Enemy Unknown and its wider significance

[sherbz]

This isnt really a discussion about the game itself, its more about turn based strategy games in general, and in particular their place on the mass market. The Penny arcade raises some interesting points about the pre release and release of X Com enemy unknown. They basically sum up x com when they say:

This isn’t a smaller game trying to make a niche audience happy; Enemy Unknown is a mainstream, $60 title on consoles and the PC that’s pushing turn-based strategy gaming in a very real way. The punishing, uncompromising nature of the original wouldn’t fly in today’s market, and perhaps that’s a good thing.

Now, I certainly count myself as one of the niche gamers. I played the original when i was growing up as a teenager in the 90s, got utterly hooked on strategy games as a result, and have been an avid follower ever since. Fast forward to today and I know that my preferred genre of games is not going to have oodles of cash thrown at it because it is slightly out of fashion. FPS's remain the dominant big ticket games and represent the majority of what we call "main stream". Even the biggest turn based strategy franchise of civilization is still considered a relatively niche area. I think what we are kind of seeing here is a gamble by Firaxis and 2K, in using X Com as the game to try and make turn based strategy main stream once more. This is not an alien idea. For years RPG's used to be in exactly the same position. Now they are huge, thanks to a number of big ticket franchises. Maybe X Com might be one of the games to fuel some sort of renaissance? Because the stakes are quite high. X Com spent 4 years in development at a significant cost. If it flops then it will be a long time before big money is spent on another turnbased strategy game. I think penny arcade think along similar lines when they say:

XCOM: Enemy Unknown has every opportunity to become a hit. The game has decent brand recognition, it seems to have a solid marketing budget, the reviews have been incredibly positive, and it’s a top-notch game serving a genre that needs a mainstream hit. If Enemy Unknown turns a solid profit, who knows? We may seem more high-quality strategy games released and aimed at the mainstream market. If XCOM flops we’re back to smaller games in the turn-based genre being celebrated due to their very existence.

I have a review copy of the game on my hard drive, but I’ve already deleted it, and I’m going to buy my own copy of Enemy Unknown today. This isn’t just an attempt to inject new life into a genre, it’s a company betting heavily on a game they believe in, despite the historical problems strategy games have seen on the consoles. I’m ready to throw my chips in with 2K and Firaxis.

So all of this talk from a number of people about "dumbing down" etc gets put in a different perspective i think. If you want to remain on the sidelines, get constantly trampled upon, have no money invested in your genre, then by all means, criticise X Com. But if you like turn based strategy you really ought to support it. Because it is a good game, and its apparent success or failure will influence whether developers ever consider funding a massive turn based project in the future.

 

[May Day 10]

I like XCom. I never experienced the original. I would like a bit more micromanagement though, but I understand the need to make the game more accessible to hook average gamers who are not conditioned to put in the patience necessary for a real "building" game.

I hope the game does well and more pop up within the genre. Maybe people will clammor for more depth and the options can be included.

 

[Sonereal]

If you make a game highly moddable and maybe release an expansion that adds more depth to the game, you can hook the average gamer with the base game and maybe make niche gamer happy as soon as the megamods start rolling in.

 

[PhilBowles]

I like XCom. I never experienced the original. I would like a bit more micromanagement though, but I understand the need to make the game more accessible to hook average gamers who are not conditioned to put in the patience necessary for a real "building" game.

I hope the game does well and more pop up within the genre. Maybe people will clammor for more depth and the options can be included.

XCOM isn't to UFO what Civ V is often perceived to be to Civ IV (i.e. less emphasis on micromanagement, more build options and all the rest). UFO was not a game with deep strategic elements - money and elerium were the only relevant resources, everything you manufactured or captured (and you didn't need live aliens to capture things) could be sold for several million (a large sum even with the higher figures of UFO's monetary system) so you were rarely short of cash, and largely for this reason Council approval tended to be somewhat irrelevant after a while. The tech tree wasn't obviously longer than the one in the new game, nor were there many weapon and kit options (although you had more aircraft types, and base defences).

It was, and still is, an exceptional game, and even by the standards of '90s experimentation in the computer game industry, it pioneered many things (in PC games - several were taken from its pre-PC predecessor Laser Squad) that are now standard in unrelated genres - tactical maps ("minimap"), destructible terrain, the use of elevation in a tactical combat game, the use of a dual-map system with a strategic base component and tactical combat mode (with maps based on the terrain in the geographical area where the battle took place), this latter six years before the concept was revisited in Shogun: Total War.

What UFO has going for it isn't depth in the strategic sense - it is, simply, unique. Even for a time when computer games were often more challenging (and UFO itself was bugged so could only be played on the lowest difficulty), it's earned a lasting reputation for being hard (while rarely outright frustrating - the sequel Terror from the Deep was criticised for ramping the difficulty too high). It combines tactical combat at the level of using elevation and destructible scenery, and soldiers who kneel, bleed and suffer from smoke inhalation with a global scale. It's absolutely filled with character and atmosphere, from the roleplaying of random soldier names (which can be changed) to the Chrysalids which have apparently been named one of the scariest monsters in gaming.

It's been called the best game ever made, and developers have apparently tended to agree: there have been quite a few imitations that aren't really more than graphical updates, but for 20 years no one has tried to improve on it (except for X-COM Apocalypse, which failed, but was still a good game), because in its original form (bugs aside) it probably isn't far from perfection, unlike the Civilizations and other games out there that spawn endless sequels that insist on adding new elements or changing old ones.

 

[panurgy]

It was, and still is, an exceptional game, and even by the standards of '90s experimentation in the computer game industry, it pioneered many things (in PC games - several were taken from its pre-PC predecessor Laser Squad) that are now standard in unrelated genres - tactical maps ("minimap"), destructible terrain, the use of elevation in a tactical combat game, the use of a dual-map system with a strategic base component and tactical combat mode (with maps based on the terrain in the geographical area where the battle took place), this latter six years before the concept was revisited in Shogun: Total War.

Agree with the post, except for the "perceived" remark about Civ 5.

But I wanted to comment on the above. In 1989, about 5 years before X-COM, dual strategic/tactical modes were used in Bandit Kings of Ancient China. It was an amazing game with a Total War-like strategic map that zoomed into a hexagonal terrain map during fights. There were a variety of terrain types--mountains, hills, rivers, etc--that buffed defense, slowed movement, and had various effects on combat.

And technically Master of Magic used the same technique the same year as X-COM, but the tactical map was HOMM-style and so simplified that it probably doesn't count.

 

[PhilBowles]

Agree with the post, except for the "perceived" remark about Civ 5.

But I wanted to comment on the above. In 1989, about 5 years before X-COM, dual strategic/tactical modes were used in Bandit Kings of Ancient China. It was an amazing game with a Total War-like strategic map that zoomed into a hexagonal terrain map during fights. There were a variety of terrain types--mountains, hills, rivers, etc--that buffed defense, slowed movement, and had various effects on combat.

And technically Master of Magic used the same technique the same year as X-COM, but the tactical map was HOMM-style and so simplified that it probably doesn't count.

Fair enough - my European bias is obviously showing as I'm more familiar with the British titles that took that approach (UFO, Total War) than Japanese ones...

UFO was also the first game I ever bought on CD - I grabbed it as soon as it came out, being a diehard fan of Laser Squad (and, on the subject of underrated games from another thread, the fantasy-skinned Lord of Chaos, released by the Gollops on the back of Laser Squad's success, was another of my oft-played pre-PC games. It wasn't as good as Laser Squad by any means, and certainly not as original as either that or UFO, but any game based on that basic engine is likely to be good).

Back to the UFO/XCOM comparison, I think UFO still has its uniqueness - somehow it still has more character for me, although I'm becoming attached to certain of my XCOM characters (as a Starcraft player, particularly the randomly-generated Maura Kerrigan, who proved to be psionically gifted and is now my only level 3 psionic operative). And the more structured campaign (with the base rather than the geoscape as its central focus) intrinsically feels much smaller, even though it's long, detailed and very flexible in how you approach it compared with other modern titles.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't agree with the philosophy that you must support a game of a specific genre so they "make more". If a game isn't good, a game isn't good. Although in X-com's case it looks good. I don't know as I'm still downloading (I'm around 35% but I have a slow internet).

When it comes to Civ5 however... Civ5 is an okay game. I did end up buying the expansion, and did like religion in the expansion. But I feel by buying an inferior game, I'm rewarding developers by going the wrong direction. It only reinforces their beliefs that that's what gamers want. When it really isn't what we want.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I was interested in xcom while it was under development, pretty much decided on not to get it after the demo, but now I'll probably get it after the positive critique generated by it. It looks to me like a strategy game more suited to me than the civilization series, which I pretty much quit playing after civ3. I've bought civ4 and it's expansions and civ5, but not given them that much time. They're too time-consuming and not rewarding enough for me anymore. The story element and progression in xcom seems interesting and I think I'll be willing to give it a shot, in some time.

I don't mind streamlining (dumbing down for some), I just wan't a good experience. Too much handholding, on the other side, should be avoided. Too many devs seem to neglect the fun in discovering game aspects.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't agree with the philosophy that you must support a game of a specific genre so they "make more". If a game isn't good, a game isn't good. Although in X-com's case it looks good. I don't know as I'm still downloading (I'm around 35% but I have a slow internet).

