New King in Town: Gears Tactics

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

I am huge XCOM fan and have been since the original Laser Squad back in the 1980s.

Firaxis did great jog with the reboot, equally great job with XCOM2 and really nice work with Chimera Squad. Absolutely love all 3 games!

During past few years, various devs have realised fun and beauty of the genre pushing out number of excellent titles out including - Mutant Year Zero, Phantom Doctrine, Space Hulk Ascension and others... I loved all of them but XCOM remained the best game out there.

This has changed few days ago with the release of Gears Tactics.

Tactical gameplay of Gears Tactics easily beats XCOM - fact! Add to this jaw-dropping presentation, wonderful 'polish', no performance issues and almost no bugs and we have a new king in town when it comes down to this genre. Sure, GT has no strategic layer but let's not forget that this is their 1st title so let's not kid ourselves, they will push out expansions and sequels without a doubt making the game even better than it already is!

Point of this post is - Firaxis needs to wake up and up their 'game' :)

No more excuses in regards to crap presentation, horrible performance and numerous bugs and glitches. With Gears Tactics out, Firaxis have plenty of catching up to do.

Let's hope XCOM 3 will put XCOM where it belongs - at the very top of the genre!

---------

Here is the list of reasons, in no particular order, why Gears Tactics tactical gameplay layer is better than that of an XCOM games:

1. NO TILED GRID - while at first this might appear as minor thing, it is in fact huge and true evolution of this genre. So, no more tiles! Every pixel of a map is yours to use which means you can fine tune your movement anywhere and everywhere you wish.

2. NO END MOVE AFTER FIRING A SHOT - Gears Tactics 'fixes' one of the biggest game design WTFs from XCOM in easy and obvious way. You have full freedom over your actions, meaning, you can first shoot and then move. Or you can move and then shoot. Or you can use all your actions for shooting, moving, applying skills, throwing grenades, planting mines, healing etc. - in any order you wish!!! I could never understand why, if I take a shot in XCOM as my first action, I am stuck or my turn ends when, in fact, I should have one more action to use it whichever way I wish. This is absolutely massive!

3. INFINITELY BETTER OVERWATCH SYSTEM - this is taken, more / less, directly from Phoenix Point. Overwatch is way more specific and fine tuned where you basically get cone area, smaller or longer depending on gun that you use, that you can set to particular direction and distance! Let me repeat - direction and distance! Direction is obvious but distance plays huge part as well since some guns perform better at shorter and some at longer distances! Plus, if you overwatch with 2 actions remaining this will translate into 2 overwatch shots! If you overwatch with 4 actions remaining this will mean 4 overwatch shots etc. This is equally massive!

4. BULLET PHYSICS - this is big! In Gears Tactics you are firing 'real bullets' with their path and penetration properties. This means that if you shoot at enemy and have friendly unit somewhere in front of you, there is very strong possibility that you might end up with friendly fire hitting your own instead of the enemy you were aiming at! Equally, when firing bursts at a single enemy and there is 2nd enemy behind the first one, you can hit or kill both.

5. QUALITY AND SPEED OF AN AI - while AI in Gears Tactics isn't exactly super clever it is certainly more clever than in XCOM. And not only that - it is much faster, too! As soon as you finish with your turn enemy moves straight away with no pause or lag. In short - better and faster AI. Yet another big deal in my books...

6. NEW AND ORIGINAL GAME MECHANICS - I am not going to list all of them here for the sake of keeping this post as short as possible but there is huge number of brave and innovative game mechanics here that are simply brilliant. From 'execution' system that, when performed, grants extra action to each squad member to enemy reinforcements delivered via randomly placed 'emergence holes' on a map.

7. MAPS DESIGN AND HEIGHT LEVELS - there is no huge difference here between the two titles but I prefer maps in Gears Tactics and the way they deal with tactically important positions and height levels. It's easier to spot them, they are more logical and way easier to navigate to and from in GT.

8. CLASS SKILLS, WEAPON AND ARMOUR CUSTOMISATION - this is similar to XCOM games but as almost all other things mentioned so far, it is significantly deeper and better done in GT! Each peace of armour, each class skill (there is about 150 in total to chose from) and each weapon part plays a big role in the game. While this is not that important early game, later on it becomes crucial and significantly influences the game and the way you play it.

