Gears Tactics: Not better or worse than Xcom, just different.

[tkonicz]

There is a breed of players that will enjoy this game more than Xcom: the whole base-building is gone here. And I hated this layer of "managment" in Xcom, it was distracting and not very fun for me. This game here is more focused on the actual combat, and I like the combo-system in the combat very much. So, this game is for all those players who don't like the management elemants of xcom. It's not worse or better, it is different.

[MatthewHager312]

Agreed.
In xcom, you could do great in the tactical gameplay, but will still fail the game if you didn't build the right stuff at the right time. You just end up going through the same tech tree, researching and building the same thing in each new playthrough because it works.
Gears is just tactics. No bs building. Which is just *chef kiss*

[Doc Clarke]

I enjoy the differences. I like cone targeting overwatch. I like the hugely reduced RNG, I like the fact you zoom out a little more to see more of the battlefield.
I love XCOM2 at WotC. But I love this as well. They are different enough to be worthwhile in their own right.
After all. People complaining about similarities. What about the thousands of first person shooters that exist with more released all the time. Personally they all feel the same to me (boring and barely advanced above Quake 20+ years ago), doesn't stop 100 more a year coming out.
Quite like Phoenix Point (with mods now) Quite like the Warhammer Daemonhunter as well.

[Synavix]

I think XCOM 2 is better designed overall, but this has its high points. The overwatch and classes I think are the best parts. Heavies being able to mow down an entire pack on overwatch or Snipers being able to take 10+ actions in a turn is just REALLY fun. But the story is a little lackluster (XCOMs is not the greatest either, though), the pacing with side missions is pretty bad, and the worst parts are the weird loot-box implementation and the AWFUL roster/recruitment mechanic that makes all your side characters become underleveled.

[Haglitm]

I just started this fully committed yesterday, and from what I see, I don't think that either one is particularly better designed so much as they set out to do different things which makes for an experience where I it's different enough despite being so similar at first glance.

Some things I prefer in XCOM, and some I prefer in Gears. The overwatch system is much better in Gears than Overwatch for instance, and I vastly prefer the tech trees in this over XCOM2 (though WoTC is a much improved system which makes them almost even overall). What I like about XCOM2 is a bit more of the random nature of each game for the out of combat scenarios (where preparation for potential battles and is just as important as the battles themselves).

But they both have their own flavors that make me like and dislike. 4 man squad kinda sucks, but at least in XCOM2 you can expand it eventually. I still think 6 is too small but whatever. I think that Gears Tactics is well worth its time in terms of playing, and I think that it is a solid entry in the franchise.

Then again, I'm a weirdo that didn't think the Bureau of all things should have gotten the backlash it did. It wasn't perfect but it had some cool ideas.

[Synavix]

I also had a lot of fun with Bureau. Some of the lore and story twists were really fun. And I just like games where you can walk around in your base between missions.