When it comes to Civ5 however... Civ5 is an okay game. I did end up buying the expansion, and did like religion in the expansion. But I feel by buying an inferior game, I'm rewarding developers by going the wrong direction. It only reinforces their beliefs that that's what gamers want. When it really isn't what we want.

Games that genuinely aren't what gamers want don't sell; not enough people make mistaken purchases to support a game, and if they do their expressed disatisfaction is a disincentive to produce more - a lot of people bought Master of Orion 3 but thankfully it wasn't perpetuated.

The problem with boycotting games 'because it's not what you want' is that doing so tells designers nothing about games people do want. All you can do is encourage progress in the right direction (which XCOM at least represents). We're in a gaming age when most games are designed around scripted quests, low difficulty models that are intended as time-consuming diversions rather than as interesting challenges. XCOM on Normal or Classic will be a shock to the system of the average platform gamer or those PC gamers whose idea of a challenge is set by crowd-pleasers like World of Warcraft. From feedback I've seen on the other thread, people new to this variety of game find the challenge a pleasant surprise rather than a dealbreaking turn-off; we old-timers mourn the lack of variety, but for newer players campaigns with semi-random missions, with more than about a dozen different maps, and with random selection and placement of enemies represent greater freedom than the games they're used to. Which is something both developers steeped in a culture of making low-difficulty, tightly-scripted titles and players whose only game experiences come from buying those titles wouldn't even realise there's a market for.

 

[GoodGame]

So all of this talk from a number of people about "dumbing down" etc gets put in a different perspective i think. If you want to remain on the sidelines, get constantly trampled upon, have no money invested in your genre, then by all means, criticise X Com. But if you like turn based strategy you really ought to support it. Because it is a good game, and its apparent success or failure will influence whether developers ever consider funding a massive turn based project in the future.

I think you have a false dichotomy here in that the "dumbing down" / "consol-itis" between console and PC games can occur totally with/without turn-based mechanisms. (E.g. CivRev vs. Civ4:BTS, or any console shooter converted to a PC shooter without being more than a simple port).

Turn-based is just a game mechanism, like real-time, for playing out a strategy game.
Turn-based isn't synonymous any more with being 'more intelligent' or strictly 'more PC-like'.

Go back to the 1990s when on the PC, turn-based strategy games were usurped by RTS games, and I'd agree somewhat.

 

[sherbz]

I think you have a false dichotomy here in that the "dumbing down" / "consol-itis" between console and PC games can occur totally with/without turn-based mechanisms. (E.g. CivRev vs. Civ4:BTS, or any console shooter converted to a PC shooter without being more than a simple port).

Turn-based is just a game mechanism, like real-time, for playing out a strategy game.
Turn-based isn't synonymous any more with being 'more intelligent' or strictly 'more PC-like'.

Go back to the 1990s when on the PC, turn-based strategy games were usurped by RTS games, and I'd agree somewhat.

Thats not really what I am saying. All I am saying is that turn based is a genre, just like role playing, FPS and platformers are genres. The point is that there was a time back in the early/mid 90s when turn based strategy (and for that matter turn based role playing) was all the rage. Since then the frequency of big budget (I say big budget, but i suppose i really mean big title) games has declined dramatically. The point is that devlopers do not commit big money to turn based games, so X-Com is in that sense rather unique. I also think that its apparent success or failure is quite important as far as the genre goes. Because if it flops, then no developer will go anywhere near the genre for a long time (certainly not with a big budget). You will get your once every few years cash cow like civ, a smaller budget HOMM title, and not much else.

Unfortunately developers seem to be of the opinion that strategy can only be played, or only be sold, in real time formats. And I do not think this is the case.

 

[sherbz]

Games that genuinely aren't what gamers want don't sell; not enough people make mistaken purchases to support a game, and if they do their expressed disatisfaction is a disincentive to produce more - a lot of people bought Master of Orion 3 but thankfully it wasn't perpetuated.

The problem with boycotting games 'because it's not what you want' is that doing so tells designers nothing about games people do want. All you can do is encourage progress in the right direction (which XCOM at least represents). We're in a gaming age when most games are designed around scripted quests, low difficulty models that are intended as time-consuming diversions rather than as interesting challenges. XCOM on Normal or Classic will be a shock to the system of the average platform gamer or those PC gamers whose idea of a challenge is set by crowd-pleasers like World of Warcraft. From feedback I've seen on the other thread, people new to this variety of game find the challenge a pleasant surprise rather than a dealbreaking turn-off; we old-timers mourn the lack of variety, but for newer players campaigns with semi-random missions, with more than about a dozen different maps, and with random selection and placement of enemies represent greater freedom than the games they're used to. Which is something both developers steeped in a culture of making low-difficulty, tightly-scripted titles and players whose only game experiences come from buying those titles wouldn't even realise there's a market for.

Now this i completely agree with. Especially the first bit.