XCOM: Enemy Unknown (on 360/PS3)

[Menegrothx]

I watched Total Biscuit's WTF... is XCOM and read a couple of threads on this game and the general consesus seems to be that some parts of the game have been dumbed down, some have been streamlined to make game's shorter but that there's more hard decision making these days. Any thoughts on that?

Personally, I have never understood the "mouse and keyboard is better" argument.

Strategy games tend to be fairly complex compared to your average console game=there are alot more buttons to use, more than game pad has, which is why you'll need a keyboard. Depends on the type of strategy game, but if you have to move around a lot of units, and check out what's happening in different parts of the map and so on (WC3 and SC2 for example), a mouse is very important because it's a lot faster than gamepad and you can point exactly where you want on the screen.

[Lazer]

OK, you have some good points about the "mouse and keyboard thing". I just think that the benefits you all describe (which are nice), do not outweigh, for me, the discomfort of sitting bent over a desk.

Also, I haven't ever played a PC strategy game, so I don't miss all those extra features and buttons. To me, the console controls are awesome because that's all I know.

That being said, I can see where choosing where to move a soldier would be much easier and more precise with a mouse. That is the one thing where the stick suffers. I can tell this even having not used the mouse.

But I do stand by my original comment: XCOM on XBOX rules!!

[Menegrothx]

D pad does work in some strategy games (jrpg/j-srpg) but it must be turn based and have a lot of menus. Menus do work to some extent, but can never really have as large systems as you can have on PC with mouse and keybinds.

[MrPopo]

OK, you have some good points about the "mouse and keyboard thing". I just think that the benefits you all describe (which are nice), do not outweigh, for me, the discomfort of sitting bent over a desk.

So hook up your PC to the TV. We live in an era of wireless peripherals and optical mice.

the general consesus seems to be that some parts of the game have been dumbed down, some have been streamlined to make game's shorter but that there's more hard decision making these days

The difference between something being "dumbed down" and something being "streamlined" is that while both involve the removal of a tedious activity, when something is "dumbed down" that means the reviewer liked that particular activity.

My feelings on Enemy Unknown is that they removed the needless micromanagement like stores and living quarters but left in things like adjacency bonuses so that base building is still meaningful. In the original game the only thing you needed to do to keep the countries happy was to not ignore terror sites. Here you have the abduction missions that put you in a position of having to make hard decisions involving managing global panic levels. You can mitigate it with satellites, but on harder difficulties you have to make choices about whether or not you really want a particular continent bonus. Soldiers leveling up is much more meaningful, too. Rather than dealing with hiring and firing soldiers like you're staffing a temp agency so that you can find the few who have a decent TU score, you instead get classes and a choice at each level how to specialize them. Does your Assault be an in-your-face gung-ho killing machine, or is he more tactical? A sniper specced one way will do fantastic in open maps but terrible in a fight through the remains of an alien battleship. The only complaint that I've had with regards to the changes are that the starting squad size of 4 makes it a little too easy for a mission to go pear-shaped when you're still trying to establish things. Further along in the game you can absorb losses more readily.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

OK, you have some good points about the "mouse and keyboard thing". I just think that the benefits you all describe (which are nice), do not outweigh, for me, the discomfort of sitting bent over a desk.

So hook up your PC to the TV. We live in an era of wireless peripherals and optical mice.

Wont be great for FPSs, but RTS and most single player games would be totally manageable with one of these:



I've been thinking about buying one myself for my HTPC.

[Erik_Twice]

Rather than dealing with hiring and firing soldiers like you're staffing a temp agency so that you can find the few who have a decent TU score, you instead get classes and a choice at each level how to specialize them.

Nah, Time Units wasn't the important skill, the only skill that mattered was psionics because it was the only one that couldn't be trained and it was pretty overpowered in the original.

[MrPopo]

Rather than dealing with hiring and firing soldiers like you're staffing a temp agency so that you can find the few who have a decent TU score, you instead get classes and a choice at each level how to specialize them.

Nah, Time Units wasn't the important skill, the only skill that mattered was psionics because it was the only one that couldn't be trained and it was pretty overpowered in the original.

True, but you didn't figure that out until you were far enough in the game that you'd have the painful process of sacking your top soldiers or just saying "screw it, more blaster bombs". But early game you were weeding out for TUs (and bravery, to a lesser extent).

I haven't gotten that far yet, but apparently psionic defense in EU is based on Will (which also governs your tendency to panic) but using psionics is a hidden stat that you can't find until you get the lab and test soldiers (and it's fairly rare) and psionic strength is the same for everyone with the gift.

[Menegrothx]

The difference between something being "dumbed down" and something being "streamlined" is that while both involve the removal of a tedious activity, when something is "dumbed down" that means the reviewer liked that particular activity.

Dumbed down=having less depth, becoming more simple. Dumbed down isn't synonymous with "removal of a tedious activity" (for example having more spells or talents to choose from isn't a tedious activity).

[MrPopo]

The difference between something being "dumbed down" and something being "streamlined" is that while both involve the removal of a tedious activity, when something is "dumbed down" that means the reviewer liked that particular activity.

Dumbed down=having less depth, becoming more simple. Dumbed down isn't synonymous with "removal of a tedious activity" (for example having more spells or talents to choose from isn't a tedious activity).

Having more spells to choose from is tedious if the majority are not worth using. Complexity is not the same thing as depth. Something can be simple while being deep. Take Go, for example. It's an incredibly deep game of strategy with incredibly simple rules. The real meaning of "dumbed down" is when you remove depth. To "simplify" is to remove complexity. However, the modern day reviewer likes to use them as synonyms with a positive or negative connotation.

[Menegrothx]

Having more spells to choose from is tedious if the majority are not worth using.

Spells that only work (well) in certain situations and under special conditions, as opposed ones that you'll always use, separate the good players from the bad ones.

The real meaning of "dumbed down" is when you remove depth. To "simplify" is to remove complexity.

Removing elements from a game doesn't necessarily remove depth from it, but doing so never brings any additional depth to it.