Firaxis needs to realize that X-Com is brilliant because it’s "broken"

Robsavillo
Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Some of the best things happen by coincidence or circumstance. Like when I was plodding through a dating rut in college and a friend encouraged me to attend a burlesque show; there, I met my wife-to-be. Or when my son confused me with the leather-jacket-clad rockers adorning the Ramones' Rocket to Russia album cover. That made me smile.

Or like those fleeting moments when a cowardly rookie soldier somehow sacks up and guns down a duo of Sectoids after he dodges several bursts of deadly plasma fire in X-Com: UFO Defense.

Everyone fond of the X-Com strategy games has a memory like that: something unrepeatable but forever memorable. Looking back on the series now in light of Firaxis' announcement that the studio has plans for a "re-imagining" of the original (dubbed XCOM: Enemy Unknown, a clever mashing of the North American and European release titles for UFO Defense), I feel that the X-Com magic may have been such a happy accident.

Two design decisions in particular -- ones that our "modern" sensibilities might conclude are "wrong" or "broken" -- stick out in my mind as being unintentionally responsible for my reverence for X-Com. And I dearly hope that Firaxis can recreate what keeps this game so close to my aging heart.

 

Starting an X-Com campaign is like the first day at a new job. You’ve plenty of past experience pushing papers, but you don’t know exactly how paper-pushing works at this company. Your boss is inexplicably unavailable to answer your questions, and the papers you should be pushing keep piling up. And then someone barges into your office and tells you that unless you push these papers quickly and correctly, everyone's going to get the pink slip.

The first few minutes with X-Com evoke these feelings of helplessness, urgency, and pressure. This would not be possible had its designers, Julian and Nick Gollop, bombarded the player with a lengthy learning session dryly explaining the game's mechanics.

Can you imagine a triple-A, mainstream title releasing these days beginning in this fashion? And without receiving criticism for this "failing"? I'm reminded of Men of War: Vietnam, a recent squad-level tactics sim that some reviewers panned for being too difficult and obtuse. Jim Rossignol of Rock, Paper, Shotgun wrote:

My sense of this game is that it’s great that the Men of War engine can cope with foliage enough to represent a jungle. It doesn’t, however, make me want to continue playing when I can’t see what I’m doing or when the difficult [sic] and incoherence of the missions match those of the actual war. [emphasis in original]

I saw that as Men of War's narrative strength: That through gameplay, Men of War successfully recalled the panic and confusion of America's Vietnam conflict. X-Com similarly creates such a mood by, well, being "broken."

So your first order of business in X-Com is to select a location for your initial base. This is where scientists will research mysterious technology, engineers will manufacture new equipment, radar will detect UFOs, and hangers will launch interceptors. And here is where your soldiers will make their last stand against the encroaching alien menace.

That’s the world on your shoulders, and your choice here can be critical in these early stages. Your available cash is based on your continued success. You can't let too many UFOs slip through. Funding nations would then withdraw from the program, and others might sign pacts with the invaders. After prolonged negative performance, they'll shut you down for good. X-Com offers no tutorial or tool tips to assist you in this decision; you’re entirely on your own.

This lack of explanatory text extends to every aspect of the game, and as a result, X-Com bestows a sense of ownership onto your accomplishments and failures alike that many other experiences lack. Coupled with the omnipresent pressure of your computer adversary, you become more emotionally involved the longer you play; you could lose anything you've built with one bad call. Yet if you do nothing, you'll eventually fail all the same.

X-Com becomes something greater in our minds because these things come together to form one of our most compelling narratives: the underdog story. As X-Com’s commander, you’ll direct a ragtag group of green troopers to claw and crawl their way from under the boot of an oppressive force and, in the end, crush that opposition with superior firepower.

At the beginning, you only have access to awful human technology: rifles, rocket launchers, pin grenades, fighter jets, and typical radar arrays. By the end, you’ve mastered the aliens' devastating weapons technology, psionic abilities (i.e., mind control), and lightning-fast saucer crafts. Your soldiers will be so incredibly powerful that you’ll be able to clear ground missions without even so much as setting foot out of the transport ship.

That’s no exaggeration: Fans have complained that the psychic abilities break the game by making the tactical battles a cakewalk. While their hearts are in the right place, this aspect of "broken" design is critical to the experience that X-Com fosters. Without this, X-Com would not be the story of the underdog; rather, X-Com would be the long slog of a treadmill.

You’ll undertake hundreds of missions over which you’ll spill the virtual blood of hundreds more soldiers. At almost every step of the way, the extraterrestrials will unveil new, deadly technology that will shake up your plans, keeping your fear alive.

