Jump to content

So what`s with this mentality of Devs \Publishers? With Graphics vs Depth.


Recommended Posts

the new X-Coms Depth is fake. not one born out of common sense on natural tactics, but artificial hurdles, bonuses and limitations.

And while the current base building implementation in Xenonauts is far from ideal, it is not brainless and it has ramifications.

X-com 12 was to linear for me, but I bought the expansion hoping it would improve on certain parts only now I am really enjoying it with the the long war mod as I feel I am falling behind all the time and not really in control.

It least you can build a base in Xenonauts, what you build in x-com doesn't feel like a base to me, just power,uplinks and workshops and labs and a couple of special rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you miss the point there. What being able to place the base do is giving you the chance to fail.

But this is also equally objectively bad game design: If placing my base in Europe, as I did in my first game, basically consigns me to an instant loss eventually (because I would need other bases to cover different regions) while there are about three (or so) completely optimal positions - why bother with the whole "Have fun with a completely RNG dependent aerial terror mission you literally cannot stop that ultimately loses you the game".

For example people criticize, with good reason, Firaxis' remake for the general lack of strategic depth on the geoscape. Every time I start the game I basically do the same thing every time: I rush for arc throwers to capture aliens and everything I can do goes into getting as many satellites as possible. It's a reasonably boring and one-dimensional strategy, but it works on every difficulty - including the hardest (and in fact, is arguably one of the only ones that works).

Xenonauts on the other hand has exactly the same flaw: A boring, one dimensional and linear geoscape game. When I want to actually win the game I now know I need to build about 3 bases, reasonably quickly, in 3 parts of the world. One around North Africa, one around mid America and one a bit above Malaysia or so. You want to build bases to cover as many funding countries as possible, maximize your interceptors to area ratio and avoid the mass upkeep expenses that too many bases would provide.

Doing anything else is basically going towards a massive funding deficit - due to needing more bases, with more interceptors - and an ultimate loss.

Since when did video games become games that win the game for you?

Firaxis' XCOM actually has the same issue that Xenonauts has: If you don't follow an optimal good strategy on impossible or classic, you basically consign yourself to a loss. Same with Xenonauts: Don't learn and follow an optimal base building strategy, you lose.

They're both equally linear and boring: One just disguises itself better than the other.

In a senario in which you do not know the game and you start in your country or whatever fool choice you do it will get you a UNIQUE playthrough which might be hard and end in defeat but will still be pleasent cause there is challenge and you play a game you like.

It will give a unique playthrough: You'll be UNIQUELY unable to win the game and it's simple trap game design.

Meanwhile, every time I want to win I can win with three bases and it's so efficient, there really isn't any point to doing anything else. These optimal base positions are the Xenonauts equivalent of the remakes satellite rush: A boring one-dimensional strategy that always gives the optimal chance of victory.

FIRAXIS made their game so you cant go the wrong way. And that is dumbing down. Cause they do the optimisation for you. The first time you play you dont lean on your keyboard and think : well where would it make more sense to put this base. And this goes for almost all the other matters of the geoscope.

This isn't even remotely true on higher difficulties, where panic will absolutely destroy you faster than anything if you don't do the right thing (which is, build satellites). In fact, you'll lose a game in the remake faster than Xenonauts when you stick your base in the 'wrong' place on classic or impossible.

Loosing isnt a bad thing and especially not planning and thinking so why remove it from players? Even if the planning/thinking is quite straightforward. Hell, planning and thinking is what strategy gamers are after.

Because it's objectively making the game more limited and less strategic by sticking in "Haha, you fell into our devious TRAP!" and it doesn't improve gameplay whatsoever. There are positions in Xenonauts where once you know about them, there is no reason to ever not build a base there. They are so beyond efficient they are basically the default best places to put a base and doing anything else can severely cripple your playthrough.

It's a really bad limitation and the higher the difficulty the worse this limitation becomes: Until Xenonauts has an entirely limited "build" to each game on the geoscape every bit as rote and limited as what the remake does. The difference is that XCOM is just more up front about its limitations, while Xenonauts simply lets you continually fail until you discover the hard way what they are.

And having immense "trap" options does not mean Xenonauts is deeper: Depth is acquired by having multiple valid choices. For example, in the original X-COM I can support multiple bases with various purposes easier because it's considerably less punishing on you in maintenance costs. You can also manufacture some items, notably the humble laser cannon, to provide money. Heck, a great strategy in X-COM is to build a secret base somewhere and fill it with engineers whose job is to 24/7 build laser cannons to support your war effort.

Xenonauts doesn't allow you to do shenannigans like this, so every base is a massive drain on incredibly limited resources: So you can have few bases. Meaning the few bases you have need to cover the most territory: Because the air war in Xenonauts is 90% of where the game is won or lost. This means that the number of valid choices in base position and strategy is grossly limited unless you want to deliberately make the game harder (all power to you if so) or you just don't realize the game is heavily flawed in this region.

Being able to generate money more easily by building things or lowering the investment of subsequent bases would probably make other strategies more viable. As it is though, unless you know what to do the air war can be lost on month 1 and you won't even realize it until the game grinds out to an inevitable loss.

You call that depth: I call that bad game design.

I really enjoy Xenonauts overall, but the severe limitations imposed by the way the air war and geoscape work I have found very disappointing. The actual air war itself I think is great and a massive improvement on any X-COM like game that has come before it. However, the complete lack of depth in valid choices for base placements and the sheer difficulty canyons you fall into by "doing it wrong" really removes a ton of the interest/fun from the geoscape layer of the game.

Edit: And no, I totally don't want to see "Manufacturing laser cannons to ignore the entire games economy back". That's an even worse option by far.

Edited by Aegeri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imho in Xcom on impossible ironman level rushing the base or sattellites isnt the opitmal way to win. You throw to much of your resources to achieve these gooals, making your unequipped ground battles that much harder to win in early game , when its hardest.

Imho the optimal way to win is just going slow, 1 sat first month, then 2-3 each month, pouring all the extra money into ground combat research/equipement. Yes you will loose some countries, not abig problem. Its what will give you the best odds of consistently beating ironman impossible , not restart 10 times to get that one win with all countries saved.

To thw hoel post i kinda agree: the amount of choice in base choosing both in Xenonuauts and Xcom is similar, tough imho in both games it can be important, but you shoudl able to win the game with each choice.

Edited by FireStorm1010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imho all in all what the Xcom EU bashers really are appaled at is not really lack of depth or thinking , but the fact it deosnt try to simulate reality even to the extend of UFO EU, Xenonauts.They just have trouble putting it into words. Putting firing missile as skill doesnt make the game any less tought requiring , but of course is a pretty high abstraction opposed to just equipiing it as weapon in barracks.On other hand , its one of the things that allows Xcom Eu to be so finely balanced.

Edited by FireStorm1010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firaxis' XCOM actually has the same issue that Xenonauts has: If you don't follow an optimal good strategy on impossible or classic, you basically consign yourself to a loss. Same with Xenonauts: Don't learn and follow an optimal base building strategy, you lose.

Meanwhile, every time I want to win I can win with three bases and it's so efficient, there really isn't any point to doing anything else. These optimal base positions are the Xenonauts equivalent of the remakes satellite rush: A boring one-dimensional strategy that always gives the optimal chance of victory.

Not true on normal difficulty you can win with suboptimal base placement and less than 3 bases even if you only airstrike the crashsites. (you still have to get one to do the research)

The difference is that XCOM is just more up front about its limitations, while Xenonauts simply lets you continually fail until you discover the hard way what they are.

Basically that is what i like in games learning the hard way how to win the game not getting an easy free win game :D. Which i agree is only my point of view and not the mainstream view.

I actually dont care about loosing a game as long as i have fun playing it. What is important about a game for you mate Having fun playing it or winning it?

I really enjoy Xenonauts overall, but the severe limitations imposed by the way the air war and geoscape work I have found very disappointing. The actual air war itself I think is great and a massive improvement on any X-COM like game that has come before it. However, the complete lack of depth in valid choices for base placements and the sheer difficulty canyons you fall into by "doing it wrong" really removes a ton of the interest/fun from the geoscape layer of the game.

You know if the game was going to be played on earth i dont see how you would not get optimal base placement. Seriously it is inherent that mid-east is a strategic military point as cuba is you cant change this.

Maybe if you tell some modder to create a new earth with same size countries in different positions then sevreal other bases placement would then be possible.

That said i dont say that the game is perfect and i actually posted to kabill that i agreed with him on how base placement dont give you that much choice.

To this point i can say that we have a fundamentally different point of view so we cant basically agree. What seems to be what you search in a game is what i tend to avoid :D.

So peace and have fun playing. Which actually is what matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true on normal difficulty you can win with suboptimal base placement and less than 3 bases even if you only airstrike the crashsites. (you still have to get one to do the research)

I'm not comparing the easiest difficulties: I'm comparing veteran onwards, with classic onwards (which are both difficulties designed to be default difficulties for people who have played turn based games before). I've never played normal in Xenonauts myself, but I honestly didn't have a hard time with veteran at all outside of realizing base positions were crucial.

I mean easy in XCOM:EU is practically impossible to lose. In fact, I can't even figure out how you would. It doesn't suddenly mean that because you can do anything you want suddenly the geoscape has many valid strategies. The limitations become obvious the harder the difficulty is and both games demonstrate this point.

Basically that is what i like in games learning the hard way how to win the game not getting an easy free win game :D. Which i agree is only my point of view and not the mainstream view.

You can in fact do both!

You can have real actual depth AND not make it artificially difficult by having poorly communicated bad mechanics.

I actually dont care about loosing a game as long as i have fun playing it. What is important about a game for you mate Having fun playing it or winning it?

Being able to implement more than 1 strategy to actually win it.

Which is, in fact, the flaw in Xenonauts geoscape on higher difficulties.

You know if the game was going to be played on earth i dont see how you would not get optimal base placement. Seriously it is inherent that mid-east is a strategic military point as cuba is you cant change this.

Realism =/ Good Gameplay.

And in reality, optimal base placement would probably cover countries with the highest resources important to the war effort amongst other things. Not to mention most countries would be sending their own airforces up etc etc. The entire base system is a completely artificial mechanic and so any "realism" argument you try to bring into it is basically abject nonsense from the start.

That said i dont say that the game is perfect and i actually posted to kabill that i agreed with him on how base placement dont give you that much choice.

But that's the point.

That decreases depth dramatically.

Optimal, much better positions degrade depth and ensure a linear game where if you don't do the same things over and over, you lose. This is because, as mentioned, maintaining multiple bases is downright impossible on the harder difficulty levels. False choices are actually much worse than not giving you choices at all.

You might think trap options are good: I don't. I think more valid options is infinitely better and Xenonauts failure is pretending like there are a ton of valid choices.

When there are 3.

Edited by Aegeri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ll you really dont get the meaning of my posts so i think i will stop answering to you.

You might think trap options are good: I don't. I think more valid options is infinitely better and Xenonauts failure is pretending like there are a ton of valid choices.

When there are 3.

What you state is false . Even if base placement is not that varied research and manufacture is very diverse in the game. So you are resuming the whole game to base placement which basically is doing the same as the game designers the OP spoke about. Which is oversimplification.

So the snake has bitten its tail the loop is closed i think it is time to close this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you state is false . Even if base placement is not that varied research and manufacture is very diverse in the game.

But then, I can point out that is identical to XCOM:EU as well, but I don't consider that adding a large amount of meaningful "depth" either. In fact, in Xenonauts I don't agree with research at all: You absolutely need to get up to better interceptors as fast as you possibly can (the Foxtrot in particular) or you will end up failing to shoot down the larger UFOs. Manufacturing is similar: You need to get straight onto those interceptors as well as soon as you can, because condors will not cut the mustard for very long.

Your initial "How do I get into a winning position" in Xenonauts is as linear, devoid of choices and confined as the remake. There are clearly superior choices and IMO, you need to go down the route of researching better interceptors and building optimal base facilities/new bases quickly to realistically succeed. These problems are made because of the ridiculous maintenance costs and how much funding you lose by letting UFOs go (especially when the corvette swarms turn up).

Once you have a stable situation, you can do whatever you want but that's the same with EU as well, outside of building towards satellites rapidly, but still it's every bit as linear in the important geoscape strategies that win you the game initially. Building the same three bases in the same three places, the initial building 2 radars, an additional 2 hangers and so on every time you start in Xenonauts are incredibly basic but "obvious" options.

So you are resuming the whole game to base placement which basically is doing the same as the game designers the OP spoke about. Which is oversimplification.

Base placement is what wins you the game however: Because without good base placement you cannot shoot down the UFOs, maintain coverage of many funding countries at once and importantly end up with RNG determined effects like an aerial terror mission you can do nothing about. Also I feel that the straight off research you should be doing is getting better interceptors ASAP, especially because tactical missions are not the be all and end all of Xenonauts. Actually, my main mistake on my first two playthroughs outside of my base placement was failing to realize that the interception part of the game was much more important than tactical missions. Winning tactical missions is irrelevant when your planes are outclassed and you can't shoot down UFOs.

Of course the conundrum is that yes, I could play on normal which is more forgiving in the air and so on: But normal also makes the tactical battles boring. Veteran and above have the most interesting tactical gameplay, but their difficulty means that you get forced into linear set strategies or you aren't going to get out of the early game capable of actually winning. So Xenonauts gives an illusion of being deeper than it is: Which is the point I've tried to make. Xenonauts has only one valid geoscape strategy: Shoot down everything you can. To accomplish this, you absolutely have to do the same things base position, design and research wise. Once over the initial hump I find (even on insane) it wasn't impossible to stay ahead of the aliens or keep up with them - but you can only do that by following a narrow set of strategies initially to ensure you get there.

That's a big flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

Realism =/ Good Gameplay.

And in reality, optimal base placement would probably cover countries with the highest resources important to the war effort amongst other things. Not to mention most countries would be sending their own airforces up etc etc. The entire base system is a completely artificial mechanic and so any "realism" argument you try to bring into it is basically abject nonsense from the start.

unrealism =/= good gameplay either.

Also, countries don't all offer the same amount of resources ($). Naturally, the US and Russia are the biggest contributors.

Furthermore, there is more to a game than just numbers. The atmosphere, setting, etc.. - all enhance gameplay.

Which is why I roll my eyes when people proclaim some mythical super-balance as the most important thing ever.

Such balance usually feels fake and cheap and can ruin gameplay just as much as it can help it.

The "every choice must be equally viable" is a fallacy. It never will be.

If all are equally viable, then there is no point to them to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all are equally viable, then there is no point to them to begin with

That statement makes absolutely no logical sense at all. If choice A is always a win and Choice B is always a loss, then there in reality is no choice to begin with. You just have option A. If choice A and choice B are different and both viably lead to a win, they are meaningful examples of depth. The argument above was that in the first situation, because Choice B was there it meant the game had more depth, which I said was rubbish: Putting in deliberate bad trap options is just poor game design, pure and simple. In Xenonauts you absolutely have to place bases and build/research interceptors in a limited number of areas right from the get go, because despite being able to build anywhere (the supposed advantage) the sheer maintenance costs and way the game works (money wise) means it's just not viable. You're set into a limited number of actual viable choices, even if you theoretically have a whole ton of them.

Furthermore, there is more to a game than just numbers. The atmosphere, setting, etc.. - all enhance gameplay.

For me, it's gameplay and when you start tearing apart at the guts of Xenonauts geoscape in particular, it's pretty obvious how shallow it actually is and that's hugely disappointing because the mechanics of the actual game are really good. Needing multiple interceptors in squadrons, the aliens running air superiority missions, aerial terror missions are a terrific (if flawed) concept and so on, which does IMO redeem a large amount of this problem for me (hence why I still enjoy this aspect of the game). But it all simply hinges on where you put bases and realizing that you need interceptor spam ASAP: Put them in the right spots and make the best interceptors (or upgrades) you can and the game is actually rather easily winnable (as shooting down UFOs is extremely important for income). I can't help but note there is an intriguing sounding mod for actually making the aerial war more difficult.

