reaction-tackled while your linebackers stand motionless unable to act.

EDIT: I would also like to state that Ketar's post is a prime example of why it is that I'm coming off as so hostile towards X-COM and many of its most hardline fans in the first place. I am not denying that X-COM is a great game, as I've noticed several times that its particular characteristics and balance are able to counteract its limitations, and that it was able to do an absolutely bang-up job with what technology was available at the time of its development in addition to overall excellent art, audio, atmosphere and concept direction, but I am saying that there is much that can be done to improve upon it, and several developers inspired by X-COM have attempted to improve upon it in various ways (including the Gollop brothers themselves with their work on Apocalypse and Laser Squad Nemesis). While many of these attempts might not have been as succussful as the original for various reasons (Apocalypse's retro art-deco styling for environments and aliens, Aftermath's extreme truncating of base management and geoscape combat (and horrible, horrible trooper voicework), Aftershock's outright removal of geoscape combat (but the beefing-up of its base management system) and Afterlight's limited troop pool and generally linear and stagnent nature) they also brought improvements to the system: Apocalypse's rework of the motion scanner to make enemy detection far more efficient and its waypoint and squad-move system in real-time, as well as consequential and tactical terrain destruction and its cover-utilizing AI, Aftermath's introduction of weapon type variety and damage standardization versus armor, and the class training system, and Aftershock's improvement of combat and class training and the introduction of the equipment accessory system, the enemy audio detection system as well as its various scanning devices, and the designing of environments to offer a better range of possabilities and tactics. By taking the lessons and examples from these games and others, one can produce an absolutly spectacular X-COM title.

Fans who are saying that X-COM is perfect and only needs graphical and audio updates are akin to Leibnizites who tout the philosophy that ours is the best of all possible worlds, even when numerous studies and examples by other individuals have shown that this is anything but the case. While X-COM could have been a hell of a lot worse, it can also be better, and I want to see its ideals transcend its mechanical limitations and injustices to produce something spectacular.

lowlylowlycook

Sorenson wrote: »

subedii wrote: »

Sorenson, just how much X-com have you been playing, you seem to have been on a real kick lately.

Well, not all at the same time. Everything I've listed is over the course of several years, although over the last six months or so I've been on a spree - Aftermath (straight vanilla, too) about a year/year and a half ago, Afterlight about eight months ago, Aftershock after I did some modding and the like about six, Apocalypse about two or three months (and my first playthrough about three-five years ago) a bit of X-COM from steamabout one-two months back, a smidge of Jagged Alliance 2 a few weeks ago after having everyone tell me to play that, and then UFO Extraterrestrials over the last several days. I just reeeeally like the anti-alien invastion genre.

Lord Yod wrote: »

The_Scarab wrote: »

X-Com is not perfect, what is wrong with you people. It's good, very very good but there are flaws running throughout the whole thing, and not just technical issues. Don't be blinded by nostalgia nor confused by hyperbole.

X-Com isn't perfect in that the graphics and interface could be better. Aside from that it does everything I want it to do.

I would suggest that the OP try playing games that aren't turn-based strategy, as his claims seem to be analogous to saying Madden is a terrible game because it's about football.

Man, did some of you folks even read my schpiel? 'cause seriously, I don't have a problem with TBS as a whole, as I clearly stated during my introduction, just the specific mechanics that X-COM employs. To use your analogy, it's not that I'm saying Madden's a bad game because it's about football, but that the hypothetical version of Madden is bad because its specific action and calculating mechanics lead to a lot of fumbles, time-intensive and time-wasteful micromanagement, and system-enforced helplessness as your quarterback gets reaction-tackled while your linebackers stand motionless unable to act.

Sometimes quarterbacks fumble.

Deal with it.

If anything, to be more realistic games like this would have more missing but have stronger suppression effects.

Well maybe aliens wouldn't be suppressed. Hmmmm.

Insomn

I don't think alot of the posters even read through your 'shpiel', as you put it. That being said, I've never sampled of the fruit of X-Com, I just wanted to say that I thought the essay was well written.

