How Game Designers Protect Players From Themselves

[@GMTK]

Want more game design knowledge? Check out this video on how you can use the MDA framework to analyse a game's design - kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3qyeodpmaisa9k

[@polygonalcube]

Thank you Mark.

[@jeefberky9101]

“How game designers protect players from themselves” reminds me of how I always check to see if that fire effect will actually set me on fire

[@ItsPBUH]

oh look a fireplace :>

[@nootaboot7042]

“Does this flame protection armor work?” *jumps into volcano*

[@wendysobamaman2179]

Do you think... do you think that campfire will do *The Thing?*

[@nootaboot7042]

Dominick Scooterberry *burns to death* 2 mins later: “wait is that oven hot too?” *climbs into oven*

[@wendysobamaman2179]

Nootaboot *Clips through oven and falls out of the world*

[@SLACKLINEDUDE]

_"instead of punishing a player that is too slow, reward a player for doing it faster."_ That rhetoric is so important in so many different areas.

[@SLACKLINEDUDE]

E.G. instead of punishing your kid for getting bad grades, reward your kid for getting good grades.

[@lessthanjer3867]

you both make a pretty good point

[@stevenpatriarca868]

Pay more for people that work hard

[@RuschilBR]

This the great poin, i am a student of economy and only know some of scientific schools are goingo for this lesson. This is a hole new way to look at the people and economic system.

[@Woody_Johnson]

It calls "positive reinforcement" concept in behavioral psychology. There is a good book about that and more: "Don't Shoot the Dog! The New Art of Teaching and Training" by Karen Prayor

[@jackkrieger9150]

I remember when playing Far Cry 2 and there was a mission that required me to kill a leader of a terrorist group hidden in an African village in the mountains. Instead of trying to penetrate the village without getting caught, killing the target and then fighting with all the village to escape I manage to climb the mountain that in fact wasn't designed to get climbed and sniped the target from distance. It took me 30 minutes to climb the mountain but it was fun.

[@nickkohlmann]

Awesome!

[@checkenginelight6681]

In far cry 5, to get the no alarms bonus when liberating an outpost, I take a helicopter, fire rockets at the alarms until they’re destroyed, and then gun everyone else down, and god damn it’s fun

[@michaeledmunds7266]

@@checkenginelight6681 "Another successful stealthy outpost liberation!" "But everything is on fire!!' "Well.... yeah, but the alarm didn't sound..."

[@FrederEngelh]

I did something similar lol, great game.

[@deathbringer9893]

@@yorkfirepulse8724 wait u dont try to kill them?

[@Ruby_Mochii]

Devs: Puts secrets and easter eggs Also devs: "But you gotta go fast"

[@sirNicolasDracul]

I'm glad someone said it. My BIGGEST problem with old school shooters.

[@kayracan3663]

Well.

[@MarcusTheDorkus]

Hoo boy does this one annoy me. Like you find out from a friend that they have an awesome item, but you haven't seen it yet. So you look it up and realize that to get it you had to go off the main path while the building your in was burning down and the game was telling you to get out of there ASAP. It doesn't make sense to give a player a sense of urgency but then reward them for dawdling.

[@NicknotNak]

I just hate how 100% runs are really discouraged by most games. You want max scores and all items? Yours a buzzkill and playing the game wrong! I feel like the people who try to get all the achievements are actually punished.

[@miso-ge1gz]

doom eternal haha. Fast paced combat followed by 5 minutes of staring at the map

[@steelstringd2018]

My favorite XCOM 2 mod is one that doesnt have a timer until you are detected by enemies. It allows you to set up a position carefully, and then it increases the intensity once you kick things off. You get the best of both worlds.

[@deadlyslayer271]

I think there was also a resistance order in the expansion that gave the same benefit

[@superpilotdude]

SteelStringD20 that sounds awesome. It’s a little more realistic as well.

[@guesswhosback8851]

Or if you have a War of chosen addon, you can double the timer. 16 turns instead of 8, brilliant idea IMO

[@petermedina8189]

@@deadlyslayer271 there was, the Reapers "Infiltrate"

[@ledocteur7701]

yeah, that make way more sense than a timer or a instant death when detected, you can be sneaky and slowly get trough the level but if you are detected much stronger ennemies will eventually come to screw you, encouraging you to go Rambo and totally change strategy, giving the player tension when playing sneaky and encouraging them to think quick when playing Rambo.

[@jayjaygolden5123]

I love how dark souls discourages you from going to high level zones by having enemies absolutely obliterate you if you get hit, but does not completely stop you from trying.

[@esspooki3813]

Also, rewards players who can go to those areas with good gear

[@hulmhochberg8129]

Gothic... Go anywhere, do anything But if u wanna fight a troll with a pickaxe or rusty sword, don't come crying to us, bitch. Unless u know it's attack patterns perfectly and want to invest 30 minutes. It's repetitive and rather unfun but u can do it.

[@nurs3826]

@@hulmhochberg8129 lol just spam attacks so they get perma stunned

[@andrewboyer7544]

This isn't really a dark souls thing. Any open level design game like a metroidvania or even an mmo typically did this.

[@Bruno-cb5gk]

@@esspooki3813 ah yes, the great idea of rewarding the best players by making them even stronger, thus trivializing whatever area you were meant to be completing.

[@chilarius]

For example, Fallout 4 discourage me to play Fallout 76, and reward me with more money and time to spend with my beloved ones.

[@JamesRival]

Hilario Hernandez Well said

[@senza4591]

Indeed

[@FormedUnique]

Fallout 4 was garbage lol

[@conehead2099]

@jocaguz18 Not even the best Fallout game but okay

[@Gabriel-br4qe]

@@FormedUnique lmao whatever you say, Mr. "dick the destroyer".

[@GabrielTobing]

Mobile Games: Everything requires energy, but you can pay for more.

[@albert_the_cool8092]

Or watch ads o h wait you already watched one well the round is ended so here you go:

[@sushiibird7799]

"You can buy this package we have for sale and its OK if you don't want to it's not even recommended, just don't complain to us when you face players in pvp that did buy them however! :)" Yeah I'm out

[@Jeerus]

Or just download a modded APK with unlimited energy because fuck microtransactions.

[@KaZhere452]

*Infinite Energy Hack*

[@sushiibird7799]

@@Jeerus they're getting smarter tho with their "you thought it was offline but surprise we need you to connect to the Internet to check your proof of purchase oh sorry it seems as if your version is hacked please download it from the play store to suffer having to buy energy you think you can one up us with this one didn't you?" tactic. Yup I'm definitely not salty about that

[@aidanfiadh]

An interesting comparison to xcom 2's turn limits is Invisible Inc, which has a similar idea but much better execution. Instead of failing after a set number of turns, new security measures are introduced every 6 turns. This way, playing too slowly makes the game harder so forces the player to take risks but never gives you an instant fail. It also makes more narrative sense since it is the alarm level rising rather than rigging their own supplies to explode for no reason.

[@Crowbar]

another game by the devs from mark of the ninja, which was featured in this episode :) they make great games :)

[@cr4yv3n]

Kinda like "wanted level" going up as more and more alien troops are called in. NICE !

[@Weeb1gman]

That's how War of the Chosen works when you assault an Advent Facility

[@MeeTonToE]

Steamworld Heist is another game that does security measures after a few turns. It first starts with turrets, then it proceeds to spawn enemies, and then do that again but faster.

[@MrMadalien]

That's a good one. I like that approach of having difficulty as a sort of spectrum that changes over time as an incentive to take risks. Dota 2 has a similar mechanic in the end game of each match. When all the barracks on 1 team's side are destroyed, mega creeps start spawning which are extremely strong and are basically overwhelming in most cases, so that team has a short time window until their base is inevitably destroyed, to take risks (which can be fun/interesting).

[@fightingfights5503]

"Players optimize the fun out of a game" _laughs in Factorio_

[@humanbeans4498]

The optimizing *is* the fun

[@deadfr0g]

@Human beans I’m sure you already know, but that is actually a HUGE design compliment. (I mean, I suppose that was the point of this entire video.)

[@lordthor5951]

Factorio devs have on multiple occasions nerfed or tweaked game elements to encourage, more use of trains and belts over bots.

[@jacobliu1274]

*Laughs in oxygen not included and mathing out everything*

[@jennytulls6369]

*Laughs in literally every single fighting game*

[@Bluemilk92]

Why not make the turn timer a bonus, secondary objective? I.E. *Mission Objective: Rescue the hostages. Reward $1000* *OPTIONAL objectives: 1. Finish mission within X turns. Reward (+$500)* *2. Finish mission without losing any soldiers. Reward (+$500)* I think you get the point. A lot of games use that same system. Getting actual in-game bonuses, that make the game easier, rather than just a higher score.

[@dydlus]

And that's what they did with XCOM:EW. They took the concept of timed missions and made it optional. EW introduces Meld, which is used for MECs and genetic modifications. It appears in EVERY mission (apart from some story missions and, obviously, the last one), but it self-destructs if it is not retrieved in time. Alternativley, you can complete the mission before that happens and you get it automatically.

[@Bluemilk92]

I guess you could argue that making it optional, would only solve the problem for some fraction of the player base. There would still be some people who ignore it, end up playing the game "the boring way", and then end up ruining the experience the developer intended. You could balance the game, in such a way, as to force the player to engage in the bonus content occasionally. In other words, if you ignore *all* the optional objectives, the game would be nearly impossible to beat. I think something like 25% would be ideal. You don't have to do *all* the bonus stuff to win, but if you do play the "dangerous way" at least every four missions, the game gets much easier.

[@fordf-2505]

@@Bluemilk92 mods

[@CaptainDoomsday]

That's the gist of this video. Reward systems are better than penalties, and the harsher the penalty, the worse an idea it is.

[@GameFuMaster]

@@Bluemilk92 Then I would not buy the game instead if I don't get to play it my style. It's largely the developer who misses out. Why would I spend cash on a game I don't like.

[@palebears8913]

"Protect the player from themselves" says Sidney Meier, the destroyer of sleep schedules.

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

"Now I am become Sid, the destroyer of sleep."

[@dennisthegreat1]

1 more turn just 1 more and bed 1050 turns later 1 more and I'll declare war, best game ever

[@fauzan3427]

"okay one more turn" 5 Hours later True story

[@potapotapotapotapotapota]

Civ is like a TV show that never ends that only gets better as you play

[@Kapin05]

Half-Life has a really good system to stop players abusing cover - the AI. Enemies have aggressive tactics; taking cover simply allows them to push forward, retake ground and fight you in what is for you a less advantageous part of the map.

[@davidrossington9756]

Don't forget the HECU grenade spam

[@deezboyeed6764]

Also enemies in half life 2 have basic combat ideals in them, if you fight a group they'll usually fire then as they reload take cover while the others cover them. Damn half life had some advance shit for its time

[@mail123619]

Except in half life 2 it doesn't work exactly. If you hide in a closet all the enemies will approach you one by one and you can just kill them with the shotgun easily.

[@dersozialarbeiter8635]

@@mail123619 but then comes the grenade and you are forced to leave

[@Dargonhuman]

More like they fall right into my cleverly designed kill zone of boxes, barrels and trip mines.

[@Czesnek]

Old Blizzard: Please, don't play WoW all day. Take a break and go meet your friends/family. Current Blizzard: I need more MONEY don't stop playing I need more MONEY!

[@austriab1]

Blizzard makes their money all the same if someone plays for an hour or 10, if you're talking about WoW. In fact it's very heavily biased towards those once a day players, with all the best rewards available being something that can only be done once in a day or week and take very little time to get. Even deep end-game content can be done best in controlled bursts. In fact right now Blizzard makes most of their money from WoW from their in-game cash shop, mostly the services like race changes. Almost all of them just allow people to take a current character and make them different instead of making a new character. The design is the same since the original game: An MMO works best when the people with full time jobs and families can compete just fine with the rest.

[@tuptastic304]

The reason blizzard didnt want people playing extended periods is so that players wouldnt burn out as quickly, meaning the players would play more and blizzard would make more money.

[@lordpotashmallow2443]

@@austriab1 that and also, you burn out faster if you play for 10 hours a day

[@garrysmith1029]

Ok Dutch

[@Rowrin]

It was more of a callback to older style RPG's like DND where the player characters are suppose to take rests to recover skills etc. It was an immersion mechanic more so than a "don't play our game" mechanic.

[@NafedalbiFilms]

6:46 “Son of a Mother” *Hmm, yes, the floor here is made of floor*

[@D.KlWA-aG]

this movie is a film

[@Jamseth_Ingramious]

Not true, you could be the son of a father.

[@FixTheWi-Fi]

@@Jamseth_Ingramious... Except you'd still also be the son of a mother.

[@T4gProd]

That game has some of the best awful dialogue I have ever heard and I love it. "Go f*** yourself! You shit piles give chase, I will kill your dicks!" said the angry lady "What? What does that even mean? You're gonna kill my dick? I'll kill your dick! How 'bout that, huh?" replied the protagonist

[@Shapeshifterr]

@@T4gProd wtf

[@bannananinjamcnuggies4048]

Honestly, as someone who played Xcom: Enemy Unknown, the whole “playing the game extremely cautiously and spamming overwatch every turn” was never really about just completely optimizing the game. If anything, I would feel it’s the opposite. It was fear, not any kind of actual fear of the aliens, but a mechanical fear. A fear of that if my squad wasn’t constantly watching each other, I could lose them. I mean, if one of your guys even takes damage, they’ll be out of commission for weeks, and even months if they go below half health. I didn’t want to lose anyone, especially the soldiers who had several missions worth of experience on them. And being that I am not exactly good at this sort of game, I still will get my butt kicked while inching along the map in a tightly packed formation of soldiers. Every inch I get, I have to work for and for every mission I complete, the enemy just gets stronger. It does feel rewarding to get inch after inch, but then I’ll end up getting checkmated by the AI and whatever bad decision I made before saving, and I become so wrapped up in how to salvage this situation in the best way possible, that I end up not even playing the game anymore, forgetting about it until I eventually pick it up again because, in the end, I just can’t get enough of Xcom, despite how punishing it is. All in all, I actually use the optimized strategies because I’m dogshit at the game.

[@mrwizard5012]

Xcom unknown devs: "why does everyone play so conservatively?" Chrysallid: (saunters out of fog of war on opposite side of map) Chrysallid: (turns entire crew into zombies in single turn)

[@kevinschuster8169]

@@One.Zero.One101 im atm again playing xcom 2 and thats kinda how i feel. I think it would be better to make the downed Soldiers bleed out more often than just die directly. I once had a mission where enemy reinforcements came in permanently and i had one get hit and bleed out so i had to use my medikit so he survives and then carry him and rescue him and this mission was kinda tense i loved it. You could add in a nonremovable timer for bleeding out but every medikit you use one them delays it for some turns so youre either forced to finish the mission or retreat.

[@robertharewood7144]

Good point. That fear you mention was waaay more motivating than any timer. They seriously messed up if they wanted people to take risks, when the consequences were so dire

[@Vinemaple]

Yeah, the horror of the first few missions in EU, where you have NOTHING, can still inform your play when you have better armor and weapons than the aliens. It's a mental block you have to learn to remove.

[@Kokuyous3ki]

Dev: Puts permadeath in the game. Player: Plays cautiously. Dev: Why?... Add timers of course! To encourage the most fun playstyle! Me: Xcom2 is still sitting on the second mission while I have finished Xcom1 3 times. Because Xcom2 is so much fun... Hell, I have more playtime on Xenonauts than Xcom2 and that game crushes the player when it feels like it:) Make no mistake, it's their right to make a game however they want to make it. It's might right to form a negative opinion on their decisions.

[@Patrick_The_Pure]

X-com is at its best when the player takes risks. Yeah, but missing 3 times in a row with a 95% accuracy while speeding things is not a reward for playing with risks.

[@noobestofdamall]

95% is not 100%

[@Patrick_The_Pure]

@@noobestofdamall That wasn't the point Isaac, the point i was making is that for most players it's no fun speeding through a purely luck based game, especially when the risks are so devastating to your characters and especially when you activate the dead = dead option.

[@EuropeanQoheleth]

Missing 3 times in a row on 95% accuracy reminds me of Shadowrun games.

[@this_is_petro1700]

Patrick Star That plagues almost all strategy games. If I’m playing Divinity or Darkest Dungeon and I miss a couple times it can fuck up an entire run. There is a difference between difference between difficulty and bullshit.

[@CaptainDoomsday]

@@Patrick_The_Pure Yeah, RNG risks are just gambling. In a game with a timer, you expect to have control over the game's pacing in order to meet that timer. Enough bad rolls (which X-Com is famous for) and you LITERALLY CANNOT win in an allotted time. No reward for the risk.

[@MrNoob30]

I was fine with most of the turn limits in XCOM 2, but having turn limits during stealth (i.e. the aliens will destroy this cargo to keep it from being retrieved except they don't know you're there yet, you have to reach this extraction point by a certain turn because there will be too many reinforcements despite none being called, etc.) were silly but also made actually attempting stealth disadvantageous. Having to rush through an environment without the opportunity to scout for an opening just lead to getting caught, oftentimes in the middle of xenos that you would have killed had you not been sneaking around them.

[@lilchinesekidchen]

Nick McGingerdick that’s true, it weakened the stealth mechanic, but i don’t think it made it disadvantageous. stealth was still super useful, especially in setting up an ambush. or if you had the phantom perk, it was still very useful for spotting for your sniper. I think it just kept stealth from being OP. so that you never had time to get everyone into the perfect positions, and you still felt the pressure when you were in stealth. in this case, stealth isn’t about empowering the player with knowledge, it’s just about helping the player get by. have you tried the mod that only starts the timer after your stealth is broken? that sounds like a cool in between.

[@eikementira1604]

@@lilchinesekidchen phantom mode with killzone is too stupid to use, very useful. People underestimate battle scanners too.

[@lilchinesekidchen]

Eike Mentira right, xcom never really limited people’s strategies, it just never really taught people how to optimize different strategies when yours wasn’t working. (but that’s part of the appeal, you need to figure it out yourself) like not all missions were timed (if i remember correctly), so when a timer is added, obviously you need to adjust your strategy.

[@eikementira1604]

@@lilchinesekidchen there are god tiers in this game and bad tiers, one common bad tier is gunslinger skill tree with sniper, it will always be overpowered by a low rank ranger. The only way to upgrade to god tier is if you have the holotarget assist + faceoff, I dont know why people always wanted to follow terrible skill tress and want the game to change, it's like asking the war to be fair or the enemies to stay stand to hit headshots in a fps game 😂😂😂

[@andrewboyer7544]

@Lex Bright Raven I actually don't know what he's talking about. The gunslinger tree makes brutal builds. My Col. Level Slingers put up better numbers than the Rangers do unless they get lucky with blamestorm. If people think the gunslinger are bad they just don't use them right. Hell, 1 high level slinger can solo a lost mission.

[@weeaboofish174]

I really like how in the fire emblem games maps tend to make you want to rush by putting a village far into the map ( if you visit a village they give you items or even units sometimes) and they put a bandit near the village who will destroy the village if he reaches it. This incetevises the player to rush further into the map rather than playing very defensively while at the same time being completely optional.

[@xXEPIKgamerXx]

I hate having civilians die, I will always rush to save them, and it feels extra rewarding to do so because of mechanics like that in games like FE. On the other hand, If a game *cough*XCOM*cough* dangles that objective in front of me but then says "this isn't actually as important as you want it to be" and then proceeds to creates a situation where its near impossible if not completely impossible to do perfectly, that sucks. Give me the carrot on the stick so I have the option, but don't let the disparity between the easy/normal and the hard way be so large that it ruins the fun regardless if you're "winning". To be honest that first level in XCOM with the civilians made me stop playing the game. Why bother to keep playing if your first level introducing a risk mechanic stacks the odds so much that you're always guaranteed to lose in some way regardless of skill. I like games like splinter cell because they always have the smart ways of playing and the risky ways of playing, but neither are so difficult that you feel the only way to win is to lose because you'll never be good enough to do it "properly". Still its better than the good old "oh you made 1 mistake 10 minutes ago in a mission you've already spent an hour on? Screw you, start over", that's not risk, that's having 0 respect for the player's time and effort.

[@elementsilver]

The weird thing is that Xcom DLC already solved the issue with the introduction of meld. By moving quick you were rewarded but not forced. No idea why they didnt just do that again for Xcom 2...

[@rebelheart4456]

They didn't.. lol

[@syweb2]

@@rebelheart4456 They didn't... what? Your reply makes no sense.

[@rebelheart4456]

@@syweb2 ... Do that. That's why this video talked about XCOM. There you go that is the rest of my sentence

[@rosaparks6479]

Because they didn't want the gameplay to be the same? The setting was built around this aggressive concept. Earth doesn't belong to humanity and xcom anymore, you're not on the defense, and don't have time to just sit around and wait for the aliens to come to you. You're the attacker, you have to get in and get out as soon as you can.

[@Seagull780]

@@rebelheart4456 I think meld was from enemy within, the DLC for enemy unknown, and the predecessor of XCOM 2. So the guy was right I think.

[@NoiseMarines]

What baffles me about Firaxis putting turn limits in XCOM 2 is that they had already, successfully, encouraged quick gameplay in the previous title! In XCOM: Enemy Within, you can still overwatch creep through the entire level of the game, but if you're quick enough you can collect MELD, a material that unlocks access to powerful units and abilities. It's a reward, but it's *not* a punishment. It makes the player WANT to take the risks, as opposed to having to take them or risk suffering a crushing defeat. I... don't know why they couldn't just expand upon that mechanic. It solved the Overwatch issue without offending the player. It was kind of ingenius to be honest.

[@mwbgaming28]

yeah but once you grab the meld you could overwatch your way through the level as slow as you want and a lot of time i would bring 1 or 2 rookies just for meld collection with the probability that they wouldnt make it home (even though they did most of the time)

[@ardi.wibowo]

They kind of fixed this by putting things to shoot at which adds up to the timer in War of the Chosen. And gave you new perks that helps.

[@mwbgaming28]

@@ardi.wibowo I used a mod to get rid of those timers (or at least make them a bit longer) I hate being artificially forced into a tactical disadvantage

[@ardi.wibowo]

@@mwbgaming28 it does makes me nervous the first few times when i started playing xcom 2, i remember it's stressing cause I'm playing in harder difficulty, not the hardest. But then i started to realize the developer took this timer seriously, giving us just enough time to complete every mission, like, they put serious thought when they designed this timer. provided that i, as a player, can use every move efficiently. Aaand then i finished every mission faster as the game progressing, forgot completely that there's a stupid timer ticking lol

[@mwbgaming28]

@@ardi.wibowo lol I have so many mods that I have never actually finished the game (giant cryssalids suck)

[@Jay-tb7zw]

A great example of devs encouraging a style of play was with Dying Light, in the game the easiest skill to work with in the beginning is parkour. While the hardest to level up is combat. So every time a player is caught by a zombie, the are more likely to run and work with skills like vault than to attack it and risk death. The zombies in the game ae also built to encourage a style of play, most zombies are slow damage sponges making the player much more likely to take advantage of its lack of speed rather than suffer at its abundance of health. Other zombies, viral's, are fast and drawn by noise. This makes players less rash with decisions and more aware of surroundings so that they don't alert a viral. This encouraging of parkour dissipates during later parts of the game when players begin to level up the tree that suits them and unlocking skills that help their own play style, allowing for a really fun and customized game. While I don't think anyone will read this, if you do, Dying Light is an amazing game and I would recommend it to anyone. The game is really well designed is really fun to play. Also if you did read all of this, Thanks for taking the time of day to read this little note, I hope you have a great day and enjoyed my note!

[@justanothernerdydude4391]

It's not actually that long so of course I read it. Dork.

[@sngg_1480]

what the hell, I start playing a game, I hear loads about it, whilst I never remember hearing, reading or seeing anything about dying light before purchasing it... And yeah, dying light is an awesome game

[@bananomet4052]

Thats actually the only game i finished 100%

[@CeyPhantom]

I literally had never heard anything good about this game til but your comment makes me want to check it out :)

[@ryanthornton3556]

It’s one of my favorite games!

[@Boomblox5896]

I honestly thought this video was going to be about how Game Designers need to make invisible walls to contain the player within certain areas so some goof doesn't just decide to walk off the map and screw around because he can.

[@rafee9442]

But leave one small open area.

[@darthvoidz5413]

Rafee Samith lmao, true.

[@Madhattersinjeans]

In some cases you have a damage effect that hurts the player if the try to leave the game area, radiation, mines, snipers, electric fields.

[@garrysmith1029]

I thought the same about watching this video. That's way for the most part I like Rockstar more freedom to the player in single player at least. But this video is kinda saying it's our fault.

[@generalgrevious5781]

games should tell you if the fire is real on the loading screen

[@Sheikmeister69]

How dare you insult my intelligence" *I said as I jumped off a cliff thinking there is a secret invisible bridge*

[@justrcd]

*I say the same as I hack away at every wall in the hopes that that there is a hidden room*

[@RoamingPlayer]

'Ah yes, a waterfall, there must be some loot in there, so predictable'

[@fish2716]

@@RoamingPlayer I tried doing that during a tutorial level and drowned

[@RoamingPlayer]

@@fish2716 big F

[@dadolphinplayz]

@@fish2716 lol

[@JohnJRM]

It's also worth noting that the ghost in Spelunky turns all treasure into more valuable gems as it goes through them, making it feasible to still play the game slowly and get every treasure at an even higher value, but only if you're willing to take the risk of navigating around the ghost. I appreciate how Yu turned that type of gameplay he didn't want into a different kind of difficult decision players have to make.

[@T0mmy9898]

Now that I think about it; if XCOM 2 gave a reward for finishing in like less than 6 turns I would totally try my hardest to speed through it for that sweet, sweet etherium. But since beating in 5 turns gives the same reward as beating in 15 I might as well minimize damage taken.

[@JernejVirag]

Didn't they add this kind of system to XCOM: Enemy Within with the secondary resource containers which expire after a bit of time? That was a good balance of punishing and pushing you to play more aggressively.

[@T0mmy9898]

Yes, the meld, I loved that mechanic and it was satisfying to collect it. Kinda disappointed it wasn't in XCOM 2

[@Tobascodagama]

Yeah, it was a well-received system in EW, so I was a little surprised that it didn't come back for the sequel. The new Supply Drop missions in WotC are an interesting new take on the idea, though, and I really appreciate how it plays out. WotC in general solved a lot of problems with XCOM 2's timers and mission types just by adding a lot more variety, where some mission types have no timers or the timer starts only when you take a specific action or there's a "soft" timer like Supply Drops where some of the rewards get pulled off the map every turn if you don't intervene. Here's hoping they don't forget about it again when it comes time to do XCOM 3. ;)

[@magicmanscott40k]

T0mmy9898 the meld system was pretty cool. If u get meld u can get massive upgrades in the game. I never got meld however cuz that's where all the enemies were at. I would always lose a solider for some meld and it was never worth it.

[@Nagytika]

+T0mmy9898 my only concern against the meld, that it was not properly inserted into the plot...WHY was that stuff there? (bonus round: when on earth, the chinese goverment finds out how to replicate the alien alloy?)

[@Ryktes]

So I have an example from the "failed objective doesn't have to mean instant game over" category. I can't remember the name of the game I was playing but it was a tactical RPG with many, MANY branching storylines. There was a mission that boiled down to "enter map from one end, get your whole crew to the other end as quickly as possible to escape". Now, during briefing for this mission one of the characters tells you that there is a powerful enemy leader bringing a huge group and he's gonna be moving through the same area as you are and if you don't get clear before he shows up you WILL die. Suffice to say I did not make it out in time, big bad general shows up with his army, and I'm sitting here expecting an automatic game over because in this game a fair amount of the story branches lead to alternate endings or just straight up game overs. But... it didn't happen this time. No, instead what I get is a scene of this new enemy group showing up looking like the worst day my party is ever gonna have, and then our exit point getting closed off, and then, to my utter surprise and joy, my party actually turning to fight as the battle objective changes from 'escape' to 'SURVIVE'. And then, to my even greater surprise and amazement, I actually won the fight. After managing to cause enough damage to the enemy forces they decide to retreat, and my little party somehow manages to come out on top of a battle that they shouldn't even have survived. And sure enough, the game actually recognizes this, giving me a completely different after mission scene (I made a new save and replayed the mission the "right" way just to be sure) and opening an entirely different story branch due to one of the most powerful enemy forces in the game having been significantly weakened at a relatively early stage of the game. And I wish more game developers would try to make scenarios like this. And I do understand that many types of games don't really allow for it, but there are a LOT of ways that it could work, and it makes for amazing experiences when used well.

[@josephkane5851]

Ryktes That sounds awesome. The only problem with that kind of thing though is that you have to make sure the "percieved danger" matches the "effective danger". Even in games that dont let players do that, they'll build up an enemy as if they're the most dangerous person in the world. Then you steamroll them and proceed to "Wow [player] that was amazing and you're so cool." If it's something that lets you drastically change the game, it should be equally as difficult.

[@Ryktes]

Joseph Kane True that. And this fight really was brutal enough to match. I think I lost something like 2/3 of my crew during that fight, over the course of what felt like a whole day but was probably only 30 minutes ~ an hour real time. I totally agree with what you're saying too. I hate when a game spends all its time biggin up the bad guy and trying to be intimidating and then the fight ends in a minute or two cause you just obliterated him.

[@fd15_09]

Can you tell me the name of the game?

[@Ryktes]

I keep trying to remember it, but it was way back in the golden age of PS2 JRPG tactics games. I'm almost positive it was something from Atlus or NIS in the vein of Soul Nomad or the Disgaea games.

[@fromvoid3764]

One of the Front Mission series?

[@dire_chinchilla4503]

I didn't like the turn timers in Xcom 2 because when everything went wrong it felt like it wasn't my fault when things went wrong because I had to throw caution to the wind and risk soldiers lives in order to meet the arbitrary timer. I know full well that charging a low health soldier past a sectopod is probably going to get them killed but there's only 1 turn left on the timer before the mission fails so RIP. It also feels at odds with the game's theming. You're given a small squad of 4 - 6 soldiers and typically start off un-known to the enemy; it feels a lot more like a SAS or Navy Seal team carefully and methodically sweeping and clearing rooms. And the design of the maps and missions further pushes this with enemies split up into packs and the maps being segmented by terrain and cover again makes it feel like you're sweeping and clearing rooms rather than a full on frantic frontal assault. I think a better way to make players take more risks and play faster would have been to have more enemies to start showing up after the squad is discovered and the longer the mission goes on the more frequent and tougher the enemies get. I would have also liked to see some sort of recognisance system for the non urgent missions such as the assaults on the black sites so that you could have more of a plan and strategy in place and ultimately have to try your best to recover after something inevitably goes wrong.

[@alexanderchristopher6237]

I think that would be best. It also fits well into the whole resistance theme XCOM 2 has. Using intel not just to unlock new territories, but maybe to invest in some recon of the Blacksites or maybe to gain additional benefits in missions. And I like how some missions have enemy reinforcements start showing up after you got discovered and such.

[@hithere5553]

@@alexanderchristopher6237 funny thing is the last(?) mission has exactly that. You spend intel to get an extra soldier, turn off automated defenses, etc. Unfortunately it comes so late in the game you have no problem unlocking all the buffs.

[@arcguardian]

That's the same issue though. If u didn't already accomplish the mission, why would add more enemies fix that. It's still a punishment for playing a strategy game with strategy. Lol.

[@Shoxic666]

If they removed the aliens' ability to get a free move when spotted and instead made it so that when you get spotted you have the rest of that turn to kill all enemies that can see you before the call backup in it'd be so much better, maybe killing them all fast puts you back in concealment too, but the sound draws nearby pods. In WOTC you can beat some missions without ever being spotted and it feels *good.*

[@benmellor8191]

Well thats still your fault it went wrong because you didnt ration your time to ensure you got there.

[@CeramicQuill]

Some of us really enjoy strategically planning the most advantageous spot to clear out crowds of enemies. I love playing cautiously, taking time to observe and plan. I want games to support players who refuse to be sloppy and aggressive.

[@noobatron2663]

This, I have no idea why a lot of games just want the player to be out there. It's not even that much of a default mentality- just look at how difficult Dark Souls is considered by many. Players are a lot less cautious and patient than a lot of devs think.

[@WalrusWinking]

How about a system that reward both styles of play. Because MANY times you'd like to blow shit up instead of hiding- wait SNAKE? SNAAAAAKKKEEEE!!

[@kamerionsmith4551]

@@noobatron2663 Part of learning XCOM is training yourself to take it slow and make the best possible decision. Time limits in Xcom 2 on veteran or higher will get my whole squad slaughtered because they gave me 8 turns to get to a comm relay surrounded by 10 aliens

[@gorschill8456]

Yeah I loved doing it in the first Dragon Age, I had a rogue with maxed out stealth who would scout all the enemies/traps ahead. Then aggro the enemies and lead them back to a choke point where the others had set traps and a mage with AoE spells. Repeat as required and then loot in peace

[@raediaufar5003]

I'm agree, since I'm playing lots of stealth game, it is the most natural way when I approach enemies in most games. I think the dev should also thinks that many types of players are exist. You cannot always force people to be aggressive towards the enemies

[@TheFunniBaconMan]

XCOM Players: I'm gonna play this cautiously and not take unnecessary risks. Firaxis: That's not how you're supposed to play a strategy game.

[@arcguardian]

Also Firaxis: enemies always get better rolls. Also XCOM players: use Mods so we can actually have fun.

[@Shoxic666]

Guerrilla warfare: *is about using surprise, stealth and ambush to overcome superior forces* Xcom 2: lol better sprint across the map blasting as we go!

[@niklasmolen4753]

My experience of XCOM is that you are always punished if you take risks. There are no benefits to taking risks.

[@astroman269]

@@niklasmolen4753 exactly. The 'reward' of maybe killing one alien in one mission is not worth the high risk of losing a soldier in combat forever...

[@buddyboris23]

@@astroman269 And then having to bring weaker soldiers to the next mission, potentially losing more soldiers.

[@tabushka292]

The problem with XCOM 2's turn timers is that it's either all or nothing. If your turn timer is up, then you lost. There is nothing in between. Invisible Inc does a much better job at turn timers. In that game the moment you enter the building the security notices the infiltration but doesn't know where you are yet. So every turn the alarm increases and every 5 turns something new gets added to the map. New cameras, more enemies etc... and after the last alarm stage you don't instantly lose the mission, you will just have a lot more things to worry about and it's going to be a lot harder for you to escape the building with all the new enemies patrolling the map. So you still have an incentive to move quickly but you don't instantly lose if you decide to waste a few turns.

[@junkmail2223]

Agreed! I wanted to see XCOM instead drop enemies on my ass or make my life harder as time went on rather than just instalosing me. This rings especially true on missions which had really short timers and really large stages and might have actually been impossible to win in the time limit.

[@drendelous]

Invisible was so fun to play. I hope they will make Inc2

[@mouthpiece200]

I don't think turn timers are bad, they're just a little too stifling. Add one turn to each map and it should be fine.

[@mouthpiece200]

The problem with the aliens dropping enemies on your ass if that if you are well positioned you could exploit it for farming, getting experience and loot too fast.

[@Carewolf]

The Long War 2 mod does just that. The timers are shorter, but all they do is bring in enemy reinforcement.

[@leonidas14775]

Often, playing a game the way it's meant to be played feels like work.

[@LunarGates]

*cough*cough*destiny2*cough*

[@iamrazor9831]

@@LunarGates sorry I can't play PvP with you rn I have to do some strikes first

[@josephdavis1704]

i mean ig it's ok if you're a big time youtuber or something

[@Superkid33]

Other then certain Mario games. They are usually super fun to me and don’t feel like work.

[@joffles6516]

Yeah imagine if Minecraft got rid of iron farms, witch farms etc. imagine having to mine 40 stacks of iron for a super smelter, or killing hundreds of creepers for one day worth of fireworks

[@Justamith2]

MGSV had this system implemented really well. For those who haven't played, when you use a certain playstyle (sniping for example), then enemies will eventually learn to counter it and this makes you switch your playstyle (if you snipe, the enemy gets counter snipers. If you get a lot of headshots, enemies will wear combat helmets).

[@GMTK]

Yeah! This is a really smart way to get players out of their comfort zone.

[@lmao.3661]

Yeah it made me play the game in different ways and ended up using almost every tool and weapon

[@theolddeus9672]

Didn't make me change my style really at all, just needed better accuracy.

[@frazermarka]

that would be perfect

[@YamiadraDJ]

Yeah I just ended up dumping resources into Armor-Piercing conversions and higher fire power. If you build a stronger wall, I'll find a bigger hammer rather than subvert the wall. Or to put it simply, 'challenge accepted.'

[@TheRageng]

This was a totally new way to look at games for me, thanks!

[@Beardactal]

Neko Katana Long nice b8 m8

[@orangevanim1619]

Its about the general public, and how to make the game appeal to the general public, not the individual I believe. you of course have the choice what game you would play, but the point is to not punish but discourage certain behaviour. when you make a game and make it intended to be played in a way you will understand what he's trying to say.

[@JVW1225]

Neko Katana Long its the developers game. They decide how they want you to play because it is their story to tell. Just like in film and other forms of art the artist handcrafts a specific way for you to interact with that medium. Unless that design includes leaving things a bit more open to the player. You cant handicap every ip because they dont all allow you to do everything you want. Some developers want to give you a specific vision and others want to let you live your vision.

[@RubSomefastOnIt]

Neko Katana Long well I guess you have to make your own game then... until then its not yours, you just own a copy... someone can make a game however they choose and they can enforce whatever rules they like... you don't choose to play by those rules you don't get the experience they intended... Don't like it don't buy the game... you fucking moron...

[@Jamie-tx7pn]

Neko Katana Long I bet you didn't even watch the video. You probably just saw the title and said "That is ridiculous." just like I did, but then I went and actually watched the video. The title may be slightly misleading. Did you even read the description, either? Nothing in this video says that you can't play the way you want to. For example, if you like doing Rambo mode in MGS5TPP then that's fine, but the game is _designed_ as a stealth game and as such it is much more rewarding when played the way it was meant to be played. Stealth games are probably the best example of this. Also, when some people play a game they sometimes do un-fun things such as grinding or farming, which is sometimes not intended. Of course, some people like grinding, though, so maybe not the best example. Back to MGSV, it is also a good example of another point brought up in the video. Instead of punishing players by giving them lower scores, (for example) for playing the same way through the entire game, instead, the enemies will start to adapt to your play-style by countering you, forcing you to change the way you typically approach things. From the description: "A designer’s job often involves making sure players are experiencing the game in the most fun or interesting way. ..."

[@rympha3581]

IMO: With the X-COM2 game, the turn timer got me to take risks, and at first I was ok with it. But the further I got into the game, it became less and less worth it to take risks, and in fact it became punishing since my units were often much higher leveled and geared out. This made it so that you lost a LOT of progress with risks, and it made the game even more difficult when you lost your more powerful resources. Soldiers are hard to raise from scratch the further you get into X-COM, and if all the missions required a time limit with the latest enemies, it made it difficult to get back up to a point where risks could be dealt with. TLDR: XCOM2 forcing you to take risks was fine until late game, since you lost more when risks failed. Because of that it made it harder to deal with risks and starts a downward spiral of stressful gameplay instead of enjoyable.

[@aolson1111]

That's why you rank up multiple squads instead of just hoping that no one ever dies.

[@esspooki3813]

WOTC did a good job encouraging players having more than one squad at max level with the stamina bars

[@JadeStarLP]

This feels strange to me as I feel pretty much the opposite. Things were much riskier in the early game where soldiers may not survive a single enemy hit and had less skills or gadgets to help them out. Almost 100% of my xcom 2 deaths occur before I get the first armor upgrade. Once you have the first level of armor and weapons you start to have so many more options. You can survive a hit or two, you have more items to bring along, your soldiers have more abilities to use to get out of trouble with, and you simply have more soldiers on the field at a time, six vs four. I would contend there is less risk at high levels / late game because of this. Before launch I was very dubious of turn timers. I was not anticipating it to be a good change. But having played through the game multiple times I can say my fears did not come to pass. The turn timers are very generous and usually non consequential unless things are spiraling out of control, where you have bigger problems than a turn timer. The turn timers are just barely tight enough to prevent players from taking multiple turns using half movement and overwatching, the thing Jake disliked in the first game. The turn timers only provide enough pressure that players can't fight a pod, win the fight, and then sit still for a couple of turns recovering. You need to keep moving forward at least a little. Half move and reload, half move and heal, but not sit still and creep.

[@GaneicMehiro]

@@esspooki3813 My soldiers usually get shot enough for it to not be a problem without it XD...

[@elegy8187]

I’m not a game designer and I’ve never played XCOM 2, but I think a better solution to making players take risks and play faster would be to give players extra rewards if they complete the mission under the turn timer, but allow them to keep playing if they don’t. This would incentivise the player to play quickly but allow those who really enjoy playing slowly to keep that playstyle.

[@calebbarnhouse496]

Unless they added more items it wouldn't work well, Xcom 2 has a problem where the amount of extra goodies we could get from completing missions particularly fast either wouldn't really make sense, and outside of just giving us money there's not much else they could do with it, really they should have made the turn limit shorter, but only starts after you do your stealth, because getting the perfect ambush is amazing, and then following it up with a short, but intense assault is very fun, however with the fact aliens have free movement the first time they see you, and the fact they outnumber you, means that you really have to play risk adverse, because if you don't even a low teir enemy can get lucky and crit your soldier and insta kill them, or leave them in a state where they are out of commission for weeks

[@ijamesweb]

1 year after you commented, but I'm pretty sure Mario+Rabbids Kingdom Battle has extra coins for completing the battles within the turn timer as you described. (And also preventing the heroes from being KO'd) It also made a comeback in the sequel's third DLC entitled "Rayman in the Phantom Show", with the turn 'par' being more upfront during battles.

[@isaiahschmit1996]

@@ijamesweb BTW, XCOM, enemy within did introduce timed rewards with meld containers, that give you better items and units, but are timed on missions, which don't fail if not recovered in time.

[@zedudedaniel]

I think the best way that makes infinite sense for the setting is that taking longer means more reinforcements come in. This is already in-game but it should’ve been a core mechanic.

[@Kalnaur]

@@ijamesweb One way i think XCOM could take that page is for certain rewards that might normally be obtainable to be destroyed (self-destruct on enemy corpses/objects), or to even have the aliens cause more damage to the environment the more time they have within a mission (which could come out of your pocket at the end of a mission). If a mission can still be done slow, but it's going to take you many more missions to gain the amount of resources you'd get on less missions completed fast, at least SOME players would 'go for the gold'. Some players, like myself, just aren't going to play risky. We don't have it in us. So for me and those like me, taking longer meaning the game takes longer and building up takes longer is an acceptable result.

[@TheVacras]

I love how Dead Cells handles this topic. I began playing really slow because of the permadeath mechanic. I didn't want to lose all my progress and thus took enemies one by one staying relatively safe. I actually became a little frustrated with the game because I just couldn't finish a certain level and kept on dying. This frustration then translated into me going head on into fights. And holy is dead cells good when you go fast. First of all you get a movement speed boost when you kill enough enemies within a certain period of time. This boost is pretty massive and you will be flying through enemies trying not to get hit. Another factor that encourages this playstyle is similar to the one in bloodbourne where if you get hit you can recover most of your health back by hitting enemies. I actually enjoyed playing the game so fast that I based a build around it (there is a weapon that deals increased dmg if your movement speed is increased) and finished the game the first time with it. Such a great way of encouraging players to play in a fun way, yet not running the fun for those who just want to take it slow.

[@GMTK]

Nice, good example! I like that idea of getting a speed boost for killing enemies. Often in Metroidvanias you start to just ignore all the enemies as you retread old areas but that will keep you fighting I imagine

[@TheVacras]

yeah definitely especially due to the cells you get from enemies you kill. It also features those timed doors that you need to reach within a specific amount of time for them to open, but I felt like they force you to skip crucial upgrades for later stages without giving you enough reward. They only provide cells and gold if I remember correctly so maybe they are a way of "grinding" for your next run instead of your current one.

[@GameDevYal]

The buffs over time is actually a new mechanic introduced in one of the latest major updates, and I have to agree it makes the game a LOT better... previously the game actively promoted sticking around at a safe distance spamming bleed knives or bombs or something, even with the Bloodborne rally mechanic and stuff in place. From what I can tell the buff also increases attack power (so you really want to keep the combo going to be efficient) and makes you be on fire (so running circles around enemies lets you stack up damage-over-time). They've definitely nailed making the FEEL of the buff match its utility, so you instinctively want it.

[@TheVacras]

yeah it's so good that is a feeling of disapointment when you have your chain going but there are no more enemies in close proximity so it will run out inevatible.

[@DarkTwinge]

This is unfortunately still an issue in Dead Cells - they've been taking steps in the right direction, so hopefully they continue to do so. Strong enough skills mean the optimal play against most enemies is to very slowly take them out from relative safety - I still felt I solidly had the best chance of victory via slow and methodical play. Which is indeed unfortunate, because the movement and feeling of melee combo in Dead Cells is *so good*. If they can further discourage boring gameplay and significantly improve enemy variety (especially in the later areas and the bosses), it could easily go from a good game to a great one.

[@LyfSukz]

Well it's pretty hard to justify taking unnecessary risks in XCOM when RNG can screw over an otherwise solid plan, suddenly putting your exposed units into mortal danger. After you've had a 99% hit/100% crit chance attack miss, it's pretty hard to take risks confidently.

[@shawno8253]

Right when your barrel is in them and you miss like aight imma alt f4

[@andrewboyer7544]

@@Ed-1749 underrated comment. Xcom is more fun when bad things go sideways and you find ways to recover.

[@snowpey3751]

Andrew Boyer sure, I get that, I like the permanent deaths for that reason. But missing a 98% shot when you literally have to turn your body 90 degrees to do so is fucking dumb

[@JonathanBreese]

That the point though. Combat is chaotic and dangerous. It's just beyond your control.

[@LyfSukz]

@@JonathanBreese well, yeah, that IS the point. Which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to go out of your way to put your squad in unfavorable situations. That way one small hiccough doesn't create diastrous casualties.

[@Ghost572]

The thing with XCOM is its not fun losing your whole team because your forced to rush in, Especially when your fighting overpowered enemies that can almost one shot your men and you only have 5 while they have 20+ monsters.

[@MossoDaBanana]

The biggest problem is the design they intended vs the style that the game had. It's a turn based strategy game, the fun is not present in taking risks just because, the fun is present in creating a strategy that might look risky, but because of the way you planned it, it will certainly succeed, in other words, it's not about feeling fast, it's about feeling smart.

[@owenst.hilaire7582]

To my mind Xcom is squad level combat. A war game. To my mind a damned good squad leader brings his entire squad home breathing. Taking risks gaurantees you lose some and potentially fail the mission.

[@BrobjeV]

Telescopic sectopods, mah favorite.

[@thisguy1890]

Y'all just admit it. They made it too hard for you.

[@aolson1111]

@@owenst.hilaire7582 Do you think the leaders expected to take zero losses when they ordered their men to storm the beaches of Normandy?

[@rulingdiesout]

Another example I thought of after watching this: In the Yakuza games, using the same Heat Action over and over will gradually reduce the amount of damage that Heat Action does until it's practically useless, especially against bosses. It forces you to get creative and use a variety of different moves, each with different conditions that need to be fulfilled before you use them.

[@KingOfElectricNinjas]

It'd be nice if they actually told you this.

[@Phoenix1212121212]

I think the reason why many people didn't like taking risks in Xcom was because taking a risk in that game was just a throw of the dice. Taking a risk in games where RNG isn't the final deciding factor to whether you make it or not feels more fair because it's just about your own skill holding you back. Furthermore, taking a risk can be fun and exciting but playing for hours and ONLY taking risks will make each new risk feel less exciting and you'd eventually just feel like you're just betting everything on RNG, especially when you try to play the safest way possible and still lose. For this reason I think even the players that do enjoy playing risky would not enjoy Xcom 2 because taking a risk is something you do spontaneously and not frequently.

[@RainbowTrainStation]

Underrated comment. I liked the tactical slow movement in XCOM Enemy Unknown. And risk-taking for me was sprinting ahead instead of moving to the best possible cover, so I could obtain a meld canister or save a civilian... I don't mind risk-taking, when it's occasional and warranted. Moreover, I'll take more risks when I know that my game doesn't simply come down to a dice roll. If I were controlling the characters and could consistently hit enemies in cover, I'd be more inclined to move quickly across the field. But taking a bad risk in XCOM often means a permanent loss, so how does one get to late game and experience the fun of an optimized and effective squad, if they're consistently losing troops?

[@PaperCastleGames]

We ran into this problem of risk, reward and punishment when designing our game's combat system. We used a pseudo turn-based combat, both enemies and the player would attack based on a predetermined amount of stamina, once it was depleted they would get tired and open to attacks. This meant that both the player and the enemies were always vulnerable, keeping you always on your toes. In order to encourage players not to get tired, we designed it in such a way that evading enemy attacks would replenish big chunks of stamina. This meant that evading was your best strategy, since you need stamina to attack. But It used to be different! No one could get tired thus making the players too powerful, the game was too easy. So we added the "tired mechanic" to encourage learning enemy attacks and evading accordingly.

[@ZikShadow]

The turn-based combat with the stamina thing reminds me a lot of Betrayal at Krondor, which has a similar system where you deplete your stamina to move, attack, and defend yourself. Makes it a tough decision whether to cast a huge damaging spell but leaves you vulnerable since it drains a ton of stamina or just fight normally but take more time in combat.

[@U.Inferno]

What game is it?

[@beenis08]

Krale Zero what game?

[@aeteno703]

Underhero, there's some videos on their profile

[@megasoniczxx]

Game looks very cool and it wears its paper Mario inspiration on its sleeve. Definitely looking forward to the finished product.

[@intel_v8488]

I remember when I was playing a frontier survival game, and on part of the screen it was showing tips, and one of the tips was “Dont forget to take breaks and stay hydrated IRL!”. Nice to see that devs care about their players.

[@CErra310]

I mean who's gonna buy their games when we're all dead

[@mgc9965]

Chris Good point

[@faris3727]

the devs for warframe realized that they created a slot machine in the game when they saw that one of the players kept spending money on it. they removed it immediately

[@LukasFink1]

The dev probably was from r/waterniggas

[@KineticManiac]

I swear, an old game from 1998 called KKND 2: Krossfire has a tip that says: "When you get up at night to drink water, make sure to rinse the cup first since there might be a bug in it.".

[@zarinloosli5338]

This also lets players choose their own level of difficulty. If you're just there for the story or the world, you can accept lower scores or fewer drops. The benefit of rewards vs punishments is that it still gives players the CHOICE to play how THEY want. It's a recommendation, not a requirement, from the dev

[@XxTaiMTxX]

The problem with the timer in an X-Com game is that it runs against everything a "Turn Based Strategy" game is. Namely... players don't pick up and play a "Turn Based Strategy" game in order to "rush rush rush". They're playing it to make "the best decisions possible", to "set up for the least amount of mistakes and casualties as possible" and to "be rewarded for making well thought-out decisions". The people who designed X-Com 2... do not understand this. They don't know the core philosophy behind the game they're designing. This is a problem. This is why the timers exist at all. They did get their answer "half" right though. X-Com isn't at its most fun when you "take risks". X-Com is at its most fun when your well-laid plans fall to pieces around you, and you have to think long and hard about how to pick up those pieces and salvage the mission, or as much of it, as you can. It isn't the RISKS that are fun. It's when things happen you don't plan for and it requires you to adapt and change your strategy. It's when things require the player make major decisions about who is and who isn't an acceptable loss. It isn't about "taking risks". The fun of X-Com has always been about MITIGATING YOUR RISKS. Even when things go horribly wrong. The real lesson to be learned here... don't let people design a game when they have no idea what the core tenants of their genre are meant to be... or why players enjoy that sort of game to begin with.

[@masked_mizuki]

One good example of this is Fire Emblem games They rarely ever have a turn counter on a map, and if they do its often one where you can take a bit of your time and optimize a bunch about your strategy, you just might not be able to get all loot, defeat all enemies, which reward EXP, etc. Instead after a while reinforcements regularly arrive somewhere on the map, often in predictable but still disadvantageous positions, and depending on what difficulty you are playing and which game in the series it is, they might already start moving before your turn even starts, meaning they might directly attack you if you let a unit stay too close to one of said spots, which can very likely kill your unit if they arent tanky enough. This makes you strategize about how you can get past those lines where reinforcements start spawning, without leaving anyone in open attack range for many enemies. However you dont know when the reinforcements come in on many maps, meaning while you can strategize how to go over those spots because you have the "where" and "how", the game can easily surprise you and make you change your strategy midbattle by not outright giving you the "when". Overall Fire Emblem has many ways in which your strategy has to be changed midbattle to succeed but you can still optimize it if you are good enough, and due to how much the game gives you on info, said optimization is easily possible, however you never know the exact specifics of some things so that you still need to adapt fairly often, just by pure chance. (The way hitchances and critchances work for example, you never know when you or your enemy might either miss the attack or land a crit, which makes you play different, but you can easily look up these chances for every single battle and predict whether its worth risking it or playing it safer in some way.)

[@LunamrathP]

Excellently put.

[@EduardoSevero]

thanks for typing all that up

[@nativechatter999]

I bet part of the reason the turn timers sucked was also because you just... lose. It's so binary. If they spawned some mega enemy that decimated your squad or something then it could have at least been more interesting than just losing.

[@basedeltazero714]

@@masked_mizuki The problem with this strategy, and why Fire Emblem only spawns a few reinforcements, is that it, in fact, encourages slow and boring play. The optimal strategy is to grind the reinforcements for XP.

[@daikatarokamegawa542]

XCOM was played in the safest, most risk-averse way possible, because literally any other way is suicide, what with the RNG failing a 90% chance shot twice in a row (double shot), and enemies critically hitting a full cover soldier under smoke grenade coverage from 10 tiles away.

[@nVinter]

I never finished any XCOM game because of the RNG combat. It sucks. That plus "full cover" is bullshit. They could've made the cover stances a little bit better than COMPLETELY FULLY ENTIRELY EXPOSED. "He's two feet away even I can make that shot" - Me on every mission.

[@Bertoleyus]

Daikataro Kamegawa Seriously. I swear any percentage chance it says is actually 10-20% lower, unless it's enemy crits. Although I have had a few instances where my troops survived due to bad RNG on the enemy's part.

[@Drintear]

Fun fact: I'm actually a really safe player and when something doesn't go as I want in some games, i tend to reload the last save. That's how I realized that XCom "RNG" wasn't: it's precalculated at the beginning of the missions. So if you do the exactly the same actions, it will end up all the time the same way even if there is 98% of hit chance and the ennemy will shut you down just after with their 5% behind a smoke.

[@whiskizyo2067]

Only reason i never played XCOM for long, no matter how awesome it looked. At the very core of this awesome, tactical turn based squad shooter with awesome base upgrading/management, was pure, unadulterated RNG. RNG at the core of a tactical, turn based game? Why even make a *tactical* game? gg....

[@carnivorousjazz827]

Long War mod includes an optional game modifier that makes flank shots guaranteed hits, and another that makes them guaranteed crits if you want to go that far. I personally think they make the game a hell of a lot more enjoyable, because this goes both directions. You will always hit aliens when you flank them, but they will always hit you when they flank you. Makes the game a lot more about jockying for positioning and playing more aggressively, since playing defensively will eventually backfire. You can try to abuse overwatch, but if the RNG fails you're fucked once the aliens get in a flank spot. Also double failing 90% shots is genuinely just really fucking bad luck. The game lies to you about hit percentages, but it actually generally weights the real hit chance above what it's displaying. It's a psychological thing since players generally assume anything over %50 is practically a guaranteed hit.

[@tbotalpha8133]

I feel like XCOM 2's turn limits would've gone down better if they weren't a hard fail-state, but rather a timer until the aliens started dumping huge numbers of reinforcements on the player, every single turn. This would make the mission infinitely harder to complete, and force the player to decide between cutting their losses and leaving, or trying to complete a mission that's only going to get harder and harder. This way, the player would feel like a goddamned hero when they beat the odds and win.

[@Xicarah]

TBot Alpha Issue with that is by mid-game you have enough stuff(weapons, armor, skills, etc) to more or less wade through the enemy. Not easily mind you but unless the reinforcements are always the higher level, more annoying enemies that wouldn't work. And that by itself gives the problem of those high level enemies not feeling unique enough when Advent has 30 of them waiting on the wings of every mission. If that's the case why don't they just have every mission only have 20 of each clumped up.

[@lazlo686]

TBot Alpha sounds like a great mod to implement

[@DaybreakJones]

Honestly I would purposefully take too long in that case because I feel like XCOM 2 has too few enemies... I like it when there are many weak to medium enemies at the same time in this game.

[@RaithSienar]

lazlo686 That mod already exists and has for a while. I don't remember the name, but I remember reading the description and thinking "huh, that's one way of doing it" before grabbing the True Concealment mod

[@paperplanes101]

Private Switch What about the Lost

[@flow185]

Everyone who played a strategy game knows that taking risk isnt a 50/50 but more of a 90/10. You get wrecked when taking risk

[@lightningvolt3150]

Unless the enemy does it in which case it's a 10/90

[@GrimTheDestroyer]

Anyone who played Pokemon will tell you if it's not 0% it's a 100%

[@d-w-b-c]

When a strategy game tells you the odds are 90/10, they actually are 50/50

[@kitkatkk2]

If it’s not 100% accurate, it’s 50% accurate!

[@OctopusGrift]

XCom enemy unknown had a lot of mechanics that penalized you if you rushed forward. XCom 2 they took none of those mechanics out and just forced you to rush forward.

[@thegrayinthefield8764]

X-COM Apocalypse had consequences if you simply made a mad dash into a UFO or jumped out from cover into an open area. They made up for it by having RT and TB modes. If you're impatient like I am, you could use RT, but if you wanted a near-perfect mission by-the-numbers, then maybe TB is your cup of tea. Apocalypse gave you a choice, XCOM 2 basically shoves it down your throat. If I wanted a fast-paced experience, I'd play doom, not an XCOM game.

[@FurryEskimo]

I personally Love playing games defensively. To me, That’s fun! I like feeling overly prepared so when I encounter a problem I know I’m prepared,, because I prepared. Preparing is something I genuinely enjoy and part of why I loved X-Com 1 and never ended up playing X-Com 2. I don’t like the time pressure and chameleon enemies. Randomness is something many find necessary to enjoy a game, but to me it kills the excitement.

[@fartyfat6539]

i hate enemies that comes in waves. It doesn't matter how prepared you are to gank the enemy because after the they all died than suddenly the next wave already surrounded you.

[@rosaparks6479]

@@fartyfat6539 they dont come in waves. Enemy units move in pods of 3 to 4, which have set patrol paths that they only deviate from when they hear gunfire, explosives, slamming doors, or breaking glass.

[@BigBoss-sm9xj]

i kinda feel the same way

[@lulu111_the_cool]

I find some randomness is OK but not when I miss an 90% hit twice in the campaign.

[@rosaparks6479]

@@lulu111_the_cool why is that not okay? 1 out of every 10 90% shots you take are going to miss on average. If you take 20 90% shots in a campaign, then 2 of them should miss.

[@eegma5596]

4:57 I feel like another big reason why Doom's aggressive playstyle worked so well is the near complete lack of instant charges - most of the stuff the enemies hurl at you can be dodged with relative ease, unlike bullets from your average video game enemy that pretty much inflict damage whenever the enemy looks at you and pulls the trigger.

[@recless8667]

It's not pretty much, it does. Most FPS games use scan-line calculations for bullets, meaning it immediately does damage; there's no travel time. Some games actually do calculate bullet travel like Planetside 2, but for the most part it's just "calculate scatter/accuracy, draw a line. If the line collides with a hitbox, deal damage to the closest hitbox in that line. Play bullet animation."

[@Dargonhuman]

@@recless8667 There's a name for that type of damage calculation: "Hit scanning", and the types of enemies who use it are commonly referred to as hitscanners. Your explanation of hit scanning is perfect, and also why people hate hitscanners in games as their presence removes any chance of strategy or tactics - they are literally "shoot first or get shot" enemies that often get the first shot in for free since you're usually busy dealing with another enemy when the hitscanners enter the battlefield.

[@alexeysaranchev6118]

@@Dargonhuman I think Rory tried to talk about the hit detection mechanic, and you're talking about basically an aimbot for bots. I can see a game with the hit detection like described above, but where bots would take seconds to actually shoot you. All the devs need to do is to make the bots' crosshair move taking time, and not instantly.

[@Dargonhuman]

@@alexeysaranchev6118 No, the bots don't use crosshairs or reticles or anything; the computer simply calculates what objects are in the path of the bullet (also there's no actual bullet either), determines if the first object is penetrable or impenetrable, then calculates the next object in the path until the path is obstructed by an impenetrable object. The same is done for the bullets you fire at enemies, the only reason you have a reticle or crosshair is so you know what path the computer will be calculating trajectory on, but as soon as you press the fire key, the computer does the exact same calculations on the line until it hits an impenetrable object. Slower projectiles do factor speed into the calculations, giving the target time to step out of the invisible line of trajectory before the calculated impact.

[@LeeroniLee]

I think this is honestly one of your most important videos. I've myself made, and played lots of smaller gamejam games where the intention as a designer really took a wrong turn when it came to the execution xD It's why playtesters are also a gamedevs best friend !

[@IanHsieh]

When you talk about XCOM and turn counts, it reminds me of the way Mario + Rabbids handled this. It allow players to take as many turn as they like, but give out a better score for taking less turns.

[@dragonslair951167]

Removing Overwatch would make aggressive close-range enemies very difficult to balance. Without Overwatch, enemies like the Stun Lancer or Chryssalid can just waltz up to your soldiers and take them out with no way to stop it, even if you know they're coming. And without hit chances, the game becomes much more predictable; you can know exactly how much damage you will dish out on your turn and exactly how much damage the enemy will dish out. Thus, you never really need to take risks; you can find the optimal strategy for any given scenario, and once you do, the game's difficulty becomes a joke.

[@poijnve3912]

well you have a 1t? because that complex ia is a few heavy -.-

[@shanelawrence7438]

Screw playing a game in the manner it was intended to, I always know what the game wants me to do. And I end up doing anything but for as long as I can. I beat the water temple in ocarina of time, second from last. (last was shadow temple) for example. Sometime its fun to do anything but what the game wants you to do.

[@Dargonhuman]

That's a philosophy called "emergent gameplay" where the devs intend for one type of play but the players discover through exploits how to play in a completely unintended but still technically legitimate way.

[@pwhnckexstflajizdryvombqug9042]

Shane Lawrence: I agree, doing what you are not supposed to do is almost always more fun than doing what you are supposed to do. It does get boring eventually, but getting sick of video games is always better than the alternative

[@greggeverman5578]

I always play games the way my character in real life would.

[@atomiccomrade5339]

Playing Fallout 4 and doing every possible side quest before saving Preston OR reaching Diamond City

[@ultimategamer2669]

Exactly. Hence why the lesson here is to reward the players for doing what you want them to do rather than punishing the players for doing what you don't want them to do.

[@bobowon5450]

I hated the turn timers in xcom 2 because It essentially made me play every mission exactly the same. At least when there was no turn timers i could choose to do a mission quickly, slowly, moderately, You could use what tactics you wanted rather then having one set best way to play. Turn timers did nothing but limit the best part of the game.

[@Aasha]

By the same logic of being bored because it's too easy without timers: People could be _frustrated_ by the _addition_ of timers. I believe more people complain about the timers than _would_ complain about being bored if the timers didn't exist. It doesn't even matter if players don't want to change their play style up. If they want to play slow and carefully or rush in - even if they choose the same one _every single time_ - that's all them. It's a non-problem.

[@aolson1111]

@@Aasha If it makes the game boring to them, then it is a problem. If a small minority doesn't like it, they can play another game. Or they can mod it out, as the game gives them the choice to do.

[@Aasha]

@@aolson1111 So many points to get into. I have to dissect the response a bit. First off: Deciding for others that they are bored is ludicrous. No one complained the game was boring - that's just words put in others' mouths to justify the decision. Second: When you compare a game being boring with a game being annoying I think annoyance is an _actual_ problem you want to place higher on the list of things to avoid. Third: The small minority are actually the dev sycophants that prefer it the way it is. Not the other way around. check any poll about it online if you want to check that out. Literally the only people that support the decision to include a turn limit are the ones that would support literally anything as long as it was what the developer came up with (i.e. die-hard fans, friends, etc). Fourth: Modding is always available and is a viable option. Yes. But you're kind of using it in a way that suggests others should be responsible for fixing a paid developer's mistakes and poor decisions.

[@aolson1111]

@@Aasha "First off: Deciding for others that they are bored is ludicrous. No one complained the game was boring - that's just words put in others' mouths to justify the decision." I never decided anything for anyone. Meanwhile, you're trying to decide for people that they weren't bored, which is psychotic. Many people complained that overwatch crawling was boring and basically the only way to play, which is the reason they changed the system in the first place. Please stop trying to gaslight people. "Second: When you compare a game being boring with a game being annoying I think annoyance is an actual problem you want to place higher on the list of things to avoid." Nope, it's the opposite. Every popular game has annoying things in them, but no popular game is boring. Also, as already stated, you're free to mod the turn timers out, so it's a non-issue. You're whining just to whine. "Third: The small minority are actually the dev sycophants that prefer it the way it is. Not the other way around. check any poll about it online if you want to check that out." Please provide the neutral, statistically relevant poll with random sampling that backs up your claim, or you're a liar. (Psst, we already know you're a liar.) "Literally the only people that support the decision to include a turn limit are the ones that would support literally anything as long as it was what the developer came up with" Actually, the only people who want the timer removed are people who like to whine, because it is simple to mod it out. And then there's you, who is so entitled that you believe that you alone should be able to dictate what games people develop and what games people are allowed to play. "Fourth: Modding is always available and is a viable option. Yes. But you're kind of using it in a way that suggests others should be responsible for fixing a paid developer's mistakes and poor decisions." They didn't make a mistake, XCOM 2 is vastly more popular than XCOM 1, according to Steam Charts. And there's good news for you, because I already gave you a second option if you're incapable of installing a simple mod: don't play the game. Sorry, but dictating the games people are allowed to play play is not one of your options.

[@Aasha]

@@aolson1111 sorry man. I checked out of this conversation about 2 years ago.

[@DoneDragon1]

Long story short, people respond better to rewards compared to punishments

[@scottrauch1261]

Especially when they are being punished to do something that increases the likelihood of being punished

[@Anomen77]

I have another example of positive vs negative encouragement. In this case, it's how some tower defenses encourage you to use different towers/traps: Positive -> Orcs Must Die: If you damage an enemy with different damage types (fire,bleed,stun,chill) you'll build up combos and earn extra money to spend on more traps. Negative -> Dungeon Warfare: Building 5 of more of the same trap makes each new one cost additional resources. Both of them have the same end result: If you use a lot of the same trap you'll have less money to build stuff, but one feels rewarding and the other one punishing.

[@jamoecw]

sounds like the towers in dungeon warfare may not be balanced very well.

[@Humble197]

sounds more like so you change up your style.

[@benjaminbeltran7004]

Arbitrary time limits or turn limits are the most horrible way to guide a player into a different play-style. In fact the whole idea of "forcing" the player is just awful. Personally I LOVE playing methodically. And it already comes with a built in penalty which is wasting REAL LIFE time. Which is the most precious resource of them all. However I prefer to tackle ONE dungeon in a methodical slow pace rather than rushing 2 or 3 story missions. In MGSV I'm the guy who goes full stealth (even though I used to hate stealth) and each time I manage to capture a guard and put him to sleep without triggering any alarms It feels like a victory to me. Some of us, gamers, just enjoy the process, the ride, and not only the "triumph".

[@ianiams1225]

Agreed

[@TruthWillFreeYou]

Honestly, the triumph is only a cheap illusion. Like you said: It's the journey that counts. These things are subjective. I think it's time we save these companies from themselves. :)

[@Alloveck]

Yeah, I don't like time/turn limits in the first place, but it's the arbitrary ones I absolutely despise. If the game's going to rush me, there'd better at least be some in-universe logic to why it matters how quickly I do the level/mission/whatever, that makes it a lot easier to tolerate than some disembodied timer that's rushing me for no reason at all but the sake of rushing. Though I'd still say that ideally time just doesn't matter at all, be it punishment for taking too long or bonuses for doing it faster. Either way gets in the way of my fun, I get more than enough of worrying about deadlines and limited time in real life and always hate being rushed in anything ever. I don't need it in my disposable fun time hobby too. Time limits go with enemies that infinitely respawn on the spot and tightly restrictive and/or repetitive inventory management in my "never makes a game better" list.

[@Alloveck]

@Nub93 Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that. In that case, the time limits would be a bit more tolerable. But even an internally justified time limit is still worse than none at all in my opinion.

[@SamusKerrigan]

I would love Turricans without timers, and I dont give af about the good endings in the Metroid games lol, I enjoy the exploration and time invested, like leveling up to 99 in CastleVania Circle of the Moon and the like, to kill everything in one hit lol

[@shaamaan]

Given how punishing XCom can be if you lose soldiers (heck, even getting a soldier damaged is dangerous unless you have reserve soldiers of proper level), I'm really surprised the designers felt this way about the game. In fact, it feels like the game actively punishes players for playing the way the lead designer seems to think the game should be played. Play fast, and you'll get damaged and get soldiers killed. Those aren't good things. In that particular example, I'm absolutely on-board with those limit-removing mods or the out-cry in general. Besides, I always thought XCom is a TACTICAL game. Going all in and taking stupid risks feels like the exact opposite of what a TACTICAL game should be.

[@RaithSienar]

Question: You KNOW how "punishing" it is if a soldier is wounded/killed and you don't have an adequate replacement, therefore WHY DON'T YOU HAVE AN ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT READY? There is nothing stopping you from leveling 2-5 squads in a campaign at the same time, but for some damn reason people keep on trying to win the game only using 1 squad and never leveling anyone else, then when someone gets killed they start whining about how the game is too hard or the turn timers are too limiting (because now they are acting too cautious). XCOM 2 is fuckin easy, it's easier than XCOM EU and EW were, power creep with your soldiers is so damn high that by the time you hit mid game you should be more than capable of steam rolling anything that gets in your way with nothing more than two sectopods, or a sectopod and an andromedon together being the only things remotely threatening to you. Sidenote, have you even played XCOM 2? The only people that complain about turn limits are people that are overwatch crawlers, there is more than enough time in the default turn limits to play the game tactically.

[@fettgummie9685]

because getting an adequat replacement takes like 10-15 missons when you are a bit into a game and if they die before you can have replacement ready because you are forced to rush its stupid

[@RaithSienar]

Fettgummie Why are you leveling only one squad at once? That's stupid, you have no one but yourself to blame because you, and not the game, decided to put all your eggs in one basket and only have one squad.

[@nokashii3375]

Raith i'd rather have one squad of experienced and high leveled soldiers than multiple mediocre squads. Yes, if you only have one squad then it is a big hit when a soldier dies but it rarely happens. If you have multiple mediocre squads then a dead soldier wont have as much of an impact but you will have far more casualties.

[@RaithSienar]

...So 1 squad of maxed out soldiers with 80+ kills each is somehow superior to 4 squads of maxed out soldiers with 30-40 kills each? Do you even know how the game works? Hell, you don't even have to do this all at once (though why you wouldn't want to I'll never know) you could just replace soldiers in the squad who hit max rank with lower-tier soldiers till they also hit max and that way you are constantly leveling troops instead of sending max level soldiers out on the random missions wasting all the xp they are earning.

[@drealeadragon]

To be fair, game designers can have some incredibly dumb ideas about what a fun player experience is. Playing xcom risky will ruin your hours long play through, but the complete lack of risk to pokemon is what lead to the entire nuzlocke community. Minecraft optimises no type of game play and is incredibly popular for it, and let's the players make up their own rules.

[@nightmareTomek]

And those designers with their dumb ideas usually use phrases like "we need to protect players from themselves" as lame excuses to get their way and ruin a potentially good game. I hate this phrase.

[@Scaryland42]

I agree

[@animarthur5297]

Minecraft also isn't perfect on that regard. Mojang expected players to not grind XP for enchanting and just slowly gather it as they did other things. The result? XP farms, trading halls, and other exploit-ish contraptions that are a pain to make - just to get through a key stage of progression.

[@loafofbread9400]

90% of the mechanics in pokemon arent used because the game is for kids, hell even teens and adults dont know how to play pokemon

[@Legendendear]

@@animarthur5297 I dare you to play minecraft the way its "intended" Dont build farms, grind slowly towards what you need. I did that a few years ago. Did monster hunting to get enough xp for enchanting stuff. It was really painful. Now in my current world i've set up a couble cave spider farm and boy oh boy. The investment was worth it

[@Soulsphere001]

I hate time limits in games, which is why I hated the time limit in XCOM 2 and it's the main reason I played the game on the easy difficulty. On easy, the timers are much more reasonable. I suppose I can understand why the time limit exists, but the game is suppose to be about being cautious because many enemies can kill one of your squad units in a single hit. And losing units can mean the end. That's also why it took me some time to get used to Splunky. At first I despised the ghost, but over time I started to like it a bit, though I haven't played much since I stopped playing years back. I wanted to figure out a good setup for keyboard controls and then I got distracted by other things. I'll probably get back to it someday.

[@jacobsummers3441]

The game also places you in the role of a commander of a team of guerillas. So you must strike hard and strike fast. I also don't like timers in games, so if you play the game with the Real Concealment mod (I forgot the actual name) where the timer only starts when your team is detected, playing on higher difficulties is really enjoyable than just playing on easy mode. I have always wondered why the timer is already running as soon as you land on the field. This mod solves this problem, while maintaining the time pressure of the game.

[@Red-wb2ey]

Some of my favorite moments in XCOM 2 were because of the time limit. The trick is to figure out the pace that the devs intended your squad to use in missions, quickly pushing forward and slipping through enemies. You need to figure out how to remove RNG from the battles and have safety nets in place for bad rolls. I found that the first few turns you had to dart forward as fast as possible, carefully placing your units to correspond to a strategy concieved before hand. By the second or third turn you gotta start combat, and generally speaking you can finish the timed objective before untimed objectives, i.e. destroy the relay then kill all the aliens. I personally really love the extraction missions. They were tense because of the high stakes. They had this insanity towards the end of them where you hot evac your units, or they had this sense of power when you left an empty battlefield of alien corpses. But that was only possible because of the turn timer.

[@Winasaurus]

@@Red-wb2ey Yeah exactly this. It feels like people play how they think they should, then get mad that the timer is ruining it without thinking of the alternatives. A little experimentation reveals that it's very rare for enemies to spot your soldiers full sprinting from the start zone. In fact, they are usually perfectly distanced so you can spot them with a full sprint, while still being concealed. A little forethought says that turrets might be on the roof, leave your psi op till last so he can stasis anyone in deep shit, pack smokes/flashes to deal with surprise pods. It feels like it's been executed perfectly, but a lot of players are so used to spamming overwatch in total safety they forget to make safety nets and think about minimizing RNG. Grenades are guaranteed damage, but not much of it. Mimic beacons are essentially a free turn against most enemies. Stasis/the one where you can't die but go into stasis can be used for extremely aggressive pushes. Realising chrysalid/viper grab/lost/archon grab/berserker are all totally hard countered by bladestorm rangers. With the addition of teamwork actions in WOTC the options you have on a single turn are frankly ridiculous, but it feels like too many people just move, shoot, whine they didn't hit the 90% when it could have been 100% with cover destruction, or holo-target, or flanking, or height advantage, or combat protocol, or they could have seen them coming with scanners.

[@Red-wb2ey]

@@Winasaurus Exactly! And with some experience you can even figure out where the pods spawn in. There's usually one behind the objective, one with the objective, and 2 side by side along the way. With that in mind, you can get some excellent pacing of battles in.

[@Winasaurus]

@@Red-wb2ey Most of the time yeah, there are some missions I get caught out by there being a full pod on a roof, or a couple pods converge away, so I get in no fights for a suspiciously long time and get dogpiled by 2 at once. But that's why you bring mimic beacons and psi ops and flashes.

[@FureyinHD]

I hate the grading in DMC. Me: wow, I had fun in that level and I really kicked ass Game: E- wow try harder please Edward Sausagefingers 😒

[@texteel]

There must be a hyperbole there somewhere. Sword-Sword-Launcher-followup-airsword-airsword-downsword-stinger is a very basic combo, but should be enough for a B.

[@chrisbutler9594]

@@texteel A: Not everyone plays combo centric, and b: Telling people how to play your game, might as well make it into a movie because you're taking control away from them.

[@texteel]

@@chrisbutler9594 A) its possible they chose the wrong game then. DMC was always about the insane variety of sword and gun attacks chained together, especially when in 3, they put in a thing that wont let you raise your style meter by spamming the same 3 attacks. Yes, people are free to play it differently. May you use only rebellion combo A during an entire playthrough, I will try not to care. But if you get a D for style, do not be surprised. B) are you telling that to me, or about the game in general? I wasnt "telling people how to play the game", I was using a VERY basic example. If you are implying its the game itself "telling people how to play", wrong once again. but for a different reason. The game isnt "telling" players to do anything. Its not pausing itself, or deduct health or anything, it isnt punishing you for not doing that 1 specific thing it wants you to do. If you want to get an SSS style for the afforementioned "rebellion A combo only", but you dont get it, its not the game's fault

[@chrisbutler9594]

@@texteel Nono, I was speaking in terms of game designers, not you directly (unless of course you were on DMC's development team then yes) And yeah I understand that. The problem comes that it comes off not as "ranking" but "you're not good enough". It also has problems when they lock content behind it, like older games did (example: Bubble Bobble required a partner to get the true ending, many games required you to play on hard to get the end of the game), it becomes a problem.

[@texteel]

@@chrisbutler9594 ah, I see. Thank you for clearing it up.

[@gorbon4212]

Game designers then: Game designers now: let’s introduce gambling into the game with real life money to unlock in game items

[@Wadeaminutemate]

*Protecting gamers from themselves since 2018*

[@sagichdirdochnicht4653]

*Publishers. I believe most Game Designers and Studios are pasionate about games and want to make good games. They are just forced into Microtransactons and Shit, because of the Publishers, that will give them all the money needed for developement. Here's a Pro Tip: DONT FUCKING BUY EA GAMES, GOD DAMN. And don't fucking buy ANY game with Microtransactions. It's THAT simple. Cause guess what? If they can't sell games with microtransactions, they ain't gonna implement it in the feautre. Unfortunately the Brain of an average Gamer appears to be as one of a mentally ill Chicken, so most will shove down Money to Publishers Mouths, that will rape Players Wallets, because they cann. Play some indie Titles. Play some older Titles. Play Nintendo eg (they actually give you full games without Microtransactions and Lootboxes), play (pay) any game you want, that doesn't have microtransactions. And if those games you want to play have microtransactions, pirate them. If all gamers had a brain, Lootboxes and Microtransactions wouldn't exist in the first place. And if nobody would pay for this shit, no game would have that mechanics.

[@basedeltazero714]

@@sagichdirdochnicht4653 "And if those games you want to play have microtransactions, pirate them." ... you realize, of course, that this won't actually stop the microtransactions. It's the same game and it is.. significantly difficult to actually spoof the microtransaction system. And given how much money micros-transactions make, they frankly don't give a damn if you pirate the base game... actually, pirating games really just encourages them to go more into ongoing revenue streams. And while you can 'just not pay the microtransactions' that doesn't change the fact the game is built around them. Meanwhile, most people don't spend much on microtransactions. A few spend a bit, the majority spend none, and a small number of people with addictive personalities spend tons. "Play Nintendo eg (they actually give you full games without Microtransactions and Lootboxes)" Not anymore!

[@hornetsilksong]

Lol instead of player-proofing their game they set up lures and traps instead

[@Morgan_of_the_Maxilla]

Gorbon Stop worshipping the past, companies have always made developers make games in the way that makes them money.

[@MegaChickenfish]

This makes a lot of Doom Eternal's design decisions make more sense. There's a *ton* less ammo and access to the chainsaw, to the point where, rather than picking the gun you like the most and blasting away without a care, especially in tandem with the weak points mechanic, you absolutely need to utilize your entire arsenal to kill baddies. There might be ways to do it with more than one weapon, but never with *any* weapon. Try taking down an arachnotron with the rocket launcher and you'll meet a swift end, but whip out that plasma rifle upgrade you never used in the first game and blast them close range and boom, off goes that pain in the butt turret and they become trivial.

[@alecmiller5296]

I prefer just to shoot the turret with the sticky bomb from the shotgun

[@BossZnakemaster]

The only mechanic i've really hated to deal with in games is enemies that respawn unless you progress. Back with the classic Call of Duty titles, it was impossible to use cover and cautiously take out enemies before you progress because they would keep respawning. This is one of the most bullshit mechanics i can think of.

[@Cyfrik]

Developers: "Player, why aren't you pushing forward?" Player: "Because the area isn't clear. There are still enemies over there. Running across open ground into a crowd of them is dumb and will get me killed." Developers: "Oh. Well, we have just the thing to push you forward. Throw in more enemies!" Player: "No, that's the opposite of what I-" Developers: "More enemies, incoming!" Seriously though. The enemies-respawn-until-you-progress thing, and its increasing popularity in recent years, is one of the main reasons I almost never play FPSes anymore.

[@scottsommer9843]

Halo did it right with the library because you fought less enemies being aggressive than playing safe. You can outrace the spawn timer and get good benefits. Unfortunitly, because Halo is successful, many tried and failed to copy it.

[@JorgetePanete]

Borderlands... "Hmm... this machine gun looks bett- WHY ARE TEN LANCE OFFICERS SHOOTING ME??"

[@JorgetePanete]

I mean, Borderlands is great, with some small flaws but great, but this specific thing... I take more than ten minutes to compare loot (I also enjoy doing it)

[@CaptainDoomsday]

@@Cyfrik Obviously you need to play it like a realistic war simulation and sprint past people shooting you.

[@andyhoov]

I remember trying to play the Xcom reboot. My sniper is clear across the level behind half-cover facing off against a standard alien with a little laser pistol. I miss. Alien attacks and crits for a one-hit kill. And I'm done.

[@KomodoNameless]

Same reason I quit Xcom 1 and never even looked at Xcom 2. Loved the original three, but this remake was utter bullshit. Tutorial: Let me teach you about flanking and cover. Gameplay: Actually none of this matters, just die. And don't even think about reloading, we've made sure to use a seed so you get crit-shot-one-shot no matter what you do, fuck you.

[@aolson1111]

@@KomodoNameless Don't lie. If you were actually a fan of the originals, then you would know that you could get one shot by an alien off screen that you hadn't discovered, or your entire team could get nuked before they even stepped off the skyranger. The originals were much more "unfair" than the modern games, not that you'd know that. You're just angry that you're unable to learn how to play the game.

[@Grim_Pinata]

@@aolson1111 I don't understand why OG "veteran" XCOM players try to use unfair RNG as a slight against the reboot games when it's literally been what gives the series it's flavour since day one. I just don't get it.

[@darthvaderreviews6926]

@@Grim_Pinata Agreed, it's pretty ridiculous especially when you know XCOM: Enemy Unknown actually uses some behind-the-scenes RNG modifiers (a little like Fire Emblem) to try and lower the BS. I'm okay with you saying "yeah, XCOM's got too much RNG for me", but to argue the remakes have too much RNG while the originals somehow don't is laughable. With that said, one area I really think the XCOM reboots screwed up on was the enemy aggro system and that's IMO the #1 issue with the turn timer, even more so than the negative feedback loop of losing soldiers. In the originals, the aliens are simply there and behave as usual, and can even get the drop on you, but in Enemy Unknown/XCOM 2, the aliens are in prepackaged "packs" and will trigger their actual AI beyond extremely rudimentary patrols only when you alert them. It's a pretty ridiculous system that is what gave birth to the overwatch crawl strategy in the first place, as if you do decide to rush instead of checking every corner tactically, you're essentially leaving things up to RNG as to how difficult a fight you're going to get. You might alert two Sectoids or might pull ten different aliens at once and you have absolutely no way of knowing.

[@animal8100]

@@KomodoNameless try out the mod XcomFiles for the original ufo defence.

[@BAIGAMING]

Respectfully, I see the points that you make with the Xcom 2 timer, but I just don't think it was a good idea at all. It makes a lot of the newer players panic badly - just the presence of timers make many players choke. I feel like it was also possible to get a very bad mission with the same generalized countdown timer, I found myself restarting a lot more in the second game. I don't play on the hardest difficulties, usually just on normal, but I definitely found Xcom 2 harder than Xcom 1, playing blindly. Maybe they should've had an option to toggle the timer on/off?

[@longislandlegoboy]

Xcom 2 is definitely a harder game. There is no doubt. I think it takes a play-through or 2 to really understand the game and how to be really damn good at it and choose optimally in risks vs rewards

[@daskebabibnahmedal-kohol8119]

To me, the timers are sometime unrealistic, why would advent set a bomb ticking on their supplies even though they still didn't see me coming?

[@longislandlegoboy]

They see the sky-ranger, know xcom is there but not where they are, and they dont want to risk giving up data?

[@daskebabibnahmedal-kohol8119]

Theres a few mission where the team already dropped it. I guess my main issue is how the timer get used in way, way too many missions. That's why I love the True Concealment mod rather than the disable timer.

[@Lugbzurg]

This is definitely a case of a variable that should be taken into account for difficulty levels. Perhaps the easiest setting gives you infinite turns, a standard easy mode gives you more turns than you should reasonably need (but still finite), and they just get shorter and shorter from Normal Mode onwards.

[@bluesoman]

Timed missions are one of my least favorite mechanics in any game. I want to take exactly how long I want to take to explore a level. Developers also need to not impose what they think is fun so harshly because often times they are completely wrong because not everyone gets fun out of a game the same way.

[@pigggy2313]

Not every game is made for everyone. When you make games for everyone, you’re Ubisoft. No one wants that. Takes risks, some people will hate it, but most will love it. If you don’t take risks, gaming gets stale

[@TristanCleveland]

I feel like timed gameplay can be fun if you can try over and over again, making it a skill you have to hone. I don't find it fun though if I have only one shot at it.

[@loafofbread9400]

Developers dont need to care for every single person, if you dont like the game drop it, ive seen countless of poor community feedback nonsense, from runescape to ultrakill

[@bobojenkins5805]

But I would have liked the game if I wasn't rushed.

[@howwwwwwwwwww]

"Players optimitize the fun out of a game" Garry's Mod would like to speak with you

[@theman-cn6gz]

Its true though min/maxing all the time sucks.

[@DisKorruptd]

TTT: Detective can use special area that tells you whether or not a player is a traitor, so outside of the traitors, everyone will want to go straight there first, and if you say you dont wanna go there, you're outed real quick, if you are in a group who gets stuck in with a traitor, what's to stop the people from just killing all 3 of you to make sure the traitor is killed? Everyone going to one room and waiting to kill groups of 3 isnt fun

[@alexeysaranchev6118]

@@DisKorruptd TTT is a completely different game/mode than the basic GMod though.

[@lordvoldemort8742]

What's a Garry's mod

[@alexeysaranchev6118]

@@lordvoldemort8742 A source engine-based sandbox.

[@bobbywilson7662]

I acctually enjoyed playing com slow and steady and had no problems waiting out a few turns trying to kite the enemy into my array of soldiers all on overwatch in highly strategic placement that made me feel truly great. And I did try to play Xcom fast for some of the levels but just ended up hating it when the guy I really enjoyed using got shot cause there where 3 aliens all huddled there waiting, it was not fun even if I beat the level cause I Took more damage then I should have and felt like a failure from the dumb decisions. In the end x-com 1 was one of the very few games I ever played to completion and I did it without loosing a single unit in the process because I was smart and methodical, and left me feeling truly accomplished. Had I raced thru the whole game like a rabies infested raccoon like they wanted then I’d be depressed and pissed that I allowed so many units to be lost, I’d be beating myself up thinking on all the actions and moves that where pointless and only done cause I was impatient.

[@snowpey3751]

100% agree. I’m not a great strategist as it is, but I would be better if I wasn’t forced to rush across the map because the clock is ticking. I got people killed solely because I needed to get that data uploaded/objective destroyed and I didn’t have the time to be clever about it.

[@MrYzan]

It is also exactly how a SMALL resistance movement WOULD act in such a situation. You have a few number of troops who are highly trained and know what they're doing. In an actual special OP, you don't just Leeroy into the building, you take time to plan, set ambushes, ect, ect.

[@phant0]

"BuT yOu'Re PlAyInG tHe GaMe WrOnG!" - Arrogantly ignorant game designer.

[@chadadamjensen9441]

Tbh if you can't beat 3 lousy pods in 8 turns you are the problem man.

[@bobbywilson7662]

@@chadadamjensen9441 who said i couldn't, doing that isn't hard, but you don't know what else could be lurking in the room, sure it's a video game but at any turn you could pop around a corner to be met with 5 guys sitting in waiting. but taking it carefully and peeking around every corner minimizes the risk drastically.

[@ogg7309]

Developers: "nO STOP YOU'RE HAVING THE WRONG TYPE OF FUN"

[@WiseSam95]

I downloaded bloodborne for free on playstation plus, and it sat in my library for several months. Yesterday I decided to whip it out and give it a go. I got about 2 hours into it before I got bogged down by the death system and the save system. You have to upload and download to and from the cloud to save your game manually, and when you die all of your money drops on the ground where you died, so when you come back to collect your money, you have to fight the same monster(s) that killed you the last time. Also... all of the monsters in the level are respawned which is nice in that it gives you a way to generate money but is not nice because it's just more tedium that you have to go through on the way to collecting your money off the ground. Ended up uninstalling the game because I felt the death system was too punishing and annoying to recover from. I'm used to Destiny where death is punished in certain areas (darkness zones), but even in those areas if you die you'll just respawn from a checkpoint and you just jump right back in.

[@dkkr7526]

thewisesamgamgee The game auto saves. If you exit the game, then enter it you’ll be back where you stopped with all the progress you made still there. Deaths in Bloodborne have stakes, dying means something, it’s something to be scared of, something to learn from. If you didn’t like it whatever, but it’s something you need to get used to.

[@akba666]

And that quote is terrible. Who are you to tell me what is fun for me. May be optimization IS the fun.

[@AsatorIV]

Exactly! That's actually a thing I really enjoy!

[@akba666]

What a dumb argument. Video games are entertainment products. Their point is to entertain the masses. Providing a challenge can be a part of that but it's certainly not the main point. You can make a case of first games in a series that certain mechanics are design choices to target specific demographics but for sequels those same mechanics are basically them telling me I was having fun wrong. In fact, the conclusion of the video is basically don't tell players they are having fun wrong, make the intended experience more fun instead.

[@tyfus8921]

Imagine being a channel so good, it is recomended to University students doing GameDesign, and then the students say "well, yeah we all kinda follow the channel already". Keep up the good work, it's incredibly useful!

[@nonactiveaccount6800]

Honestly a player should be able to play how they like. Still encourage a play style. But don't force it.

[@yeet3030]

James The American dark souls then

[@edgepixel8467]

I hate timed missions

[@Sethiol73]

Honestly, players are allowed to play as they like, just like in life you can do whatever you like, but there are consequences for every action. It seems that, just as in life, alot of players dont want to deal with consequence. They feel as if life should be without punishment because Im a snowflake and I shouldnt have to live with consequence, even if I knew the consequence for the action would be negative. Its amazing how art imitates life, or is it life imitating art? Eitherway, snowflakes will be snowflakes

[@Sethiol73]

Ed Gepixel if that's all you got from my message is "snowflake", I'm sorry that public education and/or college education has failed you. It's not overly shocking, seeing as most college's are more interested in protecting today's student instead of preparing them for life's hard realities, that nothing is fair, life sucks, no one really cares about how you feel, and it doesn't matter what you think, it's what you do that counts.

[@edgepixel8467]

So... Mr. Know-It-All, we were talking about *game design*, and you jumped in to wax existential all over it. I'm sorry your MBA didn't teach you some synonyms to snowflake. That word is worn thin by overuse.

[@MrPatrickHenryCheryl]

"Who are you to tell me I'm not supposed to use a spoon to cut steak? That that's not what it's _designed for?_ I, the eater, decide what silverware I will use on which foods." **proceeds to eat soup with a fork**

[@sunpowerguru3993]

Right. I don't play games where wanna-be Stalin designers force me to play one way or another. I play MY vision of the game, not their's.

[@DUbZXtreme]

Game Developers: YOU'RE HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY!

[@DCJoker10]

You supported the video by the ending of your comment. Idk if that was purposeful or if you're that oblivious

[@MrPatrickHenryCheryl]

Yes, I was poking fun at the dissenting comments here who didn't follow the point of the video.

[@IuseName]

*WHATS WITH THE READ MORE*

[@brjoey]

If XCOM wanted the player to take more risks, then they needed to make it far less punishing to fail missions, and make it OK to occasionally retreat from a mission. Not add often arbitrary and nonsensical turn limit timers. I'll say for the record that my issue isn't with the concept of the timers, but with their implementation in the game. In XCOM, the aliens snowball super hard if you fail even one mission, in addition to the fact that failing a mission usually meant all of your best soldiers were dead. So not only did the enemies get tougher, but YOU get substantially weaker. So I have no idea what the designer was expecting people to do when you basically lose the whole game for failing just 1 mission.

[@dannylamb456]

Funnily enough, Enemy Within did it perfectly with Meld. "You want the super-robots and gene mods? Be quick about it. You want to overwatch camp? Sure, but you won't get the super-robots and gene mods." Even without Meld, it is possible to beat Enemy Within since you still have psionic soldiers. Especially since the new weapons and even the reskins (EXALT weapons) help with arming your un-Melded fellows. XCOM 2's turn limit is absolutely arbitrary. How do the aliens know that you're there and are ready to delete their data or whatever but their mooks have no clue that you're there?

[@victor93532]

They should instead start the timer when you get spotted, so you can be cautious at the beginning to prepare your forces.

[@LordIvor6]

How they should;ve fixed it is to make it so the particular objective 'depletes', so if you run out of time you still get something out of it, also makes you aim to get as much out of it as possible. There were times where I just suicided a guy in to secure the objective, then realized that my soldier was worth far more than the mission reward.

[@qikink1]

Which is the point of the turn timers. Without a meaningful tension between two choices, it's not really a choice at all. Instead it's just a quiz "Have you figured out that avoiding any and all risk is the optimal way to play? Are you feeling patient enough to execute that today?" The only way to introduce tension is to set up outcomes that are equally bad. Because missing out on Meld (in EW) was so far preferable to failing a mission, there remained little incentive to take more than very minor risks. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but to me games are about making choices. Learning to make correct choices, and therefore coming out on top, is what feels most rewarding to me. Because moving slowly is such a huge advantage towards mission success, the only meaningful tension you can introduce is by threatening actual mission failure. If I'm given an easy decision e.g. move quickly for little to no gain, vs. move slowly and maximize my chance of victory it's going to be much less satisfying when 5 missions in I realize what the right choice is, and make that same choice mission after mission. If on the other hand, I'm faced with a hard choice, where erring too far in *either* direction will cause me to lose, learning to correctly evaluate and make that decision is going to be much more fulfilling, interesting, and ultimately fun.

[@brjoey]

That's all well and good. However, you never get the chance to figure that out in one game. That kind of trial and error gameplay doesn't work when you have virtually no margin for error.

[@ScaerieTale]

This video is amazing. I was prototyping a small 2d platformer where the player's throwing knives replenish slowly, and where enemies get harder the longer you stay on a level. Neither of these were fun, and now I can see why. Turning that on its head has given me SO many cool ideas! Two thoughts I have already are giving the enemy a higher chance to drop throwing knives when killed by a melee attack, and adding a simple combo system that boosts the player's speed the more kills they've racked up, maybe a small % health regen bonus or health orb spawn chance

[@GMTK]

I've released a bonus video, related to this one, with some other solutions to the turn timer problem. Check it out here - kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3K5l2qol5V8ra8

[@Trakesh]

Just watched this video for the first time. As someone who has played the old XCOM and the new the whole turn timer thing was awful in its inception and also the idea that the game should be fast seems to be a case of completely missing the point of the franchise in the first place. Besides that, the game actively discourages fast gameplay. When enemies spot you they actively run into cover unlike the previous games and you can only take two actions which heavily HEAVILY encourages you to take it slow and think about what you are going to do, something also new to the NU-COM games. So the designers first made the game much much slower than necessary and then in the sequel added a timer that directly conflicted with the intentionally slow design of the previous games. If the dev had had decent designers in the first place, they wouldn't have either of those things and the slow paced gameplay would never have been such a prominent trend in the games themselves. And yes I am going to claim that Firaxis' designers are bad based on how they handled the franchise. If people disagree then they can disagree with that. They're the source of their own problems and I can't say they deserve to be called decent designers after these games. Now Im going back to the newer video.

[@Parker--]

The timer should have led to a bunch of extra enemies and loss of a challenge bonus while lessening the "standard" amount of xp, resources, etc. gained, similar to the wow example above. It keeps the game practically just as hard but forces the player to learn the severity on their own rather than what feels like an artificial limitation.

[@samuraireflection]

hey mark, you should make a video about how to reward the players and why its important, I think its important to mention fighting games on this video I have ideas for it so if I could help and you could write me back mark, that would be great.

[@xmanqueros]

K

[@brokengames9020]

Best way to protect the players, actually whole civilization, society, humanity... By adding and exploiting mechanics lootboxes and macrotransactions. Long live bli$$ard, WeinerBroz, antivision, urinesoft, chEAt... #mafiAAAgames you name it the already broke it.

[@missingn0o]

Meanwhile in DS2: "Yeah, sure you can kill the fire keeper. You'll even get an item for it. Oh and also you can never level up again without paying an outrageous sum this playtrough"

[@shawno8253]

IMO D2 needs a overhaul the game is broken from years of trying to fix it with activision on them

[@DaniHawkTV]

@@shawno8253 ds2 is dark souls 2 not destiny 2

[@shawno8253]

@@DaniHawkTV oh my bad

[@mismis3153]

@@shawno8253 What did you associate "firekeeper" with in D2 ?

[@الدجاجالقيمر]

I agree this is stuped but WHY DID YOU KILL HER?

[@gavart4509]

Designer: okay, so we put fire here so they don’t go there Me: “I wonder if this fire will kill me” *jumps into it*

[@jerrygreenest]

That is exactly how I act in games. I learn each one from ground zero like a child, and my main rule is "what if...", for example: Spawn me at some level, - and first thing I will try is going back.

[@WolfbloodJakeWilliams]

Personally, I wish games would just leave us alone and let us play however we like. I struggle to enjoy games that grade you because I feel like I'm better off watching a let's play if there's a specific way it's supposed to be done, doing it myself and getting a substandard score just makes me feel like I'm fumbling my way though and makes any strategy but one feel invalid. Take a racing game. I don't mind a system that gives you a better score for coming in first as opposed to second because that's the point of racing, but if it gave you a worse score for drifting or using the handbrake then it just becomes a matter of doing what the developers are telling you, playing the way they tell you to play, and suddenly all interest in the game is gone.

[@Posby95]

Very well said. That is exactly what I think as well. What's fun and what's not is subjective, and no one should declare by law the "right" way to play.

[@kamilandzi]

if a racing game punishes you for drifting rather than safe racing you prob mistook iracing with neef for speed

[@MiketheNerdRanger]

While I can understand your frustration, that's not really a feasible thing to say. The whole point of a game is that it has a system in play to make a game a game. You're encouraged to do things the way that it was intended because that's how the game is supposed to work, otherwise it becomes a playground. You wouldn't play snakes and ladders with chess rules, would you? (you could, but it's not the game you wanted to play anymore, is it?) In which case, why don't you make your own games?

[@guitarman0365]

i mostly never care about scoring. THe most fun i have is when i get low scores lol .Because that means i played it the way i wanted. If i want to spam the same technique 5 times out of 10 i will do so. Until i feel like changing things up. I bet God of War was intended to use every move at your disposable but let's be honest most of us just used the same move most of the time. In fact that is what people joke about because of the square sqaure triangle move set being so fun and effective to use. The player gets to decide what is fun to them not the dev. The devs job is to create the best possible experience they can with the mechanics they have set up that allow a way to keep progress going no matter how you interact with the available mechanics. For skyrim for example i liked to play as an archer and it only further rewards the more you play like that instead of punishing you or enticing you to play around with different styles at a whim. If you want to play as an archer sneak you can for the ENTIRE game. Every scenario you encounter with your perks you can take on entire dungeons of enemies, dragons, bosses. Anything because of the perk to slow down time and increase damage when hidden. it makes playing an archer viable for moments when there is an all out battle when without a perk to slow time it would practically force you to adopt a different playstyle you don't want because then it would be to hard to keep track of everybody rushing you and then you run out of arrows if you miss too much. The best games out there will design their missions and levels so that any playstyle can be used for the majority or all of the game. Not every game can achieve this feeling though or even worse don't desire to. Not just for the mods but I think there is a reason skyrim is such an old game constantly being played over and over again. It's just so user friendly for the most part. Despite the lackluster story and bugs, and funny ragdoll animations the game at it's heart is just completely free to let you do almost anything you want to progress.

[@revimfadli4666]

@@kamilandzi being "punished" with the risk of eroding tires faster for the potential gain of winning through drifting is much more preferable to straight-up punishment imo

[@lasseflick1966]

It reminds me of how you get more points (or better trophies) in Mario + Rabbids, if you complete the stages within a certain amount of rounds. It encouraged me to take more risks and play more strategic, and it was way more fun than playing safe behind a block and shoot whenever an enemy came near. That's probably why most cover in the game slowly breaks. And why you NEED to win the bonus challenges within a specific amount of rounds. Man, it's fun to look back at games to see how they actually are designed. Thanks for the video Mark!

[@estebanrodriguez5409]

Yes, that's what makes the Rabbids game VERY different from the xcoms, that and all the jumping, sliding, and relaxed movement mechanics. Also, melee does a lot of damge with 100% hit chance and the enemies use it as well. But i think the biggest difference is in the number of actions you can take, in xcom is just move and shoot/use power. Rabbids have move (that can turn into a marathon), shoot (every character has an alternate weapon) and use power (that you can use every odd turn, with how long the cooldowns are)

[@narryg]

I can't count how many times I put Rabbid Mario in extreme risk for those glorious four enemy hammers.

[@robertduncan6716]

It should be taken into account that the XCOM series was intentionally streamlined from its predecessors.

[@celeste1823]

It gives you better score, but most importantly, it also gives you more coins. If you didn't get a perfect on most stages, you'll most than likely need to grind for money before the last few levels

[@karidyas00]

And *that's* how to do it. Reward and encourage instead of punish and blocking paths/playstyles, so that people feel smart and skilled for playing in the way you intended. I have a feeling people like to play games slow and grindy because they enjoy playing a system in the most optimal way: most reward for least loss. If you want those people to take risks, you have design the systems in such a way that risk is the most optimal way to play. When a calculated risk is the right move, you don't feel too bad if it doesn't succeed because you factored in a chance for failure when you went in, and not doing so would have been worse. As an exercise I was thinking of solutions and thought of increasing the rewards for finishing early, but the decaying cover and increased threat at close range are probably more powerful, and all together make a great package. Great job Ubisoft!

[@JizzburnGigaqueer]

The game "Strafe" that came out this year was quite an interesting case of this problem. Its a fast paced shooter, with Quake style movement mechanics (jumping + strafing makes you move faster, and lets you kite enemies around and dodge projectiles) but a lot of players completely ignored the advantages that speed gives you in controlling the swarming mobs of enemies, and instead thought the only tactic that worked was endlessly backpedaling and thinning them out slowly, which is nowhere near as exciting as jumping around going fast.

[@SPTX.]

Except strafe is a textbook example of a game that doesn't deliver on the gameplay it promises. The maps are smalls, full of obstacles, often full of enemies too, and said enemies can deal so much damage they can kill you in a few hits. It doesn't matter if you can reach high speed if you're stopped in your tracks by a mob of pushovers blocking the path letting the stronger enemies helplessly destroy you. Now you have the explanation as to why bottlenecking isn't only the best strategy, but also the less frustrating one.

[@nunu7797]

Jizzburn Gigaqueer I

[@x46andtwo]

Uh guess you never heard of 'bunny hopping'? Strafe jumping with some turning used to destroy game mechanics and make people so fast it was amazing.

[@Excludos]

+Ugly Casanova I can't tell who you're trying to answer here. What makes you think anyone here didn't know about bunny hopping when talking about a game which core mechanic and entire premise is bunny jumping..?

[@carnivorousjazz827]

That's the largest problem in the game. Playing slow and backpedaling is the worst tactic in every part of the game, no matter the situation. It makes the game far harder than it should be. But as you said, every other mechanic makes it seem like playing slow it the only way to play.

[@thothrax5621]

I also like when there are story based punishments for playing the game a certain way. For example: Dishonored is a stealth game, however there is a very in-depth combat system and even abilities geared directly towards fighting in the open, however if you play the game in this way, the ending is dark and depressing, while if you end the game playing stealthily and nonlethally, then you get the good ending.

[@jasonhymes3382]

But thats not encouraging players to play a certain way. I always play the villian in video games. Thats encouraging players to play any way they want because either way you will witness the fruit of your evil or good labors.

[@cuthalion4281]

That's the only thing I hate about the Dishonored series (which I otherwise love; I've completed pacifist ghost runs of both Dishonored 1 and 2). By locking the "good" ending behind achieving low chaos, especially when some of the low chaos target neutralizations are arguably worse than death, it feels cheap and artificially limiting, actively discouraging the player from utilizing their entire set of powers and gadgets. I'll do the low-chaos thing for the challenge and achievement, but I feel much more free utilizing the vast array of lethal options and combos.

[@jungsa4691]

The problem with having these restrictions, it removes the agency from the players to enjoy the game how they see fit. If there is a turn limit, that limit shouldn't necessary end game in a loss, but rather increase challenge and difficulty of the level, so that hours of progression and careful approach doesn't simply go to waste. It still provides a satisfactory balance between the game and player itself. In Spelunky's design, it adds to the challenge, thus making it more rewarding rather than punishing. But the thing that disturbs me, is the phrase "Protect Players From Themselves"... while I'll respect the design choices of a game if it was meant to increase moment tension and challenge, I feel that this is quite narcissistic, as if players already didn't know how THEY wanted to enjoy the game themselves. Once it leaves the hands of a developers, it's in the hands of the players. It's being forced into a tutorial on how to enjoy a game, and told where to go, when all you wanted to do was just explore the environment. I don't think there is anything wrong with these types of players. I agree with you that a good system wouldn't remove a playstyle, but a good balance would simply minimize it.

[@flashoveruel4977]

4:48 "Doesnt use any ammunition and it showers the player with (GALLONS OF BLOOD!) Usefull health pick ups"

[@TRIMISIS]

For XCOM, i think the majority of the problem is because of the linearity of the levels combined with the cover system mechanics. A time limit essentially tells the player that they have to "push through" whatever enemies are in front of them. That would work with more open levels where you are able to disengage the enemies and run, but the way XCOM is set up doesn't lend itself to that. The majority of levels with time limits are rather linear, so you if you do decide to just cut your losses and try to run to the end of the level, the enemies that you didn't kill are still behind you... and now there are new enemies right in front of you... and all of your soldiers are flanked making for easy crits and one shot kills. That's where the real problem lies, time limits aren't a bad mechanic, and linear levels can be tactical and interesting. But when you try to combine both your only strategy is "git gud" and you have to somehow kill every enemy on the map before proceeding, which at times is literally impossible, and that's where the majority of the frustration arises.

[@flxfaber]

XCOM would have been interesting with some reward mechanics instead. Maybe the enemy drop pods self-destruct after a number of turns and take their valuable contents with them. Or perhaps if you secure an enemy's body quickly you can gain intel on the opposing forces' current location by reading the corpse's dying thoughts.

[@bigblue344]

Turn limits are also bad when you keep missing a 85% chance to hit.

[@wykydytron]

Iyuda time limits are never good idea along with defense missions its what ruins every gae, never seen anyone who would like time limit or defense missions

[@Xandros999]

No. It's not about any of those things. Not mostly. XCOM encourages slow and methodical playstyle mostly because enemies are inactive until you contact them. The more you move around the more enemies you will be fighting. To add insult to injury, aliens get to whoosh into position when you see them, catching you flatfooted if you haven't conserved your actions. It's like in WoW, when you move around you pick up enemies like burrs in a brush.

[@danmerillat]

Agreed. I don't even understand why the designers thought "high risk rambo tactics" were the point of the game when every design decision in the series screams "DO NOT DO THAT". This is a game that punishes taking any sort of risk - even a 99% chance to hit is a guaranteed miss that will probably lead to activating 3 hives of enemies who all get a free turn to surround you and killbox your entire squad. If you want to encourage a more active, faster play, fix the fundamental problems with that type of play. If you spot an enemy, don't give the enemy a free turn, give you the drop on them. At most, have them go about their patrol unaware of your presence. Don't punish taking risky shots by murdering your entire squad, jesus. I know I learned really quick that anything under 75% was game over. I didn't bother playing reboot two because all the reviews were clear that it had no idea which game it wanted to be, and viciously punished both playstyles.

[@kierany9]

Ironically, XCOM: Enemy Unknown's expansion, Enemy Within, encouraged moving fast way better than XCOM 2 did. Meld canisters are spread across the map, and expire after a set number of turns. The two main new features of the expansion, MECs and Gene mods, are both gated behind Meld, so going for the canisters rewards you in the long term with stompy robots and alien superpowers, but rushing for a canister that's in a bad spot can easily ruin an entire mission. It's a risk-reward deal that doesn't funnel you into a certain playstyle but rather gives you a reason to step up the pace.

[@acomatosemob]

kierany9, Exactly. They rewarded you for playing quicker and riskier. I quit Xcom 2 because it just felt like the game was constantly punishing me, it wasn't fun.

[@dannylamb456]

Was going to comment the same thing since XCOM 2's whole time limit thing was too arbitrary. It's stealth that doesn't want you to be stealthy and, instead, be risky with all your moves. If anything, MELD should have been a lesson that rewarding success is better than punishing failure.

[@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547]

@@acomatosemob if you can't deal with XCOM, just lower the difficulty.. the game is not supposed to be a walk in the park, it's war and war is punishing

[@Davefacestation]

Ahh turn limits, the thing everyone hated and immediately modded out.

[@pfeilspitze]

Yeah. There's an epidemic of "this kind of game attracts players than want to do A, but we're intentionally trying to be not that!" It's like all the successful real time strategy games that make sequels that are more approachable or work on consoles -- and then predictably fail became the people who want to play an RTS don't want that, and people who don't want to play an RTS still don't want to play a slightly-easier RTS.

[@ThiccOleCat]

I like it quite a bit, there's a lot of builds you can make that allow you to absolutely blitz through enemies. I feel like the man when I absolutely lawnmower a map full of aliens.

[@Davefacestation]

@@joshnewell714 it's the most popular mod for the game by a very, very large margin.

[@Davefacestation]

@@joshnewell714 so you can think it's what made the game good but the majority of people who bought it disagree.

[@arcguardian]

@@Timotheus24 I disagree. While get gud is always the goal. It shouldn't be a punishment to avoid high risks, especially when the enemy specializes in ambushing. It felt great pulling it off but it should be a bonus not a pitfall. Not to mention the rolls are never in ur favor.

[@Shabazza84]

Just to make it clear: Death timers like in X-COM are bad and kill the fun even harder than cautious play ever would. I hated every single mission with such a timer. Why? Because the player can't approach the game the way he likes to. So if the players idea how to play is too far away from what the game forces them to do, it's nothing gained. The "desired" way does not have to be the most fun, or the most safe way, but it should also not contradict gamer's thought process. In case of X-COM, instead of punishing the player for cautious play by losing, a game should make it, so the desired way of the dev is more beneficial. By granting bonusses for quick completion or unlocking items faster ect. So the player has a reason and the will to play the intended way, without just slapping his face for not conforming...

[@aolson1111]

There are no death timers in Xcom 2.

[@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547]

@@aolson1111 Actually there are missions with an evac window, once the timer runs out you can't evacuate your soldiers anymore. But they mainly fixed that with WOTC, where there are ways to make the timer longer and allow you to safe soliders who are lost when the timer runs out. I really like it

[@nathanmeagher7869]

Makes no sense EVAC can't 100 meters to where you are at the start of those

[@corbinbarron8772]

1. No need for ellipsis 2. This is literally the point of a video

[@Gebunator]

Didn't help Xcom's case at all that most of the Xcom 1 classes worked best when set on overwatch and played safe in cover. The expansion, enemy within did have good method to encourage riskier approach with meld. Seriously, if risky play nets the same reward as safe play, we'll stick to the safe method.

[@humanice2]

XCOM 2 was too punishing for me, I was early in the game trying to learn some kind of a strategy, but the game gave me no time to think and just push forward and see the end results, in the end I messed up the game and had to start the game over, and then start it over again when I messed it up again, it's too frustrating and difficult for me.

[@armando429046]

in the very first mission after the tutorial i named one of my soldiers and was so heartbroken when 3/4 of my squad was killed (including my named one) i just sat in sadness for like 30 minutes

[@LecherousLizard]

You are forced to act like an idiot and get penalized for it. That's not "difficulty".

[@31er_ohne_AMG]

At first I played XCOM on the highest difficulty because I thought "I'm a guerilla force and fighting against aliens, so it should be very hard for me. Realistic as possible". But guess what, I got totally destroyed, my squads got wiped out, I always had to buy new soldiers. I couldn't level my soldiers decent enough, because they often got killed. I always needed to rush the maps, against a far more superior enemy and at the end, I lost the game. The problem is, I needed to ambush my enemys and I needed to surprise my enemy with my full force, but I couldn't do that because the timer came and always pressured to blindly attack the enemy.

[@Anomen77]

You're not forced to play like an idiot, you're forced to play fast. My third XCOM 2 run was already in legendary and I didn't have much trouble (except for the avatar project timer). You need to be careful, don't rush forward, have someone scout ahead and plan every engagement carefully. After that it's all about grenades, not taking risky shots (under 70%) and positioning.

[@hellothere_1257]

Honestly, I'm still kind of weirded out by the fact that XCOM 2 fucked up the timers so badly considering that Enemy Unknown already set a perfect example of how to do it correctly with its terror missions. Terror Missions in Enemy Unknown are all about taking calculated risks. Inching across the map in your usual fashion is certainly possible, but doing that will get most civilians killed before you get to them. You won't fail the mission that way, but it certainly won't feel good and the continent-wide panic reduction bonus of having low civilian casualties is nothing to scoff at either. The point is that on an EU terror mission if you end up overextending and lose soldiers because of it, it's your own fault for being greedy and that's what makes it fun. The most nerve-wracking, sweat-inducing, but also ultimately satisfactory experiences I had in XCOM are almost all from Terror Missions in EU and EW. Like that time where I got completely overrun by Crysalids and just barely managed to hold the line. Or that time where I got a little too greedy and uncovered two sectopods in the same turn. Or that time where three Crysalids ended their turn right next to a civilian and I decided there was nothing I could do and shot a rocket at them (I still feel bad about that one) Or that time where I had to do a terror mission with jus SHIVs and Squaddies because everyone else was dead. Or that time where I decided to sacrifice a SHIV as Crysalid bait to protect some civilians until the rest of my team could get into position. Meanwhile, in XCOM2 the game essentially forces you to overextend so when you take losses because of it, it just makes you frustrated at the game.

[@fantomp1773]

Wow, this was really helpful! I had an issue in my game (fast-ish paced bullet hell top down shooter), with it being more optimal in a lot of cases for people to carefully take out all the enemies and then wait for their health to regenerate, instead of going about the game as intended, which is to run through the levels top speed, dodging enemies and bullets, while shooting the things around them. (usually either behind them at swarms pf chasing enemies, or at destructible walls in front of them) One disincentive I already had was making enemies have lots of health for how much damage you are doing. (compared to other top down shooters at least) After some thinking, I decided that I’m going to keep the passive health regeneration after a period of not getting hit, since it rewards good play. However, I’m going to make enemies spawn behind you, so that you never can just sit around and wait for your health to regen (very unfun) without being at some risk - probably more risk than is worth it. Second, I’ve lowered the health on enemies that shoot at you. These enemies are usually the biggest obstacle in my game when trying to rush forward, since they shoot lots of slow moving bullets that can be hard to get past if you’re moving towards the enemy, but don’t have enough range and speed to be that dangerous when you’re not trying to move toward them, or trying to move away. Lowering the health I feel like will reward quick thinking and good play, since instead of mostly aiming at the enemies that are following you (easier targets), you’re being rewarded for also trying to hit the enemies that are circling and trying to shoot you (surprisingly hard to hit). I didn’t want a hard timer, since it just feels wrong, for the pace of this game, but am considering a timer that makes enemies gradually get harder. (so after say, 30 seconds in a level, some enemies get faster, or some enemies explode on death, or some other effect, depending on the level, and it will say something along the lines of “Uh oh, (whatever just changed)” or whatever, along with a sound effect and a graphic, just to spice things up and to encourage the player to go faster. Almost like the ghost in spelunky.)

[@Divert486]

On the subject of Xcom, i personally really liked playing slowly and methodically. It felt like a more logical approach. Youre fighting superior enemies, you cant just rush in guns a blazing and hope to always come out on top. But i digress, i didnt like those changes to xcom 2.

[@rustknuckleirongut8107]

Also if the developer wants you to take more risk dont give the soldiers names and create a connection to the played character that makes a player adverse to the loss of the characters.

[@johanngalilea]

Rustknuckle Irongut The devs want you to take risks, not be suicidal.

[@rasheedqe]

Johann Galilea Taking risk is suicidal in xcom2. It's the game where you can miss a 100 percent shot at point blank range and get killed in full cover from a hundred miles away.

[@johanngalilea]

It's really not that bad. Ofc we've all ran into those times when your entire squad gets wiped out n stuff cuz of a missed 98% shot, but it's not unplayable. I've had to play many risks in xcom and many of them paid off, but turn timers should have ended up with reinforcements instead of just straight up failing the mission.

[@rasheedqe]

If it was just the risk of taking damage I would be ok. But a single mistake can lead to a death or deaths or a very long hospital stay. In a game where you can lose a character permanently or you can lose a character based on bad rng. Turn timer just seem cruel and only there to stop you from playing careful. I get wanting to force the action more a bonus to supplies gained or an extra engineer on a mission would have done that.

[@fluffygutts2240]

But we dont all find the same things fun. I enjoy going slowly, planning out my moves and getting things right the first time. Some may say thats dull, but its how I like to play. If there was a bonus for moving faster I might try to for it but to punish me for my play style! Nope, Im just not going to play your game.

[@massterwushu9699]

Fluffy Gutts Exactly, There are many games out there which encourage slow paced play style. Sometimes, as games, I feel like we want every game to suit our tastes, but that’s not reasonable or fair to devs.

[@moanguspickard249]

Fluffy Gutts yeah. I hated losing anyone. I mostly play games safe. Games like total war where i wont attack if i dont have biga army or any rts game where i research all upgrades first, even unimportant ones before attacking. Xcom was a bit boring to me. Idea is fun gameplay wise but it didnt click with me. Mass effect always did good by me. And dragon age origins

[@aolson1111]

@Kibate Please don't comment on things you know nothing about. Xcom is still a strategy game.

[@ZTRCTGuy]

This is why Minecraft is so popular. You choose your playstyle and the game does not encourage or discourage any of them.

[@irunasoft]

I don't like minecraft i feel it's boring and i used to play it sometimes when i was like 8 year old

[@DaRealLegacy]

@@irunasoft ok

[@gorkemaykut5230]

@@irunasoft Thank you for your input

[@MichaelR1275]

@@irunasoft k

[@psicopato2460]

Exactly, if you want a house you can have it, if you just wanna explore you can, if you just wanna kill monsters and get strong you can, if you wanna use redstone to get everything done you can, if you wanna live underground or at the top of a mountain, doesn't matter, both work, everything is available to you independently of your playstyle

[@PrimoPete]

Some gaming companies even protect us from our money.

[@BawesomeBurf]

Best comment lol.

[@letsget100subswithoutconte4]

EA Has entered the chat

[@jeffreyjohnson3687]

My only real issue with XCOM's timer was with how it clashed with its emphasis on stealth and ambush. You're allowed really ONE ambush in a mission which can be very satisfying to plan and execute, but because timers inexplicably started at unit deployment, not unit discovery, you were often pressured into wasting that opportunity.

[@cachotognax3600]

Jeffrey Johnson at that point you just ask yourself: "why the timer didn't just start at the first unconceal? It would give the stealth more meaning, and still be relevant since you might have the objective unreachable by just conceal anyways, and having outer guards pull in at the alarm give trouble to a get in-get out strat.

[@jeffreyjohnson3687]

Yup. That's the way I modified it. It works much better.

[@mrhunterf2869]

Nintendo with Breath of the wild, was fantastic. Shrines have a typical way to complete them but Nintendo never stopped players being able to be creative to get the same result.

[@maitreyagpatel]

BOOOMY ZOOOOMY

[@Bibliotecario]

BOTW is the "do whatever you want" game. Perfect one.

[@FishSnackems]

Nintendo games are great with this, mainly because skilled players can ignore walls

[@Mattroid99]

I would say that BotW has all these issues in most parts of its design actually. For example: You could explore the land meticulously with all the tools you have.. but why do that when the best way to explore is abusing Revali's Gale and Paraglider You could be very creative with cooking, but why do that when you can just use one hearty item each time you need to cook You could master all the tools you have in combat, but why do that when the best way to fight them is abusing sneak attack and Urbosa's Fury? Is one of the biggest issues about botw imo, actually

[@retrodkcn1979]

@@Mattroid99 this is a "you" problem. The answer for all these questions is a simple "why not?" Its up to you to decide the most optimal solution or to actually think outside of the box. And the game never punishes you for not using the best strategy so again, why not?

[@ezequielblanco8659]

I usually like to play games in the way they are meant to be played. But in XCOM, even if the designers thought that going fast and taking lots of risks was the way to go, it made no sense to me. "We are being attacked by an alien race we know very little about. We know there are enemies present in the area, but we don´t know how many or how powerful they are. Yeah, let's just sent 4 guys and tell them to run around and take lots of risks" - said no one ever. Specially when the game has nice line-of-sight mechanics, half and full covers, advantage points, reload consumes turns, an overwatch action, etc. Even in the context of the story, the team took hours to arrive to the locations, so why would they be in such a hurry when they finally get there?

[@TooLatePeople]

I know right? Taking enemies head-on not just tactically stupid, it gies against both the lore and common sense.

[@TooLatePeople]

Basically what they did is DESTROYED any chance of hit-run-ambush mechanics. There's simply no time for that.

[@jacobsummers3441]

That is how guerilla warfare works. Strike fast and then disappear. There are many wars in history where snaller armies fought the larger ones this way. They are fighting such a strong and powerful enemy. And that is the exact reason why they have to strike fast and leave immediately. You can't exactly predict what they are going to whip out next. That is how war works anyway. You have to make quick but efficient decisions. But I do agree that they have removed so many oppurtunities like an Ambush mission of some sort. They should have made varied mission types.

[@ezequielblanco8659]

Good answer! I never thought of it as a guerrilla warfare. I agree with you. If that was the intention, they should have added different mission types. Guerrilla is not always about speed, but also about mobility and creativity, fighting the enemy where and when they do not expect it.

[@VK-sz4it]

1994 XCOM was much better. Learning how to fight best could improve your efficiency 1000% (You are novice to the game => 14 guys on novice level all die; when you know how to play => 3 guys on superhuman level clear all mission ). Learning best strategy in new XCOM (just plain defence) will buy you maximum 50% better survivability, whereas luck plays much more important role.