Review: Xenonauts (PC/Steam)

I always held a certain appreciation for X-COM: UFO Defense, the cult mid-90s strategy hit that pits humanity (in the form of paramilitary organisation X-COM) against a classic alien invasion. X-COM was a devilishly-deceptive game, and notoriously difficult. When Firaxis recently-ish rebooted the series, I was, once my nostalgia cloud dispersed, fully on-board. With my enjoyment of the 2012 reboot cemented, I was intrigued to try Xenonauts out, for a more classic experience and hopefully some innovation.

Xenonauts, however, does little to excite my sense of nostalgia, despite being essentially a carbon-copy of the game that came 20 years prior.

While Xenonauts does indeed replicate X-COM’s tactical difficulty well, it falls into the trap of merely impersonating the older game – which would be fine, but the strategy genre has changed significantly since X-COM was released in 1994. Where the XCOM: Enemy Unknown game does take a few liberties with “classic” X-COM, the re-imagining of the game is done in a sympathetic and, ultimately, pragmatic manner, to appeal to a modern audience, whilst capturing the essence of X-COM. I can already sense fond memories blasting off to the stars just thinking about it…

… with an abrupt crash back to Earth, Xenonauts does no such thing. I found this game, in the brief time I played it, utterly derivative; there is no evolution on the original 1994 game’s core mechanics, just a bland and sterile replication of them. Xenonauts purports to be inspired by X-COM; indeed, the inspiration manifests itself as nothing more than a photocopy. The core gameplay remains the same – sure, there are a few token gestures such as “tactical air combat”; whatever that is – it remains easier to just let the CPU decide the battle, and the ability to “air-strike” crash sites to avoid ground battles, but these are mere cosmetic buttons on a dated UI than anything significant.

Ground battles have suffered the most from the lack of innovation – they play out and act exactly as they did back in 1994, but without the charm or even technical limitations that Micropose would’ve had to face in the mid Nineties. I ask again – where exactly does Xenonauts go to further the genre? All I see in Xenonauts is a pale re-heating of the classic X-COM formula with bland, 2001-era graphics layered atop of it. Xenonauts clearly trades largely on rosy-tinted nostalgia (a common trait in both professional and indie games lately) while clearly exposing itself as a design anachronism. I fail to see any examples of where Goldhawk Interactive have actually improved, or heaven deviated at all from the classic X-COM games at all.


The lack of any movement from the original X-COM games in Xenonauts couldn’t be clearer than in the game’s UI. This especially struck me as personifying Xenonauts as a “shot-by-shot remake” of X-COM (as a Kickstarter-funded game, why is this of no surprise); with a few token alien race names changed to no real consequence, Xenonauts serves to merely insult my intelligence. There’s a perfunctory effort to differentiate Xenonauts as taking place in an alternate history of 1979 but this adds little o the actual game besides explaining some of the barren  and generic graphics. The manual is has the appearance of a PDF typed up in an afternoon in Word; this shows me the character of the developer and ultimately is an exemplar of the amount of actual effort they put in.

If I wanted to repeat the classic X-COM gameplay (which is still enjoyable in context); surely I would overlook Xenonauts’ uninspired graphics and horribly dated gameplay and experiment either with a DOS emulator or an Open-Source reimagining of the original game (complete with personality and colourful graphics). Xenonauts closely reminds me of Shovel Knight, another recent game that exists in a curious time-warp where modern production standards, fuelled by blind nostalgia, hark back to an era of games that, as an uncomfortable truth, were left behind a long time ago. Games like this aren’t made anymore, and it’s about time indie developers realised that before hopping on the nostalgia train again.

I won’t be playing it any more when there’s better nods to the original game available.

Buy Xenonauts on Steam


Review: XCOM: Enemy Unknown (PC/Steam)

After taking about nine months to finish my first proper XCOM run-through, I finally feel ready to express how I felt about Firaxis’ re-interpretation of a storied PC gaming classic.

But why did XCOM take me 9 months to complete, firstly? Fair to say, the original XCOM games hold a lot of nostalgia points, and Enemy Unknown certainly scores highly in terms of capturing the mood and atmosphere that made the original games so enjoyably stressful endeavours. I enjoyed every minute I played Enemy Unknown for, but I had my heart in my mouth the entire ride, wondering just when a Sectopod would annihilate my lovingly-reared squad of colonels, or a mind-controlled sniper would blow up the Skyranger. But having now put a play through under my belt, I feel ready to face the oncoming storm once more!

I had a few teething issues that marred my initial experience of Enemy Unknown and left me questioning what Firaxis had done to the franchise. Why was autosave not protecting my progress with an initially-buggy game? Why was my squad just four strong to begin with? I’d heard that Firaxis had given the classic game’s mechanics an overhaul and streamlined them – but the danger word, that of a “simplified” game started to ring in my mind.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a fantastic game. There’s a great look and feel; the graphics are fresh, if a little cartoonish but vibrant and inviting. Even as a three-year-old game, in 2015 the graphics still look fresh and punchy – the environments for missions convey a depth that the map size might not be able to carry on but there’s a certain environmental atmosphere. The small squad size (the original XCOM game let you take dozens of hapless rookies to their deaths from the get-go) certainly promotes a more tactical, thought-out strategy then leading lemmings over a cliff. And having small squads fosters that feeling of every member being valuable that made the original game such a bastard to play.