It sounds like this game defined the genre for a bunch of you; I wish I had discovered it years ago, now!

Lord Yod

lowlylowlycook wrote: »

Sometimes quarterbacks fumble.

Deal with it.

If anything, to be more realistic games like this would have more missing but have stronger suppression effects.

Well maybe aliens wouldn't be suppressed. Hmmmm.

Part of the 1.13 patch for JA2 lets you enable a suppression mechanic like this, actually, and it's pretty damn awesome.

Sorenson

Insomn wrote: »

I don't think alot of the posters even read through your 'shpiel', as you put it. That being said, I've never sampled of the fruit of X-Com, I just wanted to say that I thought the essay was well written.

Thank you!

It sounds like this game defined the genre for a bunch of you; I wish I had discovered it years ago, now!

Oh, define it did. The reason why so many people give a hooplah about it in the first place is because the concepts and ideals it set forth are absolutly addictive and alluring, not to mention ripe with possabilities. It plays upon our fear of the unknown, our worry of meeting a foe technologically and numerically similar, our lust for knowledge and advancement, and our ferocious self-defined duty to protect and promote our species and society from the filthy xeno infidels. It's literily a game about human psychology, but with flying saucers and plasma guns.

lowlylowlycook wrote: »

Sometimes quarterbacks fumble.

Deal with it.

But do they fumble with rates of 40 to 50 percent at ranges of ten yards or less while aiming for a man-sized target instead of one the shape and size of a pair of receiving hands?

Lord Yod

Sorenson wrote: »

But do they fumble with rates of 40 to 50 percent at ranges of ten yards or less while aiming for a man-sized target instead of one the shape and size of a pair of receiving hands?

If that man-sized target looks like this?



Yes.

Morrandir

First, literally. Two 'L's and an A on the end. Otherwise, a good read, and I respect your opinion. But that's what it is, opinion.

I, personally, love the alternating-side style on turn based games, as long as it's done well, like in X-COM.

If I had any gripes about the system, it would be the ability for rookies to somehow completely miss a Snakeman 3 feet in front of them, but have that same shot fly across the map and headshot the commanding officer who is in a flying suit sniping Chryssalids. Though that's more just me having the worst luck ever, rather than a problem inherent in the system.

So, in short,

Dsmart wrote: »

xcom is perfect

Jobastion

Sorenson wrote: »

Insomn wrote: »

I don't think alot of the posters even read through your 'shpiel', as you put it. That being said, I've never sampled of the fruit of X-Com, I just wanted to say that I thought the essay was well written.

Thank you!

It sounds like this game defined the genre for a bunch of you; I wish I had discovered it years ago, now!

Oh, define it did. The reason why so many people give a hooplah about it in the first place is because the concepts and ideals it set forth are absolutly addictive and alluring, not to mention ripe with possabilities. It plays upon our fear of the unknown, our worry of meeting a foe technologically and numerically similar, our lust for knowledge and advancement, and our ferocious self-defined duty to protect and promote our species and society from the filthy xeno infidels. It's literily a game about human psychology, but with flying saucers and plasma guns.

lowlylowlycook wrote: »

Sometimes quarterbacks fumble.

Deal with it.

But do they fumble with rates of 40 to 50 percent at ranges of ten yards or less while aiming for a man-sized target instead of one the shape and size of a pair of receiving hands?

It is a game about human psychology. And if you've watched a few horror movies (which is effectively what every mission in an Xcom style game is), you'll see people scrambling for their guns, then plinking ineffectively in the general direction of the evil creature/person in question. Happens all the time. Military studies prove that in the field, it can be damn hard to remember to point and click, and this is fighting people. Now imagine that you are that little sprite (or 3d model), looking up at a creature from your worst nightmares and its coming right at you OH GOD IT'S GOING TO EAT MEE ANNNOOOO!!!.

The psychology is there. And quite accurate. It's just represented in a way that is seperate from the terror checks the squadmates also make, and so you don't think to associate the one with the other.

admanb

It seems to me that what you have here is a far-too technical review of a game that does not need to be reviewed ("You want to review Pacman? Here's your review: IT IS FUCKING PACMAN") combined with far-too technical criticism (criticism in the classic sense, not the "this game is bad" sense) where you analyze exactly what it is that makes X-Com, X-Com, to you. Finally, you have the skeleton of a design document for a game that isn't X-Com.

You seem to have decided that because you analyzed X-Com rationally, your interpretation of its key elements is going to be the same as everyone else's interpretation. But just because you think the suspense of carefully moving your forces across the field in turn-based mode could be matched with a well-designed real-time mode doesn't mean everyone else does. A lot of people would be upset by the frantic nature and the suspense would be lost to their frustration.

You've also made the mistake of picking a terrible "update" to the game. Did you even read the reviews? Here are some quotes from Gamespot's 5.2/10:

"Animations are also slow and jittery, so you spend more time watching troops stutter or aliens slither." -- X-Com had smooth, fast animations. The game zipped by even when it was new.

"There are only a limited number of maps in the game, so you wind up repeating yourself." -- Random maps were a fundamental part of X-Com's brilliance.

"Soldiers can't be killed on the battlefield unless they're riding in a vehicle that gets destroyed or the entire squad is wiped out." -- That's not X-Com at all.

There are also plenty of criticisms that would apply to X-Com, but the differences are enough that this game clearly isn't X-Com reskinned. Maybe X-Com would get reviewed badly if it was released today, but no one knows, and you shouldn't have used a game that isn't X-Com to argue that it would be.

Finally, you've given us a skeleton of a design document and said, "Here's a game that would be better than X-Com" but that's not an argument. X-Com isn't a design document. If you want to argue that game B is better than game A, at least do us the favor of having a game B that exists. Comparing two games that exist is hard enough as it is.

edited to add: The essay was well-written, and I think you've got some good ideas, but the essay doesn't present the good ideas, it just reflects them. You have a review of a game that doesn't need to be reviewed, criticism that is too dry to be brilliant, and a design document that I assume you're not planning on developing yourself.

Sorenson

Jobastion wrote: »

It is a game about human psychology. And if you've watched a few horror movies (which is effectively what every mission in an Xcom style game is), you'll see people scrambling for their guns, then plinking ineffectively in the general direction of the evil creature/person in question. Happens all the time. Military studies prove that in the field, it can be damn hard to remember to point and click, and this is fighting people. Now imagine that you are that little sprite (or 3d model), looking up at a creature from your worst nightmares and its coming right at you OH GOD IT'S GOING TO EAT MEE ANNNOOOO!!!.

A valid point, but while such certainely adds tension and the like to film and other non-interactive media, such an effect doesn't translate well to situations in which the audiance has control, special circumstances (as you already referenced) aside. Choking and panicking, while workable under specific circumstances, don't work well as a constant game mechanic: how much fun could you have with a game if every single time you tried to do something your character botched things up/cowered in fear/panicked/went berserk/pulled the trigger on themselves/what have you?

The psychology is there. And quite accurate. It's just represented in a way that is seperate from the terror checks the squadmates also make, and so you don't think to associate the one with the other.

And that psychology, as an omnipresent all-affecting entity, also places an extrordinary amount of power in the hands of rogue, uncontrollable, and random elements, which is one of the key problems I outlined. A player should get screwed because of their own unwise decisions or the extrordinary capabilities of an enemy unit that they have no viable counter for at that point, not because the rangom number god decided it was a good day for everybody on your fireteam to wildly miss on their attack rolls because they're "scared".

nessin

I did read the whole post, but I'm going to just reply to the TLDR sections for simplicity:

*The reason X-COM's mechanics are unfeasable is because of their time and labor intensity for relatively little payoff as well as their inherent imbalance and psychological promotion of time-wasteful tactics, as well as their high allowance of the whiff effect and uncontrollable random elements.

How do you define unfeasible? The large majority of your post is centered around the idea that X-Com is a failure in your own mind, but that doesn't make it a failure to everyone, or even in general. Any game with a following like X-Com isn't a failure by very definition, although you can claim it COULD have been more successful.