I'd really like to know if there is a way of having more than 3 bases that cover almost everything and rushing interceptor technology that can win the game reliably (EG: No save scumming that impossible to get to aerial terror mission) on difficulties at veteran or above.

Edited by Aegeri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can`t someone make a spread-sheety game like Xenonauts with the eye-ish bleedin` graphics of enemey unknown?

Economics. A "spread-sheety" game appeals to fewer people than a game that's easy to pick up and uncomplicated. Developing a game with good graphics is expensive, so it needs to sell more copies than a game with poorer graphics. All the things that give it complexity have to be represented somehow in the game as well: if there are 40 weapon types, you need graphics for all 40, unless you re-use art but at that point the graphics are no longer considered good. Also, making games worth playing is hard. Depth and good graphics is even harder than focusing on either of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imho all in all what the Xcom EU bashers really are appaled at is not really lack of depth or thinking , but the fact it deosnt try to simulate reality even to the extend of UFO EU, Xenonauts.They just have trouble putting it into words. Putting firing missile as skill doesnt make the game any less tought requiring , but of course is a pretty high abstraction opposed to just equipiing it as weapon in barracks.On other hand , its one of the things that allows Xcom Eu to be so finely balanced.

I didn't have any trouble at all putting my main objection to it in words, and it's not realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "every choice must be equally viable" is a fallacy. It never will be.

If all are equally viable, then there is no point to them to begin with.

Untrue. In many competitive games, like Warcraft 3 or Starcraft, every faction is equally viable, even in a tournament with highly competitive players. But the different options give flavor and depth to the game. Civilization isn't as finely balanced, but it's similar. So are good MMO's. A mage and a rogue may equally viable choices, but still bring different strengths to the team, feel completely different, and lend themselves to different strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that you can't have both good graphics and depth. It's not that that would, in itself, cost too much. It's that graphics are expensive and depth has niche appeal.

A game of a certain genre that has a lot of depth only really appeals to fans of that genre who are a priori willing to put enough time into the game to understand it and casual gamers are ruled out altogether. This limits the market and the returns. As a result, big publishers who are the ones with the kind of money required for sparkly graphics (or indeed any investor) aren't willing to put huge amounts of money into sparkly graphics. Shallow games are easier to sell, easier to pick up and play and generally have a much wider audience than deep ones, they can appeal to casuals and also people who don't necessarily have a great interest in the genre. As a result the people making deep games tend to be indie devs who don't have a great deal of cash to work with.

As for the balancing thing above: equal, asymmetrical balance is possible but it's extremely difficult to get perfect and if you try to specifically do it the chances are you will a. waste a lot of time and b. ruin the game for everyone who isn't willing to abuse and game the system, who play for fun and would like a more realistic experience. Leave competition to either games that were, from the outset, designed to be played competitively or games like osu.

Edited by Person012345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joes review of Rome 2 at 19:30 minute mark and minute forward express perfectly how I felt after playing Rome 2 and X-Com. Quite common thing these days.

Never noticed this until now...

Yes, Rome 2 was a huge disappointment. They decided to go all for the lowest denominator and screwed what was an excellent series of games, save for Empire. They had a huge budget too. Worst of all a lot of lying was involved sadly. I don`t pre-order any more because of that.

The thing is the TW games used to be a GOOD example of great graphics AND strategy. Look at Shogun the original, Medieval 1. But even more so when Rome 1 came out- Suddenly we had great graphics and strategy combined and inmho we got Medieval total War 2 with lovely graphics, fully realised cities, sounds and excelent tactics and strategy- In my book the best total war ever.

It CAN be done, but then CA (the game makers) lost the plot for even more money and produced Rome 2. Still not working as promised after 13 patches :(

Edited by Seafireliv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...