Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (
More info?)
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
> In every single case the game is fun for a while and then the missions
> ramp up to the point where you need to be an expert and utilize every
> last action point and round of ammo to its fullest. It gets to the
> point where the missions just really bog down and become more
> frustrating than fun.
[...]
> I do like the genre. I wish there was a game that kept the fast & fun
> feel of the earlier missions all the way through and didn't get to that
> "one misstep and it's mission over" level that they all seem to get to.
> I enjoy RTS games too, and some of them have the same problem in their
> own way -- they get to the point where you have to be ultra-efficient,
> if you aren't building things in exactly the right order and moving
> them to the right locations you will lose. But there are also plenty
> of RTS games that manage to up the difficulty throughout the campaign
> while still allowing the player to have fun with doing different
> things. So far I haven't found any turn based squad level game that
> does.
I do think that a game needs to push back at you. If there's only a
slight chance of losing, it's not as much fun.
That said, I've always regarded X-Com as having a pretty hairy design flaw:
even with good armor, you will have people killed in a single shot by
walking into a room with an alien with fast reactions. Depending on the
room layout, there is no way to avoid it. You have two ways around it:
(1) save, reload, and knock out a wall or enter a different way; (2)
keep a supply of "cannon fodder" soldiers with whom you do your scouting.
In JA2, playing on "expert" level, my guys get shot up all the time,
but unless I do something silly (like run out into the open) they rarely
drop below 50% health. I haven't found the need to be ultra-efficient,
just the need to employ solid tactics and not attack targets that are
too difficult (e.g. attacking the Meduna SAM site before finding rifles).
Hardened targets may require strategic planning, i.e. attacking at day or
night, or hitting a target with more than six guys. The one exception
to this is the opening of JA2:Unfinished Business, in which you really
do need to get everything just right.
You can play JA2 lots of different ways. Sneak up and throw knives,
have forward spotters and snipers, unload with heavy weapons and roll
back, etc. It's more about providing mutual support fire and, in
missions with trees, hitting the bad guys from more than one angle while
preventing them from doing the same.
Most strategy games, when played on the "easy" skill level, are quite
forgiving. If you're regularly getting blasted into small pieces, you
need to re-examine your tactics.
The most blatant example of what you describe as "one misstep and it's
mission over" is Massive Assault, which is more of a puzzle game than a
strategy game. There is a specific set of moves that lead to victory, and
deviation results in failure. However, that's what the game is all about.
(Which is why I finally gave up on it after beating my head against one
level for an hour.)
I have a similar but different grip against some RTSs, e.g. Age of Empires II.
If you don't finish some of the campaign missions by a certain time, you're
in trouble, because both sides will run out of resources, but the
computer is allowed more advanced technology. Unlike Total Annihilation,
where (in most cases -- Core mission 2 or 3 is an exception) you can build
what you want as you want and then go hunting. There are lots of different
ways to set up your base for the Korgoth Encounter, most of which will
get you blasted to pieces; you're not confined to a specific set of moves,
but there are certain things you need to do to deal with the threat.
--
Send mail to fadden@fadden.com (Andy McFadden) - http://www.fadden.com/
CD-Recordable FAQ - http://www.cdrfaq.org/
CiderPress Apple II archive utility for Windows - http://www.faddensoft.com/
Fight Internet Spam - http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ & http://spamcop.net/