9. NO MAJOR BUGS AND GLITCHES - well, apart from one that few people reported but I never experienced myself. This is equally massive as everything else mentioned above. No need to talk about XCOM performance issues and bugs - everyone knows about it! In fact, few years ago on some XCOM forum I have suggested that for XCOM 3 they simply have to change the engine since they clearly aren't able to handle it or engine itself can't handle what they wish to achieve. And then GT comes out using EXACT SAME engine (Unreal) and proves that it is indeed possible to have such game done with no major issues whatsoever. Frekn embarrassing to say the least... or it should be! Again, this is massive! It's just such a pleasure to play game in this genre without fear that it will hang, crash or glitch in one way or the other.

10. THE BOSS BATTLES - this is spoiler free so I'll just keep it at this, the boss battles!!!

So, there you go...

This is 10 MAJOR points and I say MAJOR points since there is way more to it all if we are to include minor things to the list as well.

And finally:

11. PRESENTATION, ART DIRECTION AND GENERAL POLISH - there is no much to say in regards to this. Gears Tactics is infinitely more polished and better presented than any XCOM game so far plus, and this is purely subjective, it has significantly 'darker' and better art and direction. To me this is important because it plays big part when it comes down to immersion and immersion, for me at least, is super important

Feel free to argue and ask further questions if you wish.

-----------

PS: Just a quick note to anyone posting in this thread and for whatever reason expects an argument of any sort - sure, no problem! - but please make sure that:

1. Your Steam profile is not set to 'private'
2. Your Game List is visible so that I can see your experience with XCOM, GT and other games in the genre.

Otherwise, don't bother since you will be ignored.

[Catpuppy]

I haven't played Chimera Squad yet, but I just finished Gears Tactics today on the second highest difficulty (my first playthrough). It's a good game, got decently challenging especially towards the end, but it really lacks replay value. I don't really have any desire to continue playing to Veteran mode, especially with everything just being based around different modifiers/mutators to make the game rely on gimmicks for increased challenge on every post-game level.

With you being forced to use specific Heroes on different levels, it doesn't really let you make different team compositions for the game either or play much in a different way, though the unit skill trees are great and allow for variety in that sense. Lack of a strategic layer, also, reduces its replayability. It's definitely good for a one-off, but lacks the longevity of XCOM.

[Johny_Geth]

Gears looks much better than xcom, imo. But it doesnt add any new ideas to the genre and have no strategic layer. Even if modern xcom is pale shadow of old xcom... GT is no king of anything.

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

引用自 Keyboard Cowboy：

引用自 -=XX=-Nephilim：

Forceful use of characters - fair point... But this is tied to the lore and the story. XCOM is also forcing you to use certain characters sometimes, regardless if you like them or not. Not to mention Chimera Squad where no other option is present at all :)

I can't remember XCOM doing that and in CS it's only until you get more squaddies, but yeah up to a certain point you are forced to play with a certain squad set-up.
I found GT hella grindy as half of your spec comes from gear which drops at random, so you need to do all side missions (preferably the case pick ups or whatever they're called).

I mean, it sounds like I don't like the game, I do but I wouldn't go as far as to call it the king of anything. And the price-tag does not help me liking it more.

What do you mean!? The entire CS is about predefined characters ie. being forced to play with characters that you may or may not like. In XCOM2 there are few missions where you are forced to play as Shen and Bredford etc.

As for the price difference - we are talking about quantity vs quality.

With XCOM you get more content for your money, no doubt.

With GT you get less content but of higher quality.

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

引用自 Fluff Bunny：

引用自 rubyeye：

GT has far more in common with Phoenix Point than with XCOM.

I don't see why this has to be a GT vs XCOM fan thing. Can't you like both?

And it isn't!

Personally, not that I like both games - I ADORE both games! :)

However, for me personally, GT has gained a slight edge over XCOM. I simply prefer how it plays, how it feels, how it sounds, how it looks, how it runs on my rig, etc.

[Keyboard Cowboy]

引用自 -=XX=-Nephilim：

引用自 Keyboard Cowboy：

I can't remember XCOM doing that and in CS it's only until you get more squaddies, but yeah up to a certain point you are forced to play with a certain squad set-up.
I found GT hella grindy as half of your spec comes from gear which drops at random, so you need to do all side missions (preferably the case pick ups or whatever they're called).

I mean, it sounds like I don't like the game, I do but I wouldn't go as far as to call it the king of anything. And the price-tag does not help me liking it more.

What do you mean!? The entire CS is about predefined characters ie. being forced to play with characters that you may or may not like. In XCOM2 there are few missions where you are forced to play as Shen and Bredford etc.