In other words, you’ll take a beating from the aliens for most of your campaign. So when you finally get the upper hand, you won't be able to contain your eagerness. You’re tired of playing Rocky Balboa the chump and ready to play Rocky Balboa the champ. All you'll want is to mop the floor with alien scum mission after mission. And you will. Turning the tables is empowering, and your dominance over a force you’ve submitted to for so long is a feeling worth relishing.

This is X-Com. All the talk of destructible terrain, nameable soldiers, and iconic foes is too focused on the minute-to-minute play than experiencing the awesome responsibility of defending the planet from an alien invasion. I want to be the underdog, and the original game's various oddities coalesce to form that narrative; this is why it still lingers in my heart some 18 years later. Will Enemy Unknown?

 
Problem? Report this post
ROB SAVILLO'S SPONSOR
Comments (13)
Pict0079-web
January 11, 2012

I think Firaxis will find a unique way to break the game. Alpha Centauri was a brilliant strategy game because it dealt with the helplessness of humans in a mindworm-infested world. I don't find any reason why Firaxis couldn't emulate the broken powers of an alien invasion.

Besides, I think the company has great respect for X-COM. I'm pretty sure that Firaxis consists of people from the MicroProse days. I have no rreason to think that they wouldn't be able to create a new hit. Unless the developers get too sucked into the dreaded "movie quality" prroduction values.

Robsavillo
January 11, 2012

Oh, I don't think Firaxis is entirely incapable of creating an interesting X-Com game. Not at all. I just hope that they understand that X-Com is more than merely a checklist of tactical options and strategic decisions to make.

I'm sitll very interested in their Enemy Unknown. From what I've already read, it will be mechanically different from the Gollops' original games, but I hope they can retain the feeling of the series.

Default_picture
January 16, 2012

I don't want to sound like I'm bagging on you, but there was a 134 page manual that came with UFO Defense that gave you a lot of information about the game. It does hint that you might want to create your first base in a centralized position like the North Pole so you can react quickly. It does tell you that you will be hiring dozens of soldiers because you're out-matched in the beginning, so you might want to learn the interface. It also tells you a lot about research and intercepting UFOs. And possible tactics.

I learned early on from Microprose that you must RTFM on these games. Masters of Orion taught me that instantly since there's so much you miss if you don't read the manual. Since the tutorial or opening was not very informative in its own. I gather you didn't read the manual for XCOM: UFO Defense or you skimmed it at best. To me it was never "broken."

I think what made XCOM: UFO Defense a superior tactical/strategical game was that it challenged you, even when you were reaching the pinnacle of your research and troops. Even if you had all the tools, the game swarmed you with invasions. Not the lack of information that was right there in the manual if you took the time to read it. I'd prefer a five minute tutorial to the game over a 134 page manual any day, though.

If Firaxis keeps the difficulty and the spirit of the game, that's a win for all of us who have been waiting years for a proper remake of XCOM (not some fan-made rip that seems to fall flat).

Robsavillo
January 17, 2012

I hold the opinion that games are most expressive when you're playing them, not reading the manual. And in this digital age, we don't fall back on manuals anymore. Hell, if you bought X-Com today (only available through digital distribution), you wouldn't get that 134-page manual.

I don't want to go on a tangent too much, but games as a medium don't yet have a shared, common language. Think about books or movies for a moment. When you crack open a new novel, you don't have to sit through an explanation of the alphabet. When you start a film, nothing explains how to watch a series of moving pictures.

I know this isn't the best analogy...but games almost always have to tell you how to play them before you begin. We've seen many different approaches to this. The most common are: 1) a lengthy tutorial that explains game mechanics through speech or text, 2) slowly unveiling new mechanics as a campiagn progresses (think Advance Wars), or 3) just throwing you in the deep end.

X-Com is the latter, unquestionably. You don't really know what to do or where to start, and you have all the game's options at your fingertips right from the beginning. Much of the experience for me and others was just playing the game and figuring things out through our own exploration of the game's various systems and rules. And I love X-Com for that because I wouldn't have had the sensation of being an inepxerienced commander facing an unknown threat otherwise.

Default_picture
January 17, 2012

I'm not disputing that you may have had a good time playing XCOM not knowing what you were doing, but my point was that XCOM was not made that way intentionally. They did give you a manual with detailed instructions. It did tell you how to play the game and gave you hints about how to start it. It was the equivilent of a tutorial in today's games.

XCOM: UFO Defense was made in 1993. I was in college then, and I played like a bunch of different PC games then. Nearly all of them had manuals, and required you to read the manuals before you played the game. Remember Elite? That game gave you a 200 page instruction manual and there was no way in the world you could play the game to its fullest without the manual. Same with Masters of Orion (made by Microprose, the original developers of XCOM) - you had to read the manual. Microprose/Atari intended the player to read the manual for XCOM. And most of us did.

The reason we had such huge manuals and very few tutorials in games then was because we had limited memory and disc space. Everything was on floppy disc. XCOM: UFO Defender came out on 5 1/4 floppy discs, and required a tiny bit of memory space. Not having a tutorial helping you is not a feature of XCOM - it was a limitation. And they fixed that limitation by giving you a manual to read to fill in the gaps.

We had the equivilent of a tutorial in the late 80's and early 90's - it was called the Manual. Your expectation that an XCOM remake shouldn't have a tutorial to help the players start the game and just throw them in there is unfounded. Because it was a great thing for you didn't mean that it was a great thing for a lot of fans - a lot of us who read the manual liked it because it was a good game period. If you want to experience the way you played it the first time, then shut the tutorial off. LOL

Robsavillo
January 17, 2012

I do agree that the lack of an in-game tutorial wasn't intentional (unfortunately, my subsequent edits to this piece before publication makes it seem intentional. My apologies for that!)

I wanted to convey that X-Com evokes these feelings of urgency and helplessness and that that's part of the game's success. The lack of a tutorial is only part of this...it's your first realization that you're on your own. The lack of handholding and explanation really extends to every part of X-Com.

I certainly don't expect Firaxis to take this route, but I hope that whatever they ultimately do is able to recapture those feelings of X-Com.

Default_picture
January 17, 2012

I think they'll get the feeling of urgency in the game. Granted, I never felt truly helpless when playing XCOM back then - more like I had to reign in several events that had the potential to spiral out of control if I didn't stay calm and think straight. Things got out of hand fast once the invasion took off, so if you weren't somewhat ready, then maybe you were helpless.

This is Sid Meier's company. Fraxis is good at creating both simulations (Gettysburg and Civilization) and narratives that have doom looming on the horizon (Alpha Centauri is the best at demonstrating that). XCOM was both types of game - a simulation and a narrative of imminent doom from an alien invasion. I think they can do it, and I think they won't hold back the punches from the original game.

Robsavillo
January 17, 2012

I left out other examples for the sake of word count, but I'll leave you with this: You certainly felt helpless when your last soldier, during a mission gone horribly wrong, alternates between panicking and going berserk. And all you can do is click the end turn button over and over until she's cut down by plasma fire.

(And no, I will not account for save scumming. Ironman is the only way to play X-Com! Heh.)

Default_picture
January 20, 2012
I recall tossing an active, loaded LAW to a grunt with some ap left, and firing the rocket right into the invading alien scum. And I remember this from 18 years ago! Any game that you can recall a specific, amazing moment from has to be called a success!
Robsavillo
January 23, 2012

Exactly! I have so many X-Com memories just like that because the game is flexible enough to let me write all those little details myself. Narrative in the medium is so much more powerful when it's player-driven.

Default_picture
January 23, 2012

I haven't played X-COM, but I definitely understand your sentiment. STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl is one of my all-time favorite games; I would venture to call it "broken" as well, if not in the same sense as X-COM. STALKER is full of desecrated buildings and warehouses which are absolutely empty and bear no consequence on any particular quest or storyline. This may suggest an unfinished game on the developer's part, but in my eyes it contributed immensely to the game's atmosphere and overwhelming sense of environmental decay. Another "broken" series that comes to mind is Resident Evil. I will go on record saying that I truly LOVE the dreaded "tank controls" and stationary shooting. Somehow they give me a more tactile, weighty sense of controlling a character and aiming a weapon. Other third person games feel much more "floaty." 

Robsavillo
January 23, 2012

I agree about those "tank controls" of the early Resident Evil (and Silent Hill) games. Neither series would have been as deadful without that weighty control you describe. The scheme fit the vibe of those games well while also complimenting other aspects, such as inherent character limitations, the gravity of your decisions, or the frailty of the protagonists (more so with Silent Hill than Resident Evil, though).

Default_picture
January 23, 2012

What's funny is that a lot of people don't realize Resident Evil 4 and 5 controls are, in fact, EXACTLY the same as the older games. The only difference is that the camera follows the character in the newer games. It's amazing how big of a difference such a small change can make! 

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.