Constant comparisons to the 1994 original do Enemy Unknown a disservice, but it is hard to avoid. I felt there were some worthy additions and refinements of the original format that showed that while Firaxis “got” why the original worked, there was plenty of room to modernise the format. Working on having satellite coverage (and the strategy of which nations to launch satellites over and when) is a rewarding additional layer of gameplay – satellites work to detect UFOs but also act to reduce “panic” in relevant nation states, and providing continental coverage can give important meta-bonuses to the XCOM project. Side missions from The Council are, too, a good means for both farming experience for one’s soldiers but also fostering good relations (and goodies) from the Council itself. Soldier specialisation as they level up add to that soldier’s value, and adds tactical variety. What abilities do soldiers get? And how does that integrate with the squad on a mission-by-mission basis?

What worked for me with Enemy Unknown was the sense of value your soldiers got as they ranked up and became more powerful. I felt like I almost “knew” some of these guys, having led them through some pretty deadly missions. Seeing a soldier critically injured, especially a high-ranking one or even one that had survived a long time, led me to rush to their aid, even if that jeopardised the mission. The atmosphere of the game is fantastic, and it really does feel like XCOM is the last bastion of a planet under attack. There’s decisions to be made about what targets are important, what to research, and the time is always ticking until the next mission. The tactical game was great; I found it easy to grasp the core concepts of cover and I felt that as my campaign progressed, my rank as a commander grew with the abilities of my troops. And yes, like the original game, the random number generator was an absolute sod at times!

I recently approached the final mission of the game with great trepidation. Some missions – the Alien Base Assault, the Battleship assault – had been absolute bloodbaths that were great to finally complete, and it’s a credit to the level design. I thought the level design for that final mission was perfect, slowly taking the squad through a proxy of the campaign so far, through some mean challenges to the epic final battle. I’d be happy just to play that mission again and again, just to try out my new strategies!

Enemy Unknown, despite being quite linear in mission scope, is very replayable. I definitely felt my confidence to play more grow. There’s loads of interesting gameplay modes to try once the game has been beaten once, and in conjunction with the strategies and tactics the player themselves learns, leaves the game with ample room to be played again and again, for a better score, a shorter time to beat the aliens, and more fun ultimately.

I do however feel the tiny squad size was unsettling at first, though I understood why that was the case. It promotes the use of tactics and the preservation aspect is cemented into the player’s mind. The initial setup, where a lot of stuff goes on at once, can overwhelm the player a bit as they find their feet. And yes, the legacy of the 1994 game lingers overhead – the game took me 9 months as I kept working myself up about playing an “XCOM game”, but it’s a good, enjoyable kind of stress that promotes the best a player can give, and adds to that atmosphere.

Having beaten this game once, I feel I’ve learned a lot and can’t wait to face the aliens again! XCOM is a fantastic strategy game and with the upcoming sequel, I look forward to seeing where Firaxis chooses to evolve the franchise further!

Buy XCOM: Enemy Unknown on Steam

Gaming, Reviews

Review: Rise of Nations Extended Edition

When it comes to gaming, a lot of my joy comes from nostalgia and rediscovering gems from my youth. Rise of Nations ticks all the boxes there so discovering Microsoft (in a rare display of doing something good in the gaming sphere) was planning to re-issue the revered strategy game in a remastered format I was jumping at the bit to experience the game again!

Thebes falls to the mighty Bantu impi.

For the uninitiated, Rise of Nations is a real-time strategy game that pits the player as the omnipotent deity that is guiding a fledgling civilization through history, from the Ancient Age to the Information Age with the tasks of building cities, setting up industry, conducting research and building armies to wage war against neighbouring states. Released originally in 2003, the game combined gameplay elements from Civilization, Age of Empires and Risk to form a truly compelling strategy experience. Indeed, the Civilization cues are by no co-incidence given that Rise of Nations’ lead designer was Brian Reynolds, who designed the legendary Civilization II in 1994.

What made Rise of Nations special was it’s ingenious use of turn-based 4X strategy tropes in the real-time plane. There is still a tech tree to climb and epochs to advance to, but this is heavily simplified as to not detract too much from the faster-paced gameplay and add an appropriately-linear progression. The standard RTS “base” was decentralised around city centres the player could build around the map and construct resource-gathering buildings around; these cities also formed the main part of the conquest victory condition. World Wonders, of which only one can be constructed per city, bring unique and powerful benefits to their owners, and Civ-style Wonder races remain as common and infuriating as they are in Civ! Cities also brought the notion of national borders into real-time strategy, opening up an additional facet to tactics, claiming resources and winning the game.

Continue reading “Review: Rise of Nations Extended Edition”