As for the price difference - we are talking about quantity vs quality.

With XCOM you get more content for your money, no doubt.

With GT you get less content but of higher quality.

Ohh sorry, I meant classes and not characters, I only mentioned Sid as a character because he's a vanguard and they're IMHO not really good when compared to scout, sniper or even heavy.
While in CS you can still choose to bring any other class and not be forced to use a class you don't like/want (besides the obvious that there are only 8 people in your team in total at any time).
I don't think any, I repeat any, game is worth 70€ as that's to me just an insane price for a game (max what I pay is 50€ , usually). If I were to buy GT I wouldn't pay more then 40€ for it considering I paid less for PP which I think is better overall (while certainly losing when it comes to graphics, polish and pacing). But this is all subjective so.
I've spent more time in JA:Flashback than I have with GT even though in almost every way it's worse than GT, but I for example didn't feel it was grindy, repetitive or had random drops for a specific class.
Again, GT is good and blew me away...for the first 8 or so hours then I just couldn't wait to finish it just to see if that was it (something I don't feel when playing XCOM, CS, JA:Flashback etc.).

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

引用自 Keyboard Cowboy：

引用自 -=XX=-Nephilim：

What do you mean!? The entire CS is about predefined characters ie. being forced to play with characters that you may or may not like. In XCOM2 there are few missions where you are forced to play as Shen and Bredford etc.

As for the price difference - we are talking about quantity vs quality.

With XCOM you get more content for your money, no doubt.

With GT you get less content but of higher quality.

Ohh sorry, I meant classes and not characters, I only mentioned Sid as a character because he's a vanguard and they're IMHO not really good when compared to scout, sniper or even heavy.
While in CS you can still choose to bring any other class and not be forced to use a class you don't like/want (besides the obvious that there are only 8 people in your team in total at any time).
I don't think any, I repeat any, game is worth 70€ as that's to me just an insane price for a game (max what I pay is 50€ , usually). If I were to buy GT I wouldn't pay more then 40€ for it considering I paid less for PP which I think is better overall (while certainly losing when it comes to graphics, polish and pacing). But this is all subjective so.
I've spent more time in JA:Flashback than I have with GT even though in almost every way it's worse than GT, but I for example didn't feel it was grindy, repetitive or had random drops for a specific class.
Again, GT is good and blew me away...for the first 8 or so hours then I just couldn't wait to finish it just to see if that was it (something I don't feel when playing XCOM, CS, JA:Flashback etc.).

Ah, I see what you mean... And I agree, I play Vanguard only with Sid as well (or when I free some prisoner from torture pod!) :)

Price wise - if I am not such genre fan, I would have never bought it! It is insanely high - no doubt. But, after close to 50hrs in and at least that much to go, it is all good. Ie. the quality of the game justifies it for me.

By the way - did you play it with Ironman switched on on Experienced or Insane?

If not, you are missing the real deal behind this title.

I am 3 missions away from - hopefully! - concluding my 'blind' Experienced Ironman run.

When and if I do it - I'll switch to Veteran missions and Insane difficulty - the way I play all XCOM type games.

[Keyboard Cowboy]

引用自 -=XX=-Nephilim：

引用自 Keyboard Cowboy：

Ohh sorry, I meant classes and not characters, I only mentioned Sid as a character because he's a vanguard and they're IMHO not really good when compared to scout, sniper or even heavy.
While in CS you can still choose to bring any other class and not be forced to use a class you don't like/want (besides the obvious that there are only 8 people in your team in total at any time).
I don't think any, I repeat any, game is worth 70€ as that's to me just an insane price for a game (max what I pay is 50€ , usually). If I were to buy GT I wouldn't pay more then 40€ for it considering I paid less for PP which I think is better overall (while certainly losing when it comes to graphics, polish and pacing). But this is all subjective so.
I've spent more time in JA:Flashback than I have with GT even though in almost every way it's worse than GT, but I for example didn't feel it was grindy, repetitive or had random drops for a specific class.
Again, GT is good and blew me away...for the first 8 or so hours then I just couldn't wait to finish it just to see if that was it (something I don't feel when playing XCOM, CS, JA:Flashback etc.).

Ah, I see what you mean... And I agree, I play Vanguard only with Sid as well (or when I free some prisoner from torture pod!) :)

Price wise - if I am not such genre fan, I would have never bought it! It is insanely high - no doubt. But, after close to 50hrs in and at least that much to go, it is all good. Ie. the quality of the game justifies it for me.