*X-COM's identity and ideals are not at all tied to the mechanics it used, but are ethereal concepts that may be realized with any number of different mechanics setups. The failure of previous X-COM-like games is due to neglect of these basic ideals, flawed development, or strict adherence to X-COM's mechanics in the flawed belief that they are tied to the genre's identity and ideals.

Replace "X-COM" with your favorite game, and the first sentence holds true. No game is tied to its mechanics, and the concepts behind the game can be implemented through any number of other options. Successive games with the X-Com mechanics in mind are designed to appeal to the people who appreciated and enjoyed the X-Com mechanics. If they wanted a Sci-Fi Squad-based action game, there are plenty of those as well.

Its hardly a shocking surprise that tactical turn-based shooters are going to fall short of other options, but how does that relate to success overall if you're not targetting people not interested in that mechanic? If a games target audience consists of 20 people and 15 people enjoy it, you've succeeded in making an enjoyable game. Just because the remaining millions of gamers would absolutely hate the game, doesn't mean the game was a failure if the game wasn't made to appeal to those millions. Survival of the company could be an issue though.

*A real-time system would alleviate these problems by allowing for the more efficient use of time and the reduction of micromanagement and the removal of mechanics-inherent boons to time-wasteful tactics, and the reduction of statistical influence over action success reduces both the whiffing effect and the power of random uncontrollable elements.

If someone enjoyed X-Com for its turn-based system, then no, a real-time system would NOT do anything but make the game worse for that person.

What is with the randomness issue anyways? Most games have a high degree of random chance influencing the game, most even far beyond X-Com. Hell, some games thrive on it. Oh wait, never mind, we'll just call the Civilization series (to throw out an example) a failure for relying heavily on random mechanics. I understand your point, sometimes it sucks to get screwed over by the RNG, but at the end of the day that's what keeps the game interesting over the years. The greater degree of the randomness often helps the life of a game, not hurt it.

*Furthermore, a real-time system opens a number of possabilities for an X-COM-like game depending upon the particulars of the game in question, as well as makes the game more approachable and appealing to the masses whose money is an undeniable nessecity for a revival of the X-COM genre.

Again, you define success far to broadly. Hell, there are open source initiatives to try and re-create the X-Com games, or at least a interpretation of them. Oh wait, since they have to appeal to the masses for cash, we'll just assume those don't exist... Of course, you can come back and say that those initiatives won't cause a "revival" of the genre, but if "reviving" the genre causes the game to change so much that the people who supported the genre originally don't enjoy it, then you haven't really revived anything, but created something entirely new for a entirely new market.

*While X-COM is certainely a great game that did a great job with the means its creators had available to them, it still has much room for improvement. People who say that X-COM is perfect as is and that a remake should do nothing but update the graphics and audio are either blinded by the glare of their rose-tinted graphics or retarded fanboys who need to wake up and face the realities of X-COM's problems. Furthermore, their zealous belief in the sacredness of X-COM's mechanics is what makes developers simply copy the mechanics in their own game and thus fail to produce a noteworthy product, stunting the growth of the genre and robbing gamers of potential titles that're ignored because of the beliefs of the zealous.

So can we expect further breakdowns of other games? Somehow X-Com is special for having its zealots who say its perfect when it isn't, but every other game out there who has zealots that believe their game is perfect isn't worth the statement? Why should X-Com zealots be singled out specifically?

Xtarath

Lord Yod wrote: »

Sorenson wrote: »

But do they fumble with rates of 40 to 50 percent at ranges of ten yards or less while aiming for a man-sized target instead of one the shape and size of a pair of receiving hands?

If that man-sized target looks like this?



Yes.

That sure would decrease my efficiency, also that I might be using weapons and large suits of armor that could be of alien origin.

firewaterword

X-Com is excellent. Except for that bug in Terror that made it impossible for me to finish it. That was lame.

Also, your TL;DR needs a TL;DR.