The older I get, the less time I have to play video games, so I find the time I spend on games going primarily toward two types of games. The first type is a game that is story-driven and draws me in. The best example of this from last year is The Walking Dead, a game that sucked me in completely, though the "gameplay" is relatively bare bones: press a button here, turn your mouse there, etc. There's not a lot you can do to "fail," and even when you do mess up, there's no real penalty other than repeating the mission. The narrative and the characterization are what drive you forward. I guess I'm drawn to this type of game because I'm an English guy: I spend all day long thinking about stories, what makes them work or fail, how they affect us, why they matter.
The other type of game I seem to be drawn to are, for lack of a better phrase, games that make me feel like I'm using my brain: I like strategy and sim-type games way more than I used to, as well as games that reward creativity. I don't think that's a sign of maturity or anything--there are plenty of Modern Warfare players who are good because of their strategic thinking, in addition to their hair-trigger reflexes, but that's not the kind of skill or strategy that interests me really. Plus, I'm just not good enough at shooters to hang with the big dogs, so unless there's an engaging story, I find myself shying away from them (even though I still see the attraction).
XCOM is clearly the second type of game--the "narrative" is nothing more than 'Aliens are attacking; don't let them win'--but it's so good at making the player think about resource management, strategy, and tactics, that I didn't really worry at all about the story. XCOM requires thought, planning, and dedication, and though the mode I played in allowed for easy recovery from mistakes by allowing unlimited saves, the game ramps up to an Ironman mode where every choice you make--and loss you suffer--becomes permanent. I'm not there yet, but I can easily see that this is a game I will come back to for at least one more round now that I've beaten it once.
The game has two main phases. The first phase is a base management game in which you decide how to spend money (options include weapons, equipment, base improvements, satellite coverage of the world, and fighter jets), what technologies to research, and how you will help train your soldiers. The game does a nice job of limiting the money, since some of the resources you could sell will also be needed later for building equipment, and since money never flows too freely. You have to make tough choices; often providing a better gun for a strong squad member means not being able to launch a satellite or having to stick with weak armor. At the same time, you can do SOMETHING each month, so you never feel like you're completely stuck either. You also have to manage the "panic" levels of countries around the globe, and fulfilling a mission in one country (and thus lowering their panic level) means ignoring others, to poor effect. You can even have countries stop supporting the XCOM project, which not only decreases your income but can raise concern among the rest of the world as well.
Where the game really shines, however, is the turn-based strategy of the missions. In your base you recruit soldiers and take them on missions, where experience allows them to specialize and level up over time. Each mission is played on a limited number of "boards" (one of my few complaints is that I felt like I saw the same environments a few too many times), and each squad member can perform different actions, from moving to firing on an enemy to healing a comrade to going in overwatch mode or hunkering down. The result is that I felt like I was playing a visually compelling and tactically challenging game of chess with my alien attackers. Do I rush in and try and make more of the location "visible"? If I do and I spot aliens, I might be stuck out in the open, away from cover! Do I hold back and move from cover to cover? What if I get flanked by the Thin Men? Or how will I avoid having my strongest player killed by a psionic attack?
As your squad members gain experience and skills, they also become more valuable to you, but XCOM has no problem in allowing you to lose your men--in fact, it even has a shrine built to them that you can visit in your base. I found that as I named my squaddies (First Marty, Doc, and Biff, then branching into the Batman family) and grew their skills, I became genuinely taken aback when they die. Despite their lack of personal character, they do matter to your success in the game, so you really do care. Missions became infinitely more intense when a massive attack meant having to make my support medic decide who would live--my high level sniper, or my only assault soldier? Those sort of choices make the game addictive and compelling.
XCOM: Enemy Unknown is the first turn-based strategy game I've played in a long time, but it instantly makes me want to play more. My only worry is that I'm aware of all the accolades this game has gotten--Game of the Year or runner-up (behind The Walking Dead) on a number of game sites--means that my next experience won't be as fulfilling. Either way, I'll keep playing, whether that means increasing the difficulty or buying the DLC. I don't want the XCOM project to end yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment