We're not getting X-Com 3, are we?

 

To think there was a time I was so afraid of the dense nature of tactical games that I never once engaged with them. I felt the entire genre was type was so very niche there wasn't any inroad for someone who fell in love more with the storytelling or action of games- I just didn't see a path where those sectors of game entertainment interjected. And that panned out in a lot of my attempts to get involved with this style of game, not least of all my attempts to play the original X-Com which, to this day, I cannot get my head around on the most basic level. At least, that was until I stumbled upon the X-Com revival games which not only brought the tactical gameplay down to a comprehensive level for new comers who don't feel like browsing several pages worth of tutorials in order to play their first battle, it also awoke me to the endless dynamic storytelling potential of titles just like this.

Enemy Unknown was a revolution for that entire subgenre of games, not just the brand which had been dormant for over ten years at that point. The tooth'n'nail pressure of managing a squishy group of mortal soldiers battling to keep together the crumbling embers of a collapsing world against a threat far outpacing them, ever present that with ever mistaken call, and often times ever with totally perfect calls, a grim grave can await anyone at anytime. There's little which can encapsulate that level of tension, those crushing blows and those miraculous wins, all decided by the fate of an offscreen die spinning your fate in the moment. And the make-up of what Unknown was became the basis of most boots-on-ground tactical games from then on in. 

What I respect most about X-Com's series is the way they always endeavoured to make every game good enough to stand on it's own, to such an extent that all sequels had to try something a little bit different rather than just spin the ol' wheels as usual. Even as Enemy Within was building upon the base product with new ways of playing the game in both a moment-to-moment sense as well as overall meta- X-Com 2 totally flipped the gameplay dynamic on it's head, making the player the invaders attempting to overthrow an alien controlled world- with the guerrilla tint to gameplay not just being Ubisoft-level set dressing but a total revision to the presentation of gameplay and wider tactical narrative progression. And don't even get me started with War of the Chosen- perhaps one of the greatest expansions of it's age for the way it acted as practically a whole new game on it's own!

Chimera Squad was where the team started to fall off some small degree in my opinion, with the focus taken away from consequence and greater emphasis placed on tailor crafted 'hero units' the dynamic storytelling potential which seemed to be heart of the franchise seemed burnished somewhat. I respect Chimera for what it was trying to do and I still think it's a damn good time that once again shifts the core gameplay in just enough of a manner to justify itself as a standalone- but I'm not surprised that franchise fans felt a bit underserved by it. But it wasn't a break between audience and developers. Not in the way that their next game would be- to such a degree that even after all these years I don't even think the creators knew what went wrong.

Marvel's Midnight Suns promised so very much, bringing the X-Com style of play to a brand we all know whilst throwing something totally new in there to boot. The new card-based system of play was not received well upon reveal but I think it would be a little disingenuous to claim that alone turned people off to the game entirely. You also have the fact that as the marketing trucked along everyone became increasingly aware that the game's X-Com connections would not carry that same spirit of the original two games, with the dynamic storytelling potential, and instead be more like Chimera Squad with it's 'follow along the dotted lines' approach. In fact, Midnight Suns is entirely a driven story game that happens to share DNA with X-Com, once again not quite catering to the audience who had been patiently waiting all this time.

Now it's not as though a follow-up to X-Com was never considered. 2 literally ends with a tease to a subterrain menace mimicking the original X-Com sequel 'Terror from the Deep'. A tease we have been waiting to be fulfilled for about 8 years now. And in the time not only have the team decided to go other directions with their style of development, they've also started breaking off! The big gambit of Midnight Suns ended up not paying off, and underperformance leads to layoffs. The lead designer even left the company and is now off making Life Sims of all things. We lost Jake Solomon to perhaps the single worst genre of non-mobile game out there, the hilariously over commercialised parody-genre of Life Sims. Oh the humanity!

Which of course means that Firaxis are in a worst position than ever before to finally buckle down and make the follow-up to the franchise that put them on the map. They're going to have to build back up to it, proving themselves with smaller titles that score some success, all the while the people will be patiently waiting for X-Com three and won't respond well to these other titles that don't capture those same emotions. All along the way other teams are moving in on their territory and releasing their own takes on the genre, peeling off players this way and that, until eventually no one even remembers what it was they were so worked up expecting all along. In fact, I'd bet most are already at that point- given the 8 years and all that.

Which is all to say we're not getting an X-Com three. Not because the team no longer exists to do it, but because they missed their moment in time, can't capture that lightening in a bottle now that it's out in the wild and won't draw the crowd they once would. In some ways it's a sad state of affairs, but in another sense if we had to pick between getting X-Com three or X-Com becoming the influential phenomenon that influenced so many other incredible titles, I'm glad we got the latter outcome.  Maybe the promise of what X-Com 3 might have been is greater than what we ultimately might have received if it came out and... well, ended up like Vampire the Masquerade 2 is currently looking. (Yikes.)

Save Scum

 The debate of a generation

XCOM Enemy Unknown versus XCOM 2

 The favourite child

I've made no secret of my love for the Firaxis XCOM games that pit the tactical mind of the player against hoards of AI Alien invaders in an endlessly replayable campaign of one-up-manship. They are brilliant revivals of the XCOM brand, bringing with them a resurrection for that entire sub-genre of games that have spawned an entire cadre of similar style titles across some niche tactical corners of the industry. Though I yearn for the third entry, the first two are just so good on their own- bringing to their favour almost entirely distinct styles of game such that they can be experienced again and again in succession without the titles becoming stale- that I'm perfectly happy for the team to take their sweet time reimaging the idea in another manner that is just as good, and worth coming back to, as the first two entries. But we never can leave it just at that, now can we?

Afterall, who wants to just be cordial when you can be aggressive and pick sides in a conflict totally of your own fabrication? Why say both games are perfectly as fine as one another, and XCOM 1 still holds up fine against it's younger sibling, when you can instead pit both games in a death battle against one another, in an attempt to figure out who holds the superior position? Actually, I've pondered for a while which of the two games I like more, and outside of the obvious improvements in elements such as unit customisation and graphical yield, the margin is remarkably thin. It's often said that a sequel is about improvement, but I think one that can step to the side and achieve as high marks as the original and deserve every bit as much praise, if not more so for not retreading what has already been carved out. Which I guess means we're going to have to get objective about this.

Such as by analysing which of the two games handles their DLC better. In which I think XCOM 1 actually might do a superior job. Now I've forgoing the 'rerelease' expansions in this comparison and thinking more of the raw DLC snippets that were injected into both games, for which there is little competition in my mind. XCOM: Enemy Unknown included a few unique operatives that could be unlocked through special missions that were slotted into the rotation of randomly generated missions and one complete chain of quests. It was simple and neatly fitted within any campaign with tipping the boat. XCOM 2 were a lot more ambitious with their DLC, but a lot more sloppy with their implementation. The Alien Hunters DLC is notorious for introducing new Boss aliens that fundamentally broke the balance of the base game, turning the turn based tactical shooter into a randomly luck dice roll for getting lucky spawns. And selling cosmetic packs felt real weird for the PC audience, who had just been given access to easily accessible mods in the same game.

Shrinking into the base game itself can offer us a more concentrated comparison of the game flow, and the way that XCOM 1 has us affixed to the eb and flow of a 'disaster clock' whereas XCOM 2 is more freeform but shackled to an unescapable doomsday clock that limits the length of any campaign with an unescapable full stop. XCOM Enemy Unknown's clock is more of a workable and playable system of managing various countries 'panic' level, which can wind itself into the tactical planning of what mission to pick or when to execute certain 'clear the board' missions that relieve the whole world's tensions all at the same time. XCOM 2, on the otherhand, held it's campaign time limit like a sword over the player's head at all times, unflinching and unmanipulable. Yes, there were small actions to stall the march, but you can only every pause the needle, never halt it. Personally, I prefer the storytelling range of XCOM 1's system, over the static and oppressive inevitability of XCOM 2's.

Character class systems also received something of an overhaul in XCOM 2, both to match the thematic shift from 'protectors' to 'freedom fighters' and to provide greater opportunity for build variation even when playing two pawns of the same class. Now the XCOM line-up of classes does provide everything you need on a basic level when it comes to RPG progression and within the scope of the tactical gameplay that's actually more than enough to keep most players busy and satisfied when squad crafting. However, XCOM 2 does correctly identify that in games like these, the more unique our characters are the more of a soul they feel like they have. The subclasses of XCOM 2, alongside the levelling paths it borrows from one, lay out a better spread of possibility- there's little spin to really apply here, the sequel just does it better hands down.

As these games are built around the concept of replayability, these game's ability to conjure up unique feeling play arenas based on the assets provided to the computer is important to making each playthrough feel somewhat fresh. Which is probably where XCOM: Enemy Unknown really starts to show it's age in an unescapable. It isn't long into anyone's XCOM career when they start to recognise the exact layout of locations they've cleared that were allegedly in another country altogether, which in turn makes the memorisation of Alien placement fairly trivial once you know your areas well enough. The solution to this is conceptually simple, and it's exactly what XCOM 2 does. More variety, both in potential map layouts and the archetype of those maps; creating maps that feel distinct, even when you're treading the same basic sort of themed location you've done before.

There are also the full conversion DLCs. The big DLCs that take the base game and shuffle it around a bit with focuses on whole new factions, or gameplay systems, which typically create the 'final form' of these XCOM Games. XCOM 1's 'Enemy Within' gave us a new faction and questline, alongside a new class of Mech Units that totally changed up the power dynamic of the late game now that players had a foil to big Alien Mechs. But it also introduced a new resource in a haphazard implementation that threw off the carefully designed gait of the basic gameplay too. 'Meld' kind of sucks to collect in the early game for it's time limit, but at the same time the resource ends up being an essential collectible for enjoying all the really cool mech and psionic systems in the late game. XCOM 2's 'War of the Chosen', on the otherhand, is a total powerhouse. Throwing in several new classes, an entire new breed of unique boss that actually works within the established game, reworking some of the badly implemented DLCs that I mentioned earlier and providing a new playthrough full of enough content to feel like a follow up entry. 'WOTC' is a must play for any XCOM fan, 'Enemy Within' is more of a nice cherry atop of the XCOM 1 cake.

At the end of the day, the thing that makes the XCOM games special is that there is no one game that is all around better than the other, as I said they're such different beasts they can co-exist as partners within this expansive industry of ours completely happily. Personally, I'm drawn by my mood to one game or the other, because I favour them both equally, even as one handles certain aspects better than the other. In my mind, the ideal sequel is one that can live like this, in those instances where people throw up their hands wondering how a follow up could even be conceived. Hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, equals in quality and worthy as competitors. And then there's XCOM Chimera Squad. That game was alright as well, I guess...

XCOM Road to Ironman: It's been a while

 When I wake up-

So it has definitely been a while, and you might be wondering why exactly that is. Well, to be honest I've been finding it very hard to get back aboard the Road To Ironman after that last screw up, for how spectacular it was. Which isn't to say my last reported failure marked the last session I had attempting this challenge, just that I haven't managed to get anywhere near that in my time since and it's left me feeling down about the whole affair. To think about how effortlessly I scored Ironman for the previous two difficulties, and how troublesome it's proving for Classic, it just drives me loopy. But I've taken the requisite time off from my own failure, and spent most of that time not far enough from games like XCOM. I played the entire Baldur's Gate series, (Struggling to get through an incredibly unoptimized Early Access build of 3 right now) cleaned off Original Sin and started 2, played Pillars of Eternity 2 to completion, dived deep into Pathfinder Kingmaker and even popped in with Chimera Squad in the mean time. All games that revolve around having a computer who calculates your odds based on factors seemingly out of your control. Thus formed my training.

Of course, you could look at that list again and go "Only Chimera Squad really counts for anything and even then that game is so different from XCOM Enemy Unknown that it isn't a great help either." But remember that this was fuelled by my desire to clear my head, the somewhat similar styles of games I flirted with in my off time was just a coincidence. But now my infidelity has ceased, I've sworn to be a better man and I have to attack Iron Man XCOM again, but later this week as I'm very busy for the next few days and my schedule is full. But that just gives me the time to work my way up to things, go over the notes I wrote myself and prepare for the next step of my XCOM journey to self mutilation, followed by depression, a steadily dissolution of self worth and probably a spectacular mental break from reality impending.

The first thing is less of a lesson that needs to be learnt and more of a mindset that I need to adopt, namely I need to come to terms with the fact that 'everyone dies'. And no, I don't mean that in some existential meta sense. (I've come to terms with death, and been hoping to die, for nigh on 2 years now.) No, this is something that as a commander of a bunch of blind, deaf and dumb soldiers, I need to accept at a base level. Sometimes people are going to die simply because there's nothing I can do on my end to stop it. I can play the perfect game, do all the right moves, and the cold winds of fate just won't be with me that day. (Heck, fate is never really with me.) So, me, don't lose your head when everything goes sideways, just practice on getting the mission done. Although, that is in itself a pretty annoying happenstance; that you need to complete every mission to even have a chance of winning at Classic or higher. Failure really isn't an option at any point.

This is a big one right here, because I need to remember to think about every single encounter like a chess match. Only, if I was actually any good at chess. (Or anything) What I mean by that should be simple for everyone else out there, but I'm tactically challenged so I need to actively engage this part of my mind in order for it to take any sort of effect. Predicting the moves of the enemy is essential, I need to be two steps ahead at the very least, playing reactionary is a route to imminent death and I don't have the luxury of being that callous today or any other day really. Above all this means that I need to lead the enemies into traps, such as retreating just far enough screen to draw them into poor cover before then jumping back at them and taking advantage of their poor tactical decisions. (Whilst keeping abreast of the fact that Sectoids are capable of planning and executing an attack on people that are off screen at the beginning of that round, as crappy as that is.) 

Coming to the metagame isn't such a huge deal, because if you've ever completed a game of XCom before you pretty much know what you need to be doing in order to win and how your base should look. This game isn't so punishing that making the odd wrong room here or there is going to sink you, so you can screw up a little. Of course there comes a limit to that, because the early game is classically the hardest the game has to offer and thus making sure those first two months are appropriately stocked with the right facilities is kind of a must-have. What actually makes the 'right facilities' is a matter of some debate, but it links to a later golden rule I need to remember so I'll touch on that in a bit. The core of it is thus, however, I need to get an officer Training School up as soon as I can, and some early research staff would do wonders, but I'm not sure if a research facility is worth it. (I may consult someone else's guide on the matter, I'm undecided.)

And, obviously, I need to be up to date with the challenge rules if I'm going to be taking it. Now, of course, this is an Ironman run which means it's a game of XCOM where you only have one save game that automatically saves therefore if anyone dies they're dead for good. I've got some second wave choices that I pick in order to make things more interesting, and they're thus; New Economy, which randomises country payout so my order of satellite construction gets just that bit more interesting. Not Created Equally so that rookie stats are also randomised and characters feel more unique. Hidden Potential randomises stat growth and thus contributes to the same goal stated above and Absolutely Critical guarantees a critical hit on a flanked shot. Which really feels like the way the game should be played anyway, if you ask me. So those are the parameters, take them to heart. 

Finally comes the most important piece of advice, and this one goes beyond just a petty little Ironman playthrough and extends to anyone playing this game. Heck, this could go on to be words to live by. Don't cheat, but exploit as much as humanely possible. What I mean by that, basically, is to screw around with satellites and deployment times so that you can play games with the world's governments without them gaining enough due-cause to drop the XCom program. Keep Satellites that you deploy only on the last days of the month, (because their benefit goes active before the satellite itself launches)  feel free to save big main mission jobs that will knock down global panic until that last possible moment. (Just, you know, make sure you don't screw them up from there.) If you can get to grips with this part of the game, then the rest becomes a management job purely at your own pace, wherein you are no longer racing to keep the world happy and can instead focus on becoming the best you can be. It might even be worth grinding everyone to Colonel at that point.

The last thing we can do is get to wishing me luck, because the early game really is the make or break and unfortunately that make or break is mostly luck based. I may ultimately decide to do some casual no Ironman runs, although with those second wave options of course, just to put me back into the swing of things, and maybe watching some Ironman playthroughs will help me out a bit. (Although I don't know of anyone who does one with a particularly informative style. I'd ask for recommendations, but no one ever comments on this blog aside from bots so I might just not bother with the visual research.) But this is basically my commitment to sticking with this, I absolutely will conquer it, nothing on this earth can stop me. (Beings from the stars, however... I mean they've got plasma guns from day one, what am I supposed to do?)

XCOM Legends

A 98% miss on this one

What shocking news to wake up to right out of the stark blue of oblivion, materialising fully formed and unveiled, sneaking up on you like a stealth combat round; because we have a brand new XCom game out! That's a pretty dirty way for Firaxis to let me know that I have to step up my game on my Ironman Classic playthrough of the Original, but as I said I'm taking my time so that I don't end up inadvertently hating the game, thus I will respect Firaxis to back off. Let me play the games that are out already you absolutely crazy men! Stealth releasing a new XCom right out of nowhere, who do you think you are? And with absolutely no farfare too! Even XCom Chimera Squad had a month or two of agonising wait time before launch, whereupon I watched more back-lore videos than I had for any XCom game before. It's honesty pretty impressive that they managed to hide the development of  a whole new game from their seminal franchise until launch, especially one that was made during active development for their Marvel title- wait what? That's right- they're already making a Marvel XCom-style game, or at least that's what the rumours say, so how did they have the time to make- this was handled externally? Who was the studio? Iridium Stafish? That sounds dumb, and their website is almost entirely bare except for their own logo. What is this- oh god; it's a mobile game isn't it?

Yes. And I already hear the screaming calls of defence from those Mobile diehards out there who's job it is to swing for the throat whenever anyone dare imply bad things about their platform. "There are good games, you just have to find them!" "Not everything is a Microtransaction fuelled Gacha hellhole!". And you know what? This time they are wrong, XCom Legends advertises itself as a Gacha fuelled experience and something tells me they're not going to have nearly the amount of freely accessible fun that a game like Genshin Impact does. What is that cold feeling I have running down my arteries, trailing a web across my nervousness to my core? Is that my blood running cold at the realisation that yet another studio who has, up until now, done most everything right, has given up the struggle in favour of the quick path to cheap buck? "Whore out that popular name a little bit, remember to spit on the loyal fans whilst your at it, some of them are freaks they'll like it" . It's not disappointment, because I'm not really capable of trusting game studios, it's just exasperation at this point.

"But (I'm) being exasperated without giving it a chance", some very misplaced kind souls might argue, and they are right so I'm give it the rundown, for prosperities sake. XCom Legends is set during the events of the Xcom 2 timeline, so just after the failure of XCom during the initial alien invasion but before their victory in the subsequent guerrilla war of XCom 2 and the resulting rebuilding that integrated Alien races into Human society in XCom Chimera Squad. It follows a system whereupon players build a crew and fight hoards of aliens whilst supplementing their soldiers with powerful premade soldiers who cost premium currency in order to roll for in loot boxes and- god I'm so sick of these games. It doesn't even make sense, who are these 'legendary' characters from the XCom universe? Aside from the main cast and Kelly, who actually went on to become main staff in Chimera Squad, everyone else is a made by the player and thus comes their personal connections to each individual. There's no decades of comics to pull ancillary characters from, or tons of side reading material; so why even pursue a game literally labelled 'legends' if it's meaningless? Shall we ease of a bit? Sure, let's just chalk this nonsensical money-dependant progression system up to yet another aspect of core Xcom being stepped on here.

What else is being trampled out like the head of a dying wick? Oh yea, the gameplay. You know; the thing that makes XCom, XCom. You might be forgiven for thinking this would be another game laid out with tactical matches, focused on positioning and hit percentages; choosing your battlefield and playing bonus actions at the right moment. . I mean that would make sense, wouldn't it? That's exactly what XCom is about, and has been about, for nigh-on years now. I'm talking before Enemy Unknown and back to those originals; XCom core essentials go back to the turn based hit percentages. And the very fact that I'm drumming this home for you should portend exactly what I'm about to say, no? They butchered it. The gameplay has died. Look what they've done to my boy. Silly you for having hope, didn't you know that the original newage XCom game was already ported to Mobile, thus this new game is mandated to be considerably less creative. Typical stuff which makes this sort of game an absolute institution for lovers of tactics across the industry

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever played a Mobile game before? Chances are that if you have you've played one of two types of game. Either it's a city builder game, maybe with a popular property stitched ontop of the gameplay, maybe without; or else you're looking at the Shadow Legends model (which predates RAID, but I'm feeling unimaginative; just like Iridium Starfish.) There I'm talking about the gameplay model which is basically just building a team of characters who move from static encounter to static encounter, usually auto attacking the enemies in front of you. Sometimes there's an absolute basic level of tactical cohesion wrapped into the gameplay model, maybe you get to choose your target or use super moves, but at the end of the day the side with the higher 'combat rating' will win. Combat rating will never hit the heights you need without buying microtransactions, suddenly this free game ain't so free anymore; rinse repeat. If you're familiar with that latter model, as much as I hate to say it; you've already played XCom Legends.

I'm only being a little bit facetious there, this is a game that's as cookie cutter as they get and there's probably an online template for these games you can pick up nowadays. (Last time I checked there was one for the city builder type mobile game) It makes you wonder how little the licence holders must care for the integrity of their product if they'll just commission and put out a product this soulless for a quick buck. I mean even Bethesda, in all their infamy, put some originality into both of their mobile games to make them at the very least a value to the franchise instead of an abject drag. Heck, one of the key 'reasons to play' that Iridium Starfish listed on their description was the fact that the game gets resources for you while you don't play it. (Whilst likely leaving out the way the app tells you every time it collects a pebble) Those aren't features, it's a list of all the worst things to include to make your game as much as a sellout as possible.

So now comes the fun game, who do we blame for this monstrosity? Firaxis are the developers, but 2K are the publishers, so we could call this a mandate from 2K, but in my heart of hearts I'm not letting Firaxis off the hook for this one. Take 2 might hold the licence for the moment, but I just know that somewhere down the line the suggestion was raised to their offices from Firaxis. "Hey, while we're busy why don't you commission a cool spin off? That'll go great!" One of theirs pitched before driving home and realising halfway how the soulless vampires he was talking to would take such a proposition. I'm not saying they had the power to stop this, but they could have at least warned us. Maybe try to push 2K to spend more than minimum wage commissioning it? I don't know what they could have done, okay! All's I know is that there has to be a multiverse where this doesn't happen, and I don't care if Kang has already conquered that one; I want in.

But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, does it? XCom is going to stay on ice for the foreseeable future until Firaxis are done with their Marvel engagements, and rather than having the decent Chimera Squad be the game they left us on, filled with curious memories of a fun Xcom-done-quick approach to the formula we love; instead we have Legends, reminding us that all good things are owned by bad/stupid people. And for the record I hold no- well not a lot- ill will towards Iridium Starfish. I'm sure with a name that bizarre they hold a promising future in this industry, I just hope it's one where titles like this end up as an anomaly on their future resume, just as it'll be a scratched-out blip on the XCOM release timeline. 

XCOM Avengers? Yes please!

 When... I need it...

Let me clear something up real quick about myself. Though I may have criticked Square Enix's Avengers heavily, will continue to do so, and even shared my misgivings about the project before it was even launched, do not for a second believe that I am not a fan of Marvel or Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I mean I grew up reading and watching this stuff years before the MCU, so I've got Marvel deeply ingrained in my bones and even closer to me than DC, even if a lot of the times I prefer Detective Comic's approach to character driven storytelling. And I have, for a stupidly long time now, been wanting that perfect team-Marvel game to come out for so very long, which is why when it looked like that game would be Square's Avengers, I was super critical in ensuring it would be exactly what we needed. X-men got a stellar game in 'Legends' (and also 'Children of the Atom', but that's neither here nor there. Love that game though.) I just wanted the rest of universe to get the game they deserved. Marvel Ultimate Alliance is great, and I'm so happy that franchise came back, but I want something that can focus in on a single team and give us their strengths and weaknesses as closely to the source material as possible, without having to worry about 'larger balancing' or any of that administrative stuff.

These are the sorts of ideas I used to spend a lot of time dreaming about before the MCU started and it became clear that Marvel no longer considered pursing games of viable interest anymore. (With the few that were put out being unbelievable trash.) And yet in all the realms of my adolescent imagineering (which spawned a few ideas which, in hindsight, were just as fanciful and impossible to achieve as Dreamworld) never once did I stick together the concept of a game made both of the Marvel characters and the XCOM game type. (Probably because I hadn't played XCOM back then and didn't know what it was.) So what is my raw reaction to the concept? Why did I never consider this? This is a brilliant idea. Good lord. When does this come out? I need it in my soul, I NEED IT!

But where does this concept come from and why am I salivating over it like it's a turkey-leg in the middle of the apocalypse? Because of the age old world of video game leaks, where Dev teams go in order to beta test the reaction to their projects. (Allegedly.) Apparently some rando on Reddit rocked up with news that Firaxis, the superstar team behind the brilliant XCOM revival, were currently working on a 'Codename CODA', which unfortunately isn't a project to adapt the entirety of Battle Tendency into a rhythm action game to the tune of 'Bloody Stream' and other classics from that artist. (Maybe next time, eh?) This is said to be a turn based action game based on the world of Avengers and voiced by "famous actors", implying that the actual cast of Avengers will be involved this time around! (Unless they're using that to refer to famous voice actors again. Fool me once...)

 Now this would be just a rumor that I would pay barely any credence to, but then Jason Schreier turned around and confirmed it and that's a man who does his homework. In an industry full of folk who've never done anything more than toothless clickbait articles for their entire 'video game journalism' career, Schreier actually has a stellar record of meaningful reporting on issues of import, leaks and the occasional click-bait sprinkled in there too. What I'm trying to say is; he's a man with a reputation and the resources to justify that reputation, which instantly shot this concept up from idle backyard speculation to practically triple-confirmed fact. I'm just upset why the man himself wasn't the one initially talking about this. (I get reserving some info for the benefit of the project's anonymity, but he turned around and confirmed it in a second anyway. Maybe he had to do some digging, I dunno.)

The leaker also mentioned some other gaming tidbits in his Reddit leaking career, like some NBA news (As though those weirdos are actually capable of reading) and something about a new Spin-off Borderlands game featuring everyone's favourite joke-character grown-old Tiny Tina. So lukewarm teases basically, all around this little golden nugget of coolness that is XCOM Avengers. Is this the line-up perhaps heading for this upcoming E3, an event which will not only be online once again but is apparently going to be condensed into one concentrated show with an Award event at the end? (Yes, E3 is going to start hosting awards. For their game trailers. If I was Geoff Keighley I'd be pissed right now.) Some seem to think it's unlikely, with these games maybe just being teases for the far future, but in my heart of hearts I need a stellar Avengers game at least teased so that the Marvel gaming audience doesn't lose hope as Square Enix's game slowly chokes to death on it's own mediocrity.

So that means right now all we've got is solid word that this is happening with potentially no details until next year. That sucks. But even in such a lamentable state, we can still come together to laud what might be in rampant speculation based on what we know about both franchises. Firstly, we're probably looking at an XCOM Chimera Squad style game where each character has these distinct abilties that can be improved over the course of the game. This would allow for special team builds, of course, and throwing in a little bit of randomly generated special items would allow for the replayability to seep into the game. I'd imagine the game will be scenario based, with some sort of overarching home base like Avengers HQ or the Shield Helicarrier, from which an overview of the Earth will be monitored and several operations will launch. I hope we'll be dealing with several overarching threats at once, similar to Chimera Squad, so that tough decisions can pop up about who to deal with first and how that might effect the overall campaign. (Maybe lean a little into Crackdown 1's main story for inspiration there.) In fact, if we look at this with a discerning eye, Chimera Squad might very well have been a test run for an Avengers style game in this genre, so that'll definitely be the place to look for the curious.

I think that where Chimera Squad sort of stumbled up on was the similarity of encounters, which always followed the 'breach and clear' method that become pretty methodical once you figured out the ways to exploit it. An Avengers XCOM game might want to lean more into how XCOM 2 handled encounters, with an initial position of advantage from which the player can choose how the mission plays out. Team synergistic abilities will certainly have to be played up upon, MUA style, mistakes should be punishing with easy team knockouts, (I expect Marvel won't let us straight just kill the Avengers) and I personally would love it if a game like this could lean into a lot of the more dynamic mission elements like we saw from XCOM 2: War of the Chosen. Bosses in that would just turn up mid mission and completely evolve the circumstance until they were dealt with, it made the campaign feel alive and actively competitive.

I'm simply overdosing on all the possibilities of a game like this, and could sit here spouting 'maybes' and 'what-ifs' until the world freezes over. At the end of the day Firaxis have oodles of talent behind them and a world of burgeoning potential in Marvel, that's a combo that could dream up easily the best Avengers game ever made upon release. Of course, part of this does make me mourn when I hoped that 'XCOM 3: Time for the fishies' (working title) would be their next project, but in my eyes, the more they perfect their craft inbetween major XCOM entries the better it'll be for the series in the long run. What a brilliant combination I never would have seen coming, what mad genius concocted this collaboration from their laboratory and why aren't they in charge of all Marvel digital content at this point? Dang, I haven't been this excited for an upcoming game since... oh- I'm sad now...

XCOM Road to Ironman: What did we learn?

Back to the drawing board

So when we last left off on this grand adventure of 'journey to the centre of the earth', I expressed how I was terrified of moving onto month 2 because I knew it was going to turn out poorly for me. Well guess what; it did and that's another timeline burned, I suppose thems the breaks of your average XCOM game, baby. But whereas this should be a demoralising event that makes one rethink their entire approach to a stupid blog series where I smash my face up against a game I clearly suck at, instead I'm going to try and turn this around into a teachable lesson about how I'm going to win this eventually no matter what, dammit. Also, I think I've come up with a new definer for where I'm going to draw the line just to make sure that I'm keeping forever in control of the campaign and not spiralling into failure with nothing to show for it, because as much as it's 'going the whole way' to go down with the ship, I find that stuff super demoralising and think it'll just end up affecting my chances of continuing this series in general. So bare with me as I try to go over where everything went wrong.

One section in which I had set myself up to succeed with only one small trip-up was in the Metagame of building the XCOM network to cover the globe. I had executed my strategy of building a satellite at the start of each month completely successfully, the only problem being I'd forgotten (idiot that I am) how building Nexus' to accommodate those satellites comes with a set cost in engineers that raises substantially. (5 more engineers for each nexus) Of course, the solution to this is investing as much as possible in the engineer team whenever possible in order to build a small reward pool from the protected countries that'll keep you ever ahead of the curve; but given how early XCOM is so dangerous you can't really devote yourself to one side of development like that. Still, I'd leaned much heavier into research for that run when it would have really behoved me to hedge my bets a little, else I found myself spending money from which I'd never see benefit as all the Satellites in the world are useless if I can't launch them. One a bright side, however, I'd managed to invest in an Officer Training School before the end of month one, which I think is going to become the gold standard of every run; the importance of that milestone cannot be understated.

Of course, where it really fell to part was in the mission-to-mission gameplay in which I somehow managed to lose three people in the space of two missions, one of which being myself. I kept going at the time, but now I'm thinking that keeping myself alive might be standard I set myself to in as narcissistic a manner as that sounds. Because hey- I can't really be putting up with a team wipe at any single point in these runs, so if a match ever falls entirely out of my control to the point where even my personal pointman is in danger, I know to either pull back completely or go for broke. Does that sound stupid and illogical to you? Perhaps, but that's the hill that I'm lining up my gravestone for, so I guess we're doing it right now for certain. Oh, and just so we're clear this does not mean that I'm going to turn around and start trying to skip missions to keep 'virtual me' alive. No guts no glory, am I right?

Elsewhere there was the falling apart of my 'always lead enemies into ambushes' doctrine; but in my defence the game left me no choice in that regard. You're always up against it during UFO crash missions because it's impossible to say whether or not the hostiles are right next to you or bunched up by the crash. I've known roaming pods to literally jump me right out of spawn to devastating effect because I cannot set up a battleground. Well guess what- that's exactly what happened to me in this case. Roving enemy group ambush on turn one, despite me taking an aggressively conservative turtle formation on the first move to prevent that very thing from happening. But such is just the manner of RNG where you cannot control every aspect of the world, what happened next is just an example of tactical failure on my end.

So what we were looking at was a band of 'Thin Men', annoying to deal with due to the fact that they all posses a special ability that allows them to forgo all aiming chance and guarantee shooting a poison cloud on your squad. The only real counter to this is knowing that these enemies prefer to do this when your squad is bunched up and positioning people accordingly. We did that, and managed to push the 'Thin Men' out of spawn area which allowed me a little time to setup for their eventual return back into the fray. (I always hate the cat-and-mouse in such situations. Especially when they go running for several turns as though they genuinely expect me to chase them like an idiot. "Nah thanks, you come to me.") But then I fell for a bulletpoint of my own advice that, in a way I couldn't help, but I should have known better anyway. Because the thing is that I had activated that pod at spawn and setup my defence at spawn, when what I should have done is retreated.

Now again, it's kind of hard to retreat when you're literally pushed up against it at spawn, and thus was my excuse for skipping this part of my rules, but XCOM is ever there to remind you that the second you cut corners in any single fashion, they'll punish you for it. In this instance, I was punished with the same stupid crappy move I thought only Sectoids had the balls to pull off back in the day. Namely, an enemy charged into my line of sight from outside the fog of war (dodging 5 overwatches as he did, because XCOM hates me) and then sniped dead a rookie I'd brought into the mission before his turn was even up. It makes no sense how he'd be able to that considering he'd have no eyes on where anyone in my team was before moving and the rookie in question was even in cover against him, but thus was my punishment for taking a half measure. Never take half measures. Oh, and as you can see from the picture, my folly was completed by a horrifying missclick with my designated assault in the same mission. (So now you can see why that timeline is officially a bust)

It sucks to have to wrap things up so early in the run after losing one inconsequential person and three skilled ones, but the point to take away if that the first two months of XCOM are so very important that a single mistake will put you on the backfoot for a large swathe of the game; and I'd made three. The name of the game here is to push all the way to laser weaponry and carapace armour before the really terrifying units start showing up on the battlefield and if I'm looking like I'm not getting there I will cut myself off before getting too attached. I think that part of me feels I'm a little hair trigger on this, which is partially why I'm justifying myself so much. Perhaps this is coming from my 'Into the Breach' experience wherein you'd literally be encouraged to dip at the first sign of downturn. The only difference is that there it'd take a few minutes to be back into the action, whereas XCOM is notably slower paced. Still, I'm not sure if I'm being too harsh and should stick with my failures a bit longer, let me know what you think down in the comments.

So another day another timeline surrendered to the aliens, Oh well. At the end of the day it's not too bad of a loss, afterall it's the failure of XCOM one's campaign that canonically leads to the storyline of XCOM 2, so not everything is a bust, right? Still, I hope to make it considerably further before I'm back looking at the start screen next time, so I'm going to have to do a little relearning before I launch into the swing of things once more. (Also a little bit of confidence rebuilding. I know this was only month 2, but I always take my failures to heart) I know I can get further than this, it's just a matter of perseverance and ingenuity, two stats that I'd like to think I have some real-life investment into. (At least I hope so.) Alright, that's that, lessons officially learned; mistakes I won't make on the next run, right? (else the next report blog is going to be very embarrassing to write.)

XCOM Journey to Ironman: Getting through March

 To the girl with the mousy hair

So begins my journey to Ironman, in full earnest this time; because now I'm not going to stop until I finish XCOM on my terms with all the prestige that I deserve. (Or rather, that I will deserve. Don't deserve jack right now.) Now from a meta-game perspective, this really means that I need to progress through the gruelling early months until I've reached something of an equal footing with my alien overlords; then I can start relaxing somewhat. Ideally I want to shoot for stealth satellites; once I reach that point I think I'll be safe to take the backseat and cruise forward onto the end. However, obviously, getting that far down the research and development ladder is going to require keeping atop of growth, finance, and not losing too many key countries early on. With that in mind as a goal, let me take you through the journey of trying to get through March (the opening month) Classic difficulty, Ironman mode in 'XCOM Enemy Unknown'.

First, however, I feel the need to lay some of the ground rules that I didn't even know about, such as having to say that there won't be any Hero Units in the run. That's quite the rule to lay down considering that, until two days ago, I didn't even know Hero Units existed! I just saw this 'reminder' flash by in the Steam forums that 'naming soldiers certain things will morph them into hero units' and clicked on it for a laugh because I was certain it was a joke. "Oh how droll. So if I call my character 'Sid Meier' he'll magically become a god psionic with the impossible-to-learn rift power? As if." Only, it wasn't really that funny of a thread at all. I couldn't find the sarcasm anywhere. Then I looked it up. Tried it out. It's real. Did you know there's 6 hero units to choose from including 'Ken Levine'? (Creator of Bioshock) What's more, these units morph into specific classes with endgame weaponry and armour. I'm talking plasma gear. You can have a fully decked out plasma wielding god character whenever you want. The only consequence is that achievements get disabled when you summon one. So yeah; that's obviously banned for this run. Good god! (Can't be literally invalidating the difficulty curve of the game. Sheesh.)

Secondly, and this is something I honestly should have covered when I first spoke about this idea, I want to go over the Second Wave settings. In fact, this will be really important if anyone out there wants to try the same run I do and show me how it's done. (I'll take any help. I suck) These are special options you can tick on which really change the makeup of the run with fundamental switch-ups to gameplay aspects, thus it's important to match these up when setting a run. Because I completed the game on Normal Ironman before I've unlocked the 2nd row of Second Wave options, which I've picked from as well. First I pick New Economy, which randomises the potential funding you can get from council countries once you build a satellite there, because it adds an element of chance and strategy towards my metagame construction. I also pick Not Created Equally, which randomises rookie starting stats, because I love having soldiers that feel individual from one another. Hidden Potential randomises stat growth on level up, contributing to that same feeling. And from the second list I've picked Absolutely Critical, which guarantees a critical hit on a flanking shot, (both for the player and the enemy) because I've just always felt like that should be the cost of being flanked. (It also does something funky to enemies who can't take cover, but I forget the specifics) And that's all you need to start this run yourselves.

Now that the game has begun, my strategy is based around getting a sound metagame strategy going, and for now that's ruled by a single major principle: Order a satellite at the beginning of every month. It takes 20 days for a satellite to be made, so ordering right at the start of the month is essential. Making a nexus allowing you to launch that satellite only takes 5, so having the satellite/ammo ready to go when it's needed is more essential, even if you haven't built the infrastructure yet. And it's certainly needed for the dual benefit of keeping the credits rolling in and retaining countries in the XCOM initiative. Launching satellites in a country immediately lowers the amount of panic in that country. (additionally, countries with an active satellite simply cannot leave the XCOM program because there's a coded in 100% chance for panic to be reduced by one in satellite countries if the panic hits it's peak of 5) That means having a satellite ready to launch the day before the monthly report can very much be a lifesaver. Additionally, if all goes well and we limit the danger of them being shot down by implementing 'stealth satellites', then we can set a game stalling system in which we can stop the aliens from freaking out member countries and keep the metagame rolling long enough to research and suit-up as much as we need for the lategame. But that's really just the golden dream right now, getting there will be the tough part. 

Why? Because of the missions; oh the missions! The glorious thing about XCOM is, whilst it arguably does a fantastic job of maintaining a somewhat consistent difficulty curve so that, unless you're blazing through, you're never quite on top of the enemy; the hardest missions are always the first few. Why? Simple. Because all of your troops have no abilities, can't aim for crap (Although that doesn't exactly change too significantly) and, on classic difficulty, die instantly from getting hit. Sectoids are some of the cruellest starting enemies for this first month possible because they, comfortingly, have a ludicrously high chance to hit and can take that shot from across the map. Their overwatch hits stupidly often as well, and the only way I've made any headway on them over March is by leading them into traps. The difficulty coming from not having enough room to make a trap, or making a trap just barely outside of engagement range so that the Sectoid can sneak into range with their movement action and no-scope a trooper on their attack action. (Something almost conceptually impossible for the player to replicate, mind you) So the solution? There is none. Just keep playing this terrifying game of chess each and every encounter praying you can make it out the otherside with enough victories to justify the injuries.

And on a related note; one of the key features of XCOM has been troubling me lately. Naming my soldiers. I'm having trouble justifying that given the 6 or 7 abandoned timelines I've already blazed through. Do you know how much it sucks to customise my entire crew only to throw them away because everything fell apart? I don't mind tragically losing someone during a mission, that's what XCOM's all about anyway, but I seriously cannot be losing entire squads in the first few missions. (Well, actually I can't really be doing that ever in the entire run) Right now I'm even struggling to come up with names and personalisations to make everyone stick. (Thank god XCOM 2 introduced a handy character pool so I don't have to tear my hair out like this.) The only solider who's been a constant through every playthrough so far has been the guy named after me, because you gotta name a trooper after yourself in XCOM. (of course, that does in itself bring up the question of why the heck the commander is on the field where the danger is; but I guess we're treating this with Star Trek rules, who cares.)

But getting through those early abduction throughout March is just the warmup, the real challenge is the inevitable event that's always lined up on the way out of the month. Namely; the council mission. In the state of early disarray that each XCOM playthrough starts in, you don't really have the luxury to skip a mission on the grounds of 'too hard, people might die.' You need that money and resources. The problem is, some missions you might be offered are straight up impossible without a team of 6. (Preferably with laser weapons and carapace armour) I'm talking about bomb disposal. The fact that mission is even capable of spawning as the first council mission is honestly criminal. But that's only if you leave things up to RNGesus; I, on the otherhand, have opted to pick Operation Slingshot, the optional DLC mission, whenever offered everytime. It's consistent, doable, and rewards a Lieutenant for completion ontop of credits and staff. (Unfortunately, this does also activate two ludicrously tough follow-up missions in proceeding months. But we'll cross that bridge when we slam into it at terminal velocity. For now I'm making do)

What I've just laid out for you, in some many words, is the tactic I've used to crawl my way through month one of XCOM on Ironman, with a balance book in the black, no countries lost and only one tragic death. (Which was total bull, by-the-way; but I'd already hired her replacements anyway) Something tells me that this save I've currently got won't be the one which sees me through to the end, just because I suck at the game, but it may just form the basis of every subsequent run and, through that, maybe it'll one day be essential in my recipe for success. Here's hoping I'm not blowing too much smoke out the rear end by saying that. And with that, I have crossed the first month threshold, which leaves me another 30 virtual days to get my ducks in a row before the XCOM gods starts throwing the real threats out the door. (Pray for me)

XCOM Journey to Ironman: The set-up

It's a God-awful small affair 

My name is- well it's not important,- but I have a confession to make: I have never completed a Classic or Higher Ironman run of the XCOM games. Now I'm sure that's a distinction I likely share with a good many other people in the world today, however for someone who loves the modern XCOM series as much as I do, and who owns every single game in said series, it's a bit of a misnomer. It's kind of like claiming to love the Lord of the Rings franchise but only having read the Hobbit, or even worse, only having watched the films of the Hobbit. It just don't roll like that. Somewhere along the line you've either held yourself back or bought into your own lie. And for a very long time, I'll admit: I was scared. As much as I like hard games, I've never really been one for the games that step on those pressure points and ride up the anxiety to stupid degrees. The games that make you so stressed that you aren't even having fun anymore. That's how I was. Nowadays I reached the point where I don't care so much about being stressed, stress can't do anything to me that I would be afraid of, so I'm going to put it on the line to deepen my conviction to a series I love. Somehow, someway; I am going to best at least XCOM Enemy Unknown on Classic difficulty with Ironman ticked on. (And then I guess I'll do marathon mode, or install Long War, or something. I don't know yet.)

But just so that I can bring everyone up to speed, like those who just read what I wrote and said "huh?" XCOM Enemy Unknown is a video game that is built upon turn-based squad-tactics and strategic planning with life or death consequences. Its a series renowned for being tough to the point of impenetrability to most who don't take it seriously, and the modern games all feature a 'classic' difficulty setting which is said to match the tough-as-nails unforgiving nature of those originals. (There is a higher difficulty mode in 'impossible', but I don't wanna talk about that now. Babysteps.) Ironman mode, sometimes referred to as 'the way XCOM is meant to be played' denotes a mode wherein players are given access to a single save file, from which they cannot load with exiting. And it's also a file which saves automatically whenever you quit. Ironman mode is basically a check which ensures that mistakes have irrecoverable consequences on the battlefield because save scumming becomes impossible. (Save Scumming: Reloading a save point over and over so that you can retry a section for more favourable results.) Ironman is basically XCOM with the training wheels off, and it has terrified me for as long as I've played the XCOM series.

Just to be clear, I have completed all the modern XCOM games on Classic difficulty: it's my goto play method because anything lower just feels cheap and lets me plough through everything. (With an exception to 'War of the Chosen' because I just haven't gotten around to completing that playthrough yet. I really do enjoy the expansion though; it's an incredibly transformative upgrade from base XCOM 2) But when I get to the point of playing these games in a state where consequences are irreversible I get to feeling the ole blood pressure rising. As my familiarity with the series has grown, I've left behind traditional save scumming (Which got me through my old console playthrough of Enemy Unknown) and have moved onto a system I'm mostly happy with where I keep one save file that I update at the beginning of every mission. That way, when I restart it's just so that I can retry my strategy in the same scenario rather than in order to retry fate over and over hoping to break through the clouds. But... darn it's just not enough. 

So here I am, dedicating myself to the stupid task of attacking Ironman XCOM and completing it sometime before my stress boils over into my blood pressure and gives me a brain aneurysm. (Although, to be completely honest with you: That outcome might be the good ending out of this whole affair. It would save me a lot of headache.) Or rather, here I am informing you that I've already dedicated myself to this stupid task, because I've been at it for the last week now and I'm here with my tail between my legs to report; it's uh... it's not going so well. Yeah, I've run into some snags. But I've written it down here which means I'm committed to getting it done and you are absolutely un-allowed to bring up my other unfinished projects on here because I said so.

The last week has been taken up mostly with what I've referred to as 'training', but in reality turned out to be little more than a undeserved ego boost before a series of embarrassing faceplants. So I went ahead and played through XCOM enemy Unknown twice on Ironman setting, first on Easy and then on Normal, (Difficulties that I had actually never played this game on before) thinking it would prepare me. And in a way it did. For the metagame process of designing an XCOM command that's capable of surviving the curve of enemy aliens getting thrown at me, I am actually rather well practiced. Both playthroughs had me reaching the end with no countries lost and a greater appreciation for, not just dealing with mistakes, but not even making them in the first place. (And yet I knew from the getgo that I would get a little bit lazy due to the Officer Training School that both difficulties give you free for some unknown reason.) The real limitation with this 'training' was with the aspect of the game they were meant to help me with; the actual battles.

I thought that playing through the game twice on Ironman would familiarise me with the peril of living in a world with consequences, but all it did was hardcode into my mind some nonsense that making a mistake and getting blindsided by a Sectoid isn't a death sentence. (Newsflash: it absolutely is) In fact, just the plain process of going through the game twice and upgrading soldiers through levelling and armour resulted in me becoming reckless in my easy playthroughs! There were several late-game examples where I had to literally drag a character out of an encounter because they had 1 hp! That shouldn't be happening on Ironman, but I'm the idiot that would leave them in the middle of an ambush between two Sectopods and a Chryssalid! (I'm exaggerating, of course. So far I've only ever seen two Sectopods in the final Temple ship assault, and nowhere near the Chryssalid section) In fact, on the final battle of my Normal Ironman playthrough I literally let three out of my six squadmates die on the final turn. I mean sure, it didn't really matter from that point, but that's neglect of a whole 'nother level! (Coming from my mind)

But that was over the course of four days, how have the next three days been? In the words of Clubber Lane from Rocky 3: "Pain." I made it past month 1 once, and I did that with a monthly finance of -15 credits and with the Untied States having just pulled out of the XCOM agreement... on Month 1... I didn't even know it could get that bad. I've tried again and again, and I think I'm getting better, I hope I am, but I still have a long way to go. One trick I've picked up from helpful guides on the Internet (besides the freakin' obvious that some try to offer up like nuggets of golden wisdom) is to, whenever possible, decide the battle ground. Activate groups of enemies by walking into them, then retreat all of your troops into favourable firing positions. That's worked sometimes. But then I end up losing an entire squad later and just abandon that save file. (I like to think of it as 'abandoning that timeline' from my days playing 'Into the Breach')

So I guess that means this becomes my very first challenge blog series, as I try to push myself to achieve a stupid task for stupid reasons because I hate myself. Won't you read along with my folly? I'll be trying to turn my adventure into a vaguely entertaining story as best as I can do, as I slowly learn how to transition from a commander who autopilots fights whilst binge-watching Doctor Phil. (That is the actually reason why I lost three guys in the finale last time) to a razor-sharp tactician who can outwit his way around any sneaky grey who comes his way! Or at the very least, one who gets lucky enough to limp through the first two months so that the real game can begin. With any luck this series will be two blogs long. (It won't be.) If you're an XCOM player with any hints for a moron; please hit me up. I'm desperate.

Failure and Punishment

Thought you were hot. Guess what? You're not! You are dead. Dead. Dead.

Failure is a integral part of the cycle of life... or so we're told. I don't know about you, but personally I infer 'cycle' to imply a somewhat equal measure of success to balance the universe out, but I'm no experimental theologist so what do I know? Regardless, if there's one thing years of superhero shows have taught me, it's that you have to lose to the villain once, about in the midpoint of the episode, so that you can turn around and gank him in the end. That's the natural progression of super heroism right there. So if the act of losing is such a great concept, operating under 'What doesn't kill makes me stronger' rules, then how does that play out in the world of gaming? I was curious because the relationship with failure is so very different when we're talking about playing a game with a goal and so I concluded it might be fun to talk about some the ways in which games, usually more modern ones have approached the idea.

So tradition is actually universal on how games used to treat failure. Game over. (Or 'Game over YEAHH!' for the cultured out there) You've lost, which typically also means that you are dead. Such are the stakes of an action adventure/FPS/pretty much most genres of game. You fell into a bottomless pit, got poked too much by those spikes, accidentally touched the hand of a statue of Midas; either way your journey has ended and the only course for continuing is to go back to a checkpoint. Games have actually evolved into the point of checkpointing and save systems thanks to The Legend of Zelda, so I'd call that an evolution on how failure is handled. Back in the day it would just be a few brief chances and then an abrupt kick back to the main screen. Ultimately, I'd call this a pretty old school and flat way to treat failure. It instantly ends the journey and doesn't branch out into any interesting paths. Additionally, there's not always a lot of consequence for failure beyond a little lost time, so you stop really fearing it and that can come at the cost of some potential extreme emotions you might have otherwise elicited. Now for most games that's fine, because checkpoints are one of the holiest creations ever come to gaming, but I think there's certainly a few cooler ways in which this concept can be handled.

Dark Souls is the immediate first candidate that I think of when it comes to failure as it famously wants the player to die over and over again. In Dark Souls, dying isn't just part of the game, it's a mechanic built into the lore; with the despair of losing your life and failing over and over again supposed to be draining your will and turning you 'hollow'. (And in Dark Souls 2 they decided that it would also start robbing your memories, before completely forgetting that plotline once again come 3. Because Dark Souls 2 just has to be different now doesn't it?) Of course, that's not all. Souls-likes are built around the idea of 'souls' systems too; wherein when you die you drop some valuable resource (usually related to levelling) that can then be retrieved upon your next life provided that you don't, then, die again. (It's actually a little confusing when I phrase it like that, huh?) This is a way of supplying real consequence to failure, by giving players a chance to recover from it and thus opening the path for relief or despair. In games like this you really care about dying, knowing that the resources you've earnt are on the line, and being thrown back to a checkpoint will rob you of more than just potential progress. It gives purpose and life behind the failure proposition and in doing so made dying a core pillar, not just of the game but of the genre, real kudos to FromSoftware here. Yet there are others who've managed similar feats.

For example; team-based tactics games with Ironman modes are an emblematic of some of the harshest consequences for failure I can think of; and I'm going to pick X-Com in particular as a representative. In X-Com you work across tactical turn based fights wherein the possibility of death isn't just very real, it's all but definite unless you plan your moves just right. Fights are usually one poor choice away from disaster and losing someone is permanent, you don't get second chances. That because 'Ironman' mode denotes a certain play style wherein the player is only ever allowed one save file from which they can't load if things aren't going their way. Decisions are final and you have to stick with it. In such a mode, losing teammates is a harsh punishment for failure that you have to continue on from, because the game isn't over until the main objective is completed or failed. (Or everyone you know and love is dead) This forces the player to act with caution and weigh options heavily, maybe even choose between a rock and a hardplace now and then. In such a situation you have to respect failure, because having the resolve to push forward despite it is essential to making it through. Loss is gut wrenching, although a downside I might offer is that it almost makes victory feel pale in comparison. (A lot of the time, I dread the stress of continuing my Iron man save file at all!)

But not all games have evolved in order to make failure more punishing, no. Some game have actually worked around their balancing to be a lot more forgiving. Take Borderlands for instance. In Borderlands, the fast paced nature of the combat means that you're likely to die pretty often, and doing so will cost you a fraction of your money, (which is easily replaced) but progress is rarely, if ever, lost. That's because in Borderlands (and some inconsistent lore on how respawning works) has it so that when you are sent back to the checkpoint, the enemies you killed stay dead. Sure, those you haven't killed are regenerated, but they can't hand you everything on a platter, some challenge is necessary. Lego Star Wars is very similar, because both franchises recognise the party-like nature of their game and prioritise players having fun (ideally with co-op) over having them threat about throwing themselves into danger. I understand the appeal, however I'm never a huge fan of this approach because I think it defangs failure, and makes it more a mild inconvenience. In my mind, if I don't care about losing then I'm not going to care about winning; and then what's the point of doing anything. (To get better loot, in Borderland's case. Though it took me a good many years to understand that.) 

A much more unique approach to this idea can be found in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, and it of course relates to the now-iconic nemesis system that game touted. In a game built around creating ambient stories with the AI to dynamically forge allies and enemies for you to interact with, it makes total sense why the developers would then make death a part of the gameplay loop. (As what makes faster enemies than losing to someone? Both for you and your opponent.) When you die, the game is sent forward a few turns in the overall clock of events and situations will progress without your involvement for a while, meaning that landscape of enemy captains can drastically change whilst you were out. Additionally, the enemy you killed you will get a raise in their power for doing so, and will remember their victory so they can taunt you with it the next time around. This is a way of making failure not just the end of the road, but actually a desirable part of the process as it fuels the story-telling potential to come. Natural instinct will still drive players to want to succeed, of course, but some of my personal favourite moments came from showdowns against Orcs who had bested me time and time again, until that one moment I finally got the better of them. Just another way in which Shadow of Mordor was a great engine for storytelling, even in death.

Finally, and obviously, there are rougelites in their many forms. Roguelites (The Binding of Issac, Dark Dungeons, Into the Breach etc.) all build themselves around the premise that you try over and over until you are successful. That can be through iteration, random luck or just unlocking new paths by playing a certain way, and failure sits in a very interesting position through all of that. Death isn't toothless by any stretch of the imagination, losing always means the end of the run and all the good turns of luck that you've enjoyed along the way, but it's neither the crippling end of everything. Rougelites are designed to be replayed over and over, usually in quick fashions, so at the end of the day every thing lost is quickly recovered and everything won is quickly spent. Additionally, some Rougelites require and encourage you to lose several times before you can win, opening up new paths with each attempt. This strikes a great balance between keeping failure interesting without having it be some looming threat to all; thus explaining to me why so many find this genre so interesting. Winning feel like a victory against the odds, and perhaps fate, to boot.

So failure and the way we treat it in video games and storytelling has the power to inform the way that we look at success and victory. Personally I always like to drag myself through hell to get my success, and I'm never really much one for celebrating anyway, so I tend to err towards the tougher and relentless titles, (Even when I hate myself for doing it) but that's not why everyone comes to games. Some what to hang-out with their friends, others want to craft stories, and a few just look for that traditional experience they know and love. The way I see it, failure is one of the aspects about the gaming medium that makes it so unique from other art forms, and in it lies much untapped potential for subversive and evocative narratives in the future. And who knows, maybe at some point there might be a title which re-examines and repackages the very concept of successes and failures. And maybe that game already exists... >obvious sequel bait< 

RNG or Action

 Let's roll to see if you hit

I'm in an absolutely terrible dark place in my personal psyche right now, so I thought I'd do something about it and start an X-com playthrough because apparently I'm an idiot. Yeah, that means I'm currently questioning who up there in the great Casino in the sky has decided I'm the fellow he wants to give just the worst luck to, because nothing short of divine damnation could inflict the chaos I've been subject to. (I missed a 96% Shot... 96%!?!) And whenever I'm done crying to the gods about why I'm such a pathetic morsel worthy of their ire, I find myself bringing this back around into a contemplation on Game design because as the law of the narcissist goes, if I'm not good at something it must be because that thing is broken in some way. So that's how I got around to this extremely arbitrary and not at all constructive or well considered blog about which type of gameplay it's better to rely on, action systems or RNG systems.

Of course, that alone is a little strange as a lead-in, such to the point where even I kind of have no idea what I mean by it, so let me try and sanitize things down to a question about whether it's better for a game to rely on systems of action and response or systems of action and rolling the die. Of course, that doesn't mean the RNG systems must strictly have no full action elements, I'm just talking about the ultimate call at the end of the day who ends all debate, is it the demand of the key press or the will of the computer algorithm. So does that explain the premise a little more? No? Well too bad because it's about as clear as I'm possible of getting, so without further ado let's ramble.

So RNG sucks. Putting all your time and effort to lining something up only for some stupid computer system to tell you it didn't work; very lame. (Like that 96% shot which, by-the-by, was literally at point blank range; that clinically blind asshat must have pulled a lot of strings to become part of the world's 'premier extra-terrestrial defence force') But action and reaction is super boring, where the player is asked to line up their wits against an AI who's obviously going to trip over his shoe laces because; come on, we're talking about machines against humans here! Maybe if there a bit more of an element of random chance to the situation which takes the control out of your hands then it might heighten the thrill factor a bit. Of course I'm being facetious, RNG systems and action/response systems are not as black and white as all that and they have layers of nuance that simply cannot be covered with anything short of a 100 paragraph blog. (And people tend not to like it when I do those, so I'll keep this slim.)

RNG is actually a big part of games and has been for a very long time now, pretty much as long as the RPG genre has been a thing. Because you see, as much as RNG covers games like XCom, Wastelanders 2 and Baldur's Gate, where your every action is given up to the great calculator in the machine, it also has a significant place alongside system calculations in a great many classic RPGs. Take Crit damage for example, an RPG system wherein players have a chance to deal a special attack for an increased amount of damage; oftentimes this serves as a system for the dedicated number crunchers to really shoot for, especially in hardcore RPG titles like MMO's. What self respecting DPS build doesn't min-max crit percentage boosts in order to guarantee a huge jump to damage output? The same can be said for Proc effects or just the act of hitting at all for some RPGs. Although effort is put in the player, and they usually do all they can to tip the odds in their favour, at the end of the day the ultimate deliberation isn't with us, and doesn't that just make things all the more exciting?

The comparison might seem strange, but I'm about to compare this to horror games and how they achieve their goal of forcibly ejecting the audience's bowls. Most great horror relies on taking the watching into the unknown and playing upon that to leave them helpless, because every known quantity automatically becomes more in one's control, even if just by a cursory degree. You can make plans, prepare your reaction, brace for shocks, all because you have some idea what's around that corner. Take that from the viewer, however, and they're left in a state of heightened adrenaline as they have no idea what might happen. Yeah, the comparison is a little tenuous, I knew that going in, but I'll bet you're starting to see what I mean when I talk about the allure of losing control. That being said, there is an opposite end of the spectrum.

Put people in a state where they feel like nothing that they do is effective and the will of the machine decides everything, then it can end up making the act of playing feel useless and get a little frustrating. Primary subject A for displaying this exact phenomena is none other than 'The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind', and if you've played the game you already know what I'm about to say. Somehow the combat system in Morrowind borrowed a few too many cues from D&D, to the point where everytime the player swings their weapon and makes contact with the enemy, a small calculation is done which takes into account factors like weapon skill level, Stamina and the conjunction of the stars in order to determine whether or not the hit actually landed. That being the hit which already had to land in order for those calculations to go off anyway. Thus meaning that at low level you'll literally be spending your time stabbing people without any damage until your failure levels you up enough to play this like literally any other game ever. This is RNG done catastrophically wrong, if you even needed me to point that out for you.

Now whilst on the surface that may sound familiar to the sort of system which Xcom touts, let me tell you why that's completely wrong and you should ashamed for ever having that opinion. Morrowind is a real-time action RPG wherein the pace of combat is set by the player's ability to press the swing button, whereas Xcom is a tactical game wherein the pace is as slow as it needs to be for the player to decide their next action. Number crunching isn't a supplement to Xcom's action but rather the substitute for full on gunplay, allowing the thrill of the unknown to creep in even when you've spent the last 5 minutes deciding exactly where to stand in order to make one particular shot. Morrowind's system, however, was an unholy clashing of full action and RNG that tripped up on it's own pacing and almost ruins an otherwise classic of a game.

So at the end of the day what have we learned about the nature of RNG or action games? Well absolutely nothing, I just wanted an excuse to try and justify the existence or random number generators in games. Once the dust has settled it's still all terribly frustrating and I would argue that sometimes it doesn't even make you feel like you've done a done a good job, just that you've gotten lucky; but when the stars align and things start going your way it's just human nature to conveniently forget the hand of fate and take all the credit for yourself. When I fail it's because RNG screwed me, but when I succeed it's just a testament to my undeniable tactical genius. (And if you think that sounds exceeding contentious, remember that I did miss a 96% shot at point blank range, give me this one.)