Xcom 2

It isn’t that easy. What happens if the AI isn’t smart enough to play against the player in those conditions? What if the game systems aren’t well balanced?

I was under the impression XCOM did very well, and a lot of people with different play styles and skill levels were able to be introduced to the franchise or revisited it successfully. Why create the sequel that punishes one style over the other? I heard some complaints about people playing defensively because it was the most efficient way to do it, but they weren’t forced to. The Timer actually punished a playstyle to the point where others were trying to mod it out.

How is that better?

The developers had a vision for the playstyle, and they created it with a set of rules. Complaints about the overwatch crawl are no less valid than complaints about the timer.

Besides, if the dev’s created the game with modding in mind, it’s much easier to reduce than increase complexity. I’m sure they knew modders would strip the timer out.

Mods aren’t the answer to game design decisions, even if it’s the answer given in almost every strategy game made in the last decade. If I had a nickel for every time that’s said about Total War I’d be retired.

My problem with xcom2 is the design decision narrows the victory path, you call that vision, I call it a lack thereof.

You think the the complaints about overwatch crawl is as valid as the timer complaints, except only one of those decisions actually prevents someone from playing the want to out of the box.

Your response doesn’t really explain why punishing one play-style to appease the complaints of players who could play the game they wanted to as better though.

“A vision”- as in “a conception” or “an idea.” I wouldn’t refer to them or their game design as visionary, though I did like xcom 2.

You may not value scarcity of resources in your games, but do you truly need the concept ‘explain[ed]’?

Why have ammo? It just punishes people that don’t want to manage resources. Why not just let some players implement house rules? After all, players could just pretend like bullets are precious.

If that sort of argument doesn’t strike you as at least slightly specious, than I’d simply agree to disagree with you.

Preferences aside if I were trying to really convince someone of this approach in the context of actual game design, I would stick to the argument that a timer vastly simplifies the design of the AI.

I think you’re just being an ass now.

I will stick with my original statement. If you can create a game that caters to two different play styles, and that approach re-awakened the franchise to a broader audience and did well, i don’t see a compelling reason to change it other than some players seem to get upset that others players are allowed to do it not “their” way.

My reply was unnecessarily caustic- I apologize.

The only thing I’d strongly dispute is the idea that Firaxis implemented a timer to placate a small portion of their audience. I think that’s a terribly condescending attitude to have towards them. In the absence of evidence, I think it’s only fair to assume that this is how they wanted it to play.

The characterization is also unfair to players that enjoy, or even advocated for the timer. It makes them sounds like a bunch of spoilsports.

The only condescending attitude I keep getting here is from you towards me.

I think this idea that there are right ways to play and there are wrong ways to play is a unfortunate conflict that exist within the gaming community and in the heads of developers. They created a game. Some people enjoy it one way, others enjoyed it another. Instead of encouraging a certain play-style they decided to punish another one.

I don’t agree with that approach. No amount of blaming, shaming or insults my way is going to change that. I am simply voicing an opinion, just like you are. My personal experience on the matter… some people get really exciting about the way i play… as if what I do in my home and my spare time somehow ruins yours. I think that’s silly.

Anyway, that’s the name of the mod (True Concealment), if you care to use it, @TurinTur. I didn’t find the vanilla timers to be a big bother except in later game “defend the whojamawhatsits” missions – and that wasn’t the same kind of timer. Another mod fixed that issue (and it might be baked into the core game now) by increasing the whojamawhatsits health to scale with enemy power.

I also thought that XCom 2 was perceptibly easier than, at least, Long War. The previous installment also pretty much required overwatch creep on higher difficulties. You can say that you might have more freedom to “play it your way” in that game, but I’m not sure that bears out in Classic Ironman and above.

Well, whatever.

My problem with the XCOM 2’s solution to the “overwatch crawl” was that it was just so damn… lazy. Surely, there had to be better ways to get players moving rather than just shoving a timer in there. Reinforcements are one thing that comes easily to mind.

Reminds me of a story I read out of an classic old pinball book about the creation of “tilt”. A designer was having problems with people bouncing his machine from the bottom to knock the ball around. His first solution: pound a forest of nails through the bottom board of his machine. Then he came to his senses and designed what we now know as “tilt”.

Good point. But at least it does fit in thematically with the “situation” depicted in the game.

I played with overwatch crawl because that was the way to maximize survivability. I’m actually happy that they forced me out of that because playing more aggressively was more fun. It’s probably a personality defect I have, but I play the way that I feel is the most effective. If they found ways to make multiple styles of play equally viable, both with an appropriate amount of pushback that would be great. Of course what is appropriate pushback differs from player to player. More options the better.

I agree timers are a crude solution but they are better than not having any solution at all.

Oh I feel you. I know there were some that play to maximize their utility basically instead of a hardcore preference. I am in an alpha game (NDA) right now that allows you to spend say days collecting resources to maximize your ability to defend something, no hurry at all, or you can hurry and get it done within a certain period of time for a bonus. I think that’s probably a better way to encourage a certain play rather than punish another.

I’ve been listening to turtling wars since what… Age of Empires I, roughly, and it’s the same thing years later. You’d think we’d get past this us vs. them mentality or have developers continue to think that everything they make has to be consumed and enjoyed in only the way they intended. The nice thing about art… it’s experienced differently. Nice thing about games, it can have a wide enthusiastic audience that hopefully pays the bills and then some so they can continue with the craft. There’s no need to pick or have sides. If there is a group that feels they need to be rewarded for fast aggressive gameplay, then reward them. Those who go slow, I don’t we’re going to care.

This is where I’m coming from. The issue of an imperfect solution vs none at all is just so pronounced in this particular case and at this particular time because of Civ 6. It would be glorious if an expansion pack introduced some constraints that allowed the Civ AI to shine- even if they were crude.

On the other hand the silliness of Civ’s AI is mitigated a bit by the game’s laid back vibe. After all, they don’t say “That’s Civ baby.”

When I first heard about the timer situation I was pissed off. My feeling was that this might just ruin the game for me. I hate timers, jumping puzzles and… well, puzzles in general. When I got the game, (thanks again, @Jorn_Weines) it was vaguely annoying. Then I checked out the mods scene and all was well. I think I have over 300 hours in the game according to Steam.

I thought I’d dislike the timers, but found that they add to the experience of being underdog resistance fighters. For the most part. There could have been a few more missions without some timer component, though.

I too wish they came up with a better idea than timers but I’d rather have timers than overwatch crawl. Maybe it’s a personality thing but I tend to play on difficulties where I have to work for it and come up with better strategies. If the optimal way to play is simple but tedious it doesn’t really do much good for my experience. I get not everybody likes to be forced to play aggressively but at least I found this made decisions more interesting and the overall gameplay much less tedious.

Exactly. I’m another one who didn’t mind the turn limits and actually enjoyed them (or what they brought into the game). Moreover, I also thought they perfectly fit the game’s metaphor of guerrilla warfare, so they didn’t stand out as an obvious design imposition, but felt organic to the whole.

The first XCOM didn’t encourage different styles of play. It just made one single style much more effective than the others, and thus made it extremely sub-optimal to play any other way than overwatch crawl. That’s as limiting a design as the fast paced play the turn limits force in XCOM 2.

So the difference is whether you like playing more a perfectly optimal, easy to figure out, perfectly safe tactic (XCOM) or you like being forced to make mistakes and adapt on the fly because of a time pressure (XCOM 2). I do think the later offers more variety (precisely because of the “forcing you to adapt on the fly” aspect of not being able to not take risks), and therefore I find it more enjoyable.

But both methods of play are not available on XCOM one. You can of course play XCOM one taking unnecessary risks and self imposing a turn limit, but then you will lose missions, so why would you? The same you can play XCOM 2 by overwatch crawling (and then you will lose missions), so why would you? The only difference is that the turn limits are a more clear indication of the intended playstyle, while players have to discover they can’t move quickly in XCOM one on their own.

And I also think it’s naive to think you can have a tactical AI in a system of this complexity that actually encourages variety. The better the AI the more forced you will be to certain specific tactics to counter it, by having an adaptable AI you would be substituting overwatch crawling with camping, most likely and a purely defensive game (the game design is such that if the enemies are coming to you, you are better not moving). A game like this (heavy asymmetrical tactics) does better (imho) with dead simple AI and experience design via mission design and tuning.