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

[kabill]

I'm not even sure why some people try to defend that horrible abomitnation firaxis game was. Is it fashionable to be against the general stream, to paraphrase some firaxis defender?

A more obvious answer would be that not everyone found the game to be as bad as you did and some of those people are inclined to defend said game. Especially when people write things like "the game has no AI" which just isn't true.

thus reducing almost every mission to boring shooting range. (i played at maximum difficulty of course)

See, I played plenty of Ironman Impossible and never would have described it as a "shooting range". It's *hard* and I'm not the only person to think so. So the only way in which I think it could be described as a "shooting range" is if you'd utterly mastered it, but I think any game could be described as boring and simple by the time you've gained that level of mastery.

And i'm not even touching the geoscape and "strategic" part of the game, that with only one base, interceptions even worse than in the original (how could that even be possible?), inability to react to different missions at once, hit points instead of proper armor... all in all, this is just cartoony farce instead of a proper remake.

Can't quarrel with you about interceptions (although, how much better was the OG system *really*. Once you had plasma beams, the air combat game was over anyway).

But the only one base thing - meh. One of the key justifications for this (and the one skyranger) was that players of the OG never really bothered with building up big second bases and having multiple squads anyway. And for the most part, this is true. Indeed, look at Xenonauts. The playing with more than one drop team is largely a disadvantage due to the costs of equipping it. Building up a second base with anything in it other than hangars and radars is pretty tough (and mostly unnecessary). You can place your bases anywhere, but there's a few key places which provide optimal coverage meaning in truth there's only a handful of *good* places you can put your base. And so on. Xenonuts in fact demonstrates precisely those points which were used to justify XCom's base-building/geoscape game.

[TrashMan]

To be fair, 3D is superior to 2D in many ways.

First of all, the ease of animation and adding/making new content. High modability.

It's hard to talk about implementation costs, but 3D IS quicker. Graphics like xenonats requires you to make a 3D model, animate it, render each frame, re-paint it and assemble it.

With 3D you just make a model and animate it.

The biggest cost in 3D is the engine itself.

[TrashMan]

But the only one base thing - meh. One of the key justifications for this (and the one skyranger) was that players of the OG never really bothered with building up big second bases and having multiple squads anyway. And for the most part, this is true. Indeed, look at Xenonauts. The playing with more than one drop team is largely a disadvantage due to the costs of equipping it. Building up a second base with anything in it other than hangars and radars is pretty tough (and mostly unnecessary). You can place your bases anywhere, but there's a few key places which provide optimal coverage meaning in truth there's only a handful of *good* places you can put your base. And so on. Xenonuts in fact demonstrates precisely those points which were used to justify XCom's base-building/geoscape game.

The existence of an optimal (common sense) strategy doesn't mean there is nos strategy.

Hell, you can just as well remove flaking on the same reasoning. Everybody does it because it's the smart thing to do, thus it's boring and lets remove it.

Yes, you can place your bases everywhere but there are better places. A little thing called strategically important positions.

Currently you can get away with 1 team simply because your transport can reach anywhere in the world on time. Take that out and secondary teams become a must. After that it becomes an issue of fund and cost balancing.

[FireStorm1010]

People complain about anything. That doesn't make removing features any less of dumbing down.

I'm not even sure why some people try to defend that horrible abomitnation firaxis game was. Is it fashionable to be against the general stream, to paraphrase some firaxis defender? Seriously, it's like some kind of mmorpg met x-com and they spawned a hybrid that got everything wrong. All the special abilities like "FIRE A MISSILE" made me die a little inside, and the general tone of this game was about bunch of superheroes mowing down dozens of aliens with their superweapons who mostly didn't even activate until you went further, thus reducing almost every mission to boring shooting range. (i played at maximum difficulty of course)

And i'm not even touching the geoscape and "strategic" part of the game, that with only one base, interceptions even worse than in the original (how could that even be possible?), inability to react to different missions at once, hit points instead of proper armor... all in all, this is just cartoony farce instead of a proper remake.

But yeah, it sells better.

Just don't sell it here.

I seriously doubt you played the game at impossible difficulty.Its really hard and you would have to understand the tactics required, and if you did you would never write Xcom is simple

I could write how depth isnt the same as complexity, how complexity for complexity sake is a bad thing, but really i have done it all before 1000 times when xcom came out, and i know there is no really convincincing poeple who just cant accept that somethign different can be good.

Edited July 16, 2014 by FireStorm1010

[kabill]

The existence of an optimal (common sense) strategy doesn't mean there is nos strategy.

Hell, you can just as well remove flaking on the same reasoning. Everybody does it because it's the smart thing to do, thus it's boring and lets remove it.

Those things aren't equivalent, though. Flanking in the context of a ground combat mission requires skill/planning/tactics to set up (most of the time). Moreover, flanking isn't always the best decision, based on your soldiers, their loadout, their positions, the possibility of other threats, etc. Flanking is *one* possible solution to a particular set of circumstances.

In contrast, base placement is always the same. There's no trade-offs between positions: if you place a base in Europe or South Africa you don't gain any kind of advantage from that in comparison to putting one in North Africa. It's simply less good. And there's no set up, no planning, no contingency: once you know the optimal base placement that's all you ever need. So I'm not convinced they're the same at all.

That's not to say I have a problem with free-placed bases. But one of the complaints about XCom was that this wasn't possible while, in fact, the inability to do that makes practically no difference to the game at all.

Currently you can get away with 1 team simply because your transport can reach anywhere in the world on time. Take that out and secondary teams become a must. After that it becomes an issue of fund and cost balancing.

I never meant to contend that the game couldn't have been designed otherwise. My point was simply that, in several ways, the geoscape game of post-release Xenonauts isn't especially different from that of XCom, in spite of the latter being criticised for these things.

(Also, shorter drop-ship range was apparently dropped for Xenonauts due to player feedback. I think the complaints were similar to the complaints concerning aerial terror missions now - i.e. that if you don't have a base in range then you've just lost for no reason other than RNG.

Again, that's not to say that I wouldn't like to see a game with shorter drop-ship ranges - and shorter radar ranges, too - to make multiple bases more important than simply being radar outposts. But I think it would require other balance changes to support it too.)

[TrashMan]

Those things aren't equivalent, though. Flanking in the context of a ground combat mission requires skill/planning/tactics to set up (most of the time). Moreover, flanking isn't always the best decision, based on your soldiers, their loadout, their positions, the possibility of other threats, etc. Flanking is *one* possible solution to a particular set of circumstances.

In contrast, base placement is always the same. There's no trade-offs between positions: if you place a base in Europe or South Africa you don't gain any kind of advantage from that in comparison to putting one in North Africa. It's simply less good. And there's no set up, no planning, no contingency: once you know the optimal base placement that's all you ever need. So I'm not convinced they're the same at all.

Completely the same? No.

Completely different? No.

Base building is NOT always the same. Where and when and what you put in the base depends on your current situation.

How much fund do you have? Which region requires the most attention ATM? What do I need?

That's not to say I have a problem with free-placed bases. But one of the complaints about XCom was that this wasn't possible while, in fact, the inability to do that makes practically no difference to the game at all.

And that is a good thing, how exactly?

(Also, shorter drop-ship range was apparently dropped for Xenonauts due to player feedback. I think the complaints were similar to the complaints concerning aerial terror missions now - i.e. that if you don't have a base in range then you've just lost for no reason other than RNG.

Which could have been simply solved by the game checking if you had a base in range. Then either not spawn a terror mission or not give you such a harsh penalty (with obvious full penalty if you did have a base in range).

Implementation failure does not imply the failure of the concept.

[kabill]

Completely the same? No.

Completely different? No.

Base building is NOT always the same. Where and when and what you put in the base depends on your current situation.

How much fund do you have? Which region requires the most attention ATM? What do I need?

The when question is irrelevant to the discussion (or, at least, I was never contesting that as an issue, and the issue of 'when' isn't any different in XCom).

Where: to a small extent. The 'where' question usually amounts to: which of the three optimal places will I put my base in first, second and third. The only time that needs to change is when a funding region has been heavily hit and is on the verge of dropping out (or has dropped out) but - in my experience anyway - this is not often something of importance at the time I'm building my bases.

Indeed, my base-building game in Xenonauts is very formulaic and I can't think of a time that something untoward has happened that requires me to revise this approach.

And that is a good thing, how exactly?

I don't understand what you mean. I'm not sure I was saying anything was a good thing, was I?

Which could have been simply solved by the game checking if you had a base in range. Then either not spawn a terror mission or not give you such a harsh penalty (with obvious full penalty if you did have a base in range).

Implementation failure does not imply the failure of the concept.

You'll note that I'm quite open to the fact that there's ways the idea could be implemented (see my final paragraph in the last post which you've not quoted here) and I was never contending otherwise.

I don't think having them spawn in only areas you can reach is a good idea, though, since it makes expanding your coverage irrelevant. The lower penalty outside of a certain range is better, though I'd be tempted to make it a two strikes system (the first time you fail to respond to a terror mission, you get a moderate penalty; the second time you get the full penalty as the funding zone starts to get pissy at the fact that you're ignoring them).

[vaultdweller]

>I thought Tiberium Wars looked okay, not too cartoony

I even recorded the video of it recently to show what i mean when i say that. Behold and despair:

Your video is private.

[Huntota]

Woops. Set it to public now.

how in hell did it get 5 views then

[Saskali]

The when question is irrelevant to the discussion (or, at least, I was never contesting that as an issue, and the issue of 'when' isn't any different in XCom).

Where: to a small extent. The 'where' question usually amounts to: which of the three optimal places will I put my base in first, second and third. The only time that needs to change is when a funding region has been heavily hit and is on the verge of dropping out (or has dropped out) but - in my experience anyway - this is not often something of importance at the time I'm building my bases.

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

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

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.

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.

edit: by the way not all companies are going the easy way. just look at Dark Souls the game sold really well and it is based on difficulty complexity. Maybe with time we will have more companies specialised in complex and difficult games as there is clearly a huge demand for them.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Saskali

[Chris]

The Firaxis XCOM game is an excellent game. If you're too hardcore to enjoy it personally, that's fine, but that doesn't automatically make it a bad game. Not everything needs to have the complexity of Dwarf Fortress to be enjoyable.

[silencer]

Well said Chris.

[Huntota]

Funny thing is, it has nothing to do with original topic at all.

[Chris]

Yeah, the answer to the original topic is simply that games need to make a profit. Graphics are expensive and the audience for complex strategy games is only so large (and decreases the more complex a game becomes). So making really expensive complex strategy games is a bad idea, as the market may not be large enough for you to recoup the money you spent on development.

That said, I personally think the graphical sweet spot is closer to the Firaxis XCOM than it is to Xenonauts...but you probably won't ever see a strategy game with the graphical budget / fidelity of a Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty game, because the genre isn't popular enough to support it.

[Seafireliv]

Yeah, the answer to the original topic is simply that games need to make a profit. Graphics are expensive and the audience for complex strategy games is only so large (and decreases the more complex a game becomes). So making really expensive complex strategy games is a bad idea, as the market may not be large enough for you to recoup the money you spent on development.

That said, I personally think the graphical sweet spot is closer to the Firaxis XCOM than it is to Xenonauts...but you probably won't ever see a strategy game with the graphical budget / fidelity of a Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty game, because the genre isn't popular enough to support it.

Thanks for your answer. It`s appreciated.

[kabill]

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

Two points:

1) I wasn't contesting base placement as a good idea. I was contesting *free* base placement as *necessarily* adding complexity or depth to a game. It *could* do, for sure. But I'm honestly not convinced that free base placement in either the OG or Xenonauts makes it necessarily more 'deep' or 'complex' than XCom's set base locations plus consummate continent bonus.

2) I have no problem with losing games. I *like* hard games. However, I'm not convinced that losing because of making independently incorrect choices is necessarily a very interesting way to lose the game.

As I wrote above, base placement is Xenonauts doesn't really interact with anything else. Having a base in Northern Europe makes practically no difference compared to having one in South Africa, Australia, North America or anywhere else other than the amount of land-mass it covers. What that means is that base placement is a completely independent decision: you don't place you base in one place for enhance one particular strategy, or in another place to interact with another. In terms of the rest of the game, it more or less doesn't matter.

If it requires thought, then, it's not because free base placement creates some kind of strategic 'depth' but because it's a puzzle to be solved. And once you've solved it, you never need to think about it again because it has no ramifications outside of its own little mini-game.

Now compare this to XCom's continent bonuses. No free placement, but each choice gives a distinct bonus which interacts with other parts of the game and suits particular approaches. No inherently bad choices, but a set of choices which may or may not be bad depending on whether you can effectively use them in other elements of your game.

That, for me, is depth. No individually incorrect 'trap' choices but a series of interlocking elements which may or may not be bad depending on how they relate to everything else. Something which cannot be solved without taking into account the rest of the game as well, and which in any case is only one of a multitude of possible solutions.

(I'm being a little generous to XCom, here. In principle, the continent bonuses are a great way of making base placement matter. In practice, they weren't nearly differentiated enough and four out of the five of them more or less do the same thing. But several strategies have been devised using the SA continent bonus which are impossible to pull off using any other start, which I think indicates how in principle this kind of system can add a great deal of depth to a game.)

(I'm also being a little harsh on Xenonauts, too. My point isn't to rubbish Xenonauts; it's only to suggest that complaints about free base placement not being in XCom were perhaps overlooking how the alternative system they used could - at least in principle - add strategic depth to the game.)

[TrashMan]

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.

[kabill]

Last post on this thread; have spent more time than I have on it already!

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

That's pretty much the crux of the issue.

If you want XCom to be Alien Invasion Simulator 2000, then it's going to disappoint you. However, if you take it on it's own terms, then it's a perfectly good game with plenty of stuff going for it. (Plenty of flaws, too, but I've never encountered a game I didn't think this of.)

As for the use of "fake": no, it's not fake. That would imply that it pretends to be deep but it's not. A better word would be 'fabricated', because while a lot of the depth and complexity of the game is born out of abstractions or seemingly non-realistic limitations, the complexity and depth these produce is nonetheless real.

(I hate to play the chess card, but: chess. A perfect example of a complex and deep game created out of nothing but 'fabrications'.)

[crusherven]

And ofc, mr. know it all , you got it wrong. In Enemy Unkown most of the alien spawns are moving all around the map, and when they enter your los are activated. Some sit in place, most jump around the map all time, and will enter your los even if you dont move.

What it accomplishes is you dont have to creep throgh the map ultra slow, cause you got only to worry if you activate a pack. I think both soltuions have its advatages, and disadvantages.If in Xenonauts you didnt have shields, on veteran difficulty scouting would be a bloodbath, you would loose half your squad on scouting.

If you're going to tell me I got it wrong, you shouldn't start by talking about the expansion changed things. I never played the expansion and don't intend to spend money on it.

Being able to waltz across the map until you activate a pack is exactly what makes it more shallow. And you don't need shields on veteran difficulty to scout with. That's what shotguns are for.

But they don't just sit there until they are spotted, at least not all of them. Some patrol, some stay still. Either way, sometimes they will move to assist other alien groups (although this is partially difficulty-level related). Those are precisely the three basic behaviours that aliens in Xenonauts use.

That's why I said "most" rather than all. A few of them move around but for the most part it's not a concern. But I can't say I ever saw packs deliberately assisting each other, even on the top difficulty, in Firaxis XCOM. If they hadn't been activated, they'd just sit there until an explosion affected them or you moved in range.

The danger of being shot from beyond visual range is a significant and qualitative difference. It means you always have to be conscious of how you're moving your troops, even if you don't see aliens. That's directly related to the fact that aliens don't have to be activated by the player to be dangerous. The fact that they can and will move around in an unpredictable way (but don't get a cheesy free move when you see them) means better tactics are both possible and required.

Edit:

I did not hate Firaxis XCom. It was fun. It's just not replayable to me because the ground combat is lame. As far as I can tell, unactivated packs have no AI (I believe this is what kabill was objected to). They either sit their like slugs or they patrol on what looks like a predefined path. I could be wrong on this part, but I suspect what some people think is the AI coming to help in a fight is really just a preset patrol that happened to run into you.

Edited July 16, 2014 by crusherven

[TrashMan]

That's pretty much the crux of the issue.

If you want XCom to be Alien Invasion Simulator 2000, then it's going to disappoint you.

Well, you can't blame me given how it was advertised.

(I hate to play the chess card, but: chess. A perfect example of a complex and deep game created out of nothing but 'fabrications'.)

Chess is and old, old board game that was never a simulation of anything.

[Saskali]

As I wrote above, base placement is Xenonauts doesn't really interact with anything else. Having a base in Northern Europe makes practically no difference compared to having one in South Africa, Australia, North America or anywhere else other than the amount of land-mass it covers. What that means is that base placement is a completely independent decision: you don't place you base in one place for enhance one particular strategy, or in another place to interact with another. In terms of the rest of the game, it more or less doesn't matter.

If it requires thought, then, it's not because free base placement creates some kind of strategic 'depth' but because it's a puzzle to be solved. And once you've solved it, you never need to think about it again because it has no ramifications outside of its own little mini-game.

Now compare this to XCom's continent bonuses. No free placement, but each choice gives a distinct bonus which interacts with other parts of the game and suits particular approaches. No inherently bad choices, but a set of choices which may or may not be bad depending on whether you can effectively use them in other elements of your game.

That, for me, is depth. No individually incorrect 'trap' choices but a series of interlocking elements which may or may not be bad depending on how they relate to everything else. Something which cannot be solved without taking into account the rest of the game as well, and which in any case is only one of a multitude of possible solutions.

(I'm being a little generous to XCom, here. In principle, the continent bonuses are a great way of making base placement matter. In practice, they weren't nearly differentiated enough and four out of the five of them more or less do the same thing. But several strategies have been devised using the SA continent bonus which are impossible to pull off using any other start, which I think indicates how in principle this kind of system can add a great deal of depth to a game.)

Well you made your point there and i have to agree with you on base placement. But still i think geoscope in xenonauts gives you more strategic choices than in Xcom EU the combination between research air combat and the different weapons armor you can build makes it so you can follow different paths to victory. Sure there is one best way to achieve it but in what game isnt there a best way?

By the way your analysis of depth is quite accurate and well written.

That said when Xcom EU went out i had a lot of fun playing the game. But i tried a second run of it and i couldnt find the motivation to finish. Maybe if it had had a bit more geoscope complexity i would have gone through it again.

PS to Trashman : CHESS is actually a very old simulation of strategic war. So yes it is a simulation.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Saskali

[Huntota]

If you want XCom to be Alien Invasion Simulator 2000, then it's going to disappoint you.

What else would you expect from a game called XCom? I know i wanted it to be better than the original in terms of alien invasion simulation, not worse.

If it would be called, say, Superheroes Against Cartoon Monsters, i'd be totally fine with it.

[StellarRat]

if it would be called, say, superheroes against cartoon monsters, i'd be totally fine with it.

HA! Now that's funny!

[cybrbeast]

Silent Storm is pretty amazing, it's quite old, but the 3D graphics hold up quite well, and the physics engine is the best ever in a Tactical turn based game.

[Seafireliv]

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.

I have to agree here. I mean there are so many simple things that simply aren`t employed in the new x-com. Things that don`t even make sense with the dumbing down ethos because everyone knows it, for instance being able to pick up a weapon dropped by a downed team-m8. Did that really need omitting?

And of course, you can`t really flank for fear of `triggering` Aliens off view.