By the way - did you play it with Ironman switched on on Experienced or Insane?

If not, you are missing the real deal behind this title.

I am 3 missions away from - hopefully! - concluding my 'blind' Experienced Ironman run.

When and if I do it - I'll switch to Veteran missions and Insane difficulty - the way I play all XCOM type games.

Nope, just played it in experienced mode as I never play TBS's games in ironman (I'd rather savescum than have to restart :P).
I might try that out but I have other games I still need to catch up on (too many games too little time). D:

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

引用自 Keyboard Cowboy：

引用自 -=XX=-Nephilim：

Ah, I see what you mean... And I agree, I play Vanguard only with Sid as well (or when I free some prisoner from torture pod!) :)

Price wise - if I am not such genre fan, I would have never bought it! It is insanely high - no doubt. But, after close to 50hrs in and at least that much to go, it is all good. Ie. the quality of the game justifies it for me.

By the way - did you play it with Ironman switched on on Experienced or Insane?

If not, you are missing the real deal behind this title.

I am 3 missions away from - hopefully! - concluding my 'blind' Experienced Ironman run.

When and if I do it - I'll switch to Veteran missions and Insane difficulty - the way I play all XCOM type games.

Nope, just played it in experienced mode as I never play TBS's games in ironman (I'd rather savescum than have to restart :P).
I might try that out but I have other games I still need to catch up on (too many games too little time). D:

Fair enough and totally understandable!

Ironman is for the freaks like me who won't play TBT games any other way. :D

I am not playing Phoenix Point since they have disabled Ironman mode (not sure if they have enabled it back over the last couple or so patches!?).

Try it out when you run out of new games - trust this TBT freak here, this is THE way to play the games in this genre ;)

[John Thicc 3 - Parabelly]

Calling a game with much less replayability and features "king" of anything is quite funny.

[DrKold]

I would like to check out Gears Tactits but ..i still run WIN 7 so i would need to buy WIN10 AND a 70 bucks game while also running the risk of not liking it.So thats whats keeping me from it really ..its not worth it atm.

From the gamplay ive seen i have to say it looks very good but some decisions are weird.. like the lootboxes.

Well i dont know when i get the chance to check it out but i imagine , at some point i will.

[Nuclear Kangaroo]

引用自 -=XX=-Nephilim：

I am huge XCOM fan and have been since the original Laser Squad back in the 1980s.

Firaxis did great jog with the reboot, equally great job with XCOM2 and really nice work with Chimera Squad. Absolutely love all 3 games!

During past few years, various devs have realised fun and beauty of the genre pushing out number of excellent titles out including - Mutant Year Zero, Phantom Doctrine, Space Hulk Ascension and others... I loved all of them but XCOM remained the best game out there.

This has changed few days ago with the release of Gears Tactics.

Tactical gameplay of Gears Tactics easily beats XCOM - fact! Add to this jaw-dropping presentation, wonderful 'polish', no performance issues and almost no bugs and we have a new king in town when it comes down to this genre. Sure, GT has no strategic layer but let's not forget that this is their 1st title so let's not kid ourselves, they will push out expansions and sequels without a doubt making the game even better than it already is!

Point of this post is - Firaxis needs to wake up and up their 'game' :)

No more excuses in regards to crap presentation, horrible performance and numerous bugs and glitches. With Gears Tactics out, Firaxis have plenty of catching up to do.

Let's hope XCOM 3 will put XCOM where it belongs - at the very top of the genre!

no strategic layer, no king, sorry

[Fluff Bunny]

I've not played gears... But I could do without things like the anarchy meter and the avatar project and some of the other stuff on the strategic layer that is supposed to promote urgency (but in my mind doesn't) .

Base building is fun, but that has been weak on the rebooted XCOM games anyway.

I can't really comment too hard on Gears and whether it is or is not better than XCOM, but I think a better game is possible even without a strategic layer.

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

引用自 Fluff Bunny：

I've not played gears... But I could do without things like the anarchy meter and the avatar project and some of the other stuff on the strategic layer that is supposed to promote urgency (but in my mind doesn't) .

Base building is fun, but that has been weak on the rebooted XCOM games anyway.

I can't really comment too hard on Gears and whether it is or is not better than XCOM, but I think a better game is possible even without a strategic layer.

Gears is about tactical layer exclusively and it's done to near perfection! (again, in my opinion it plays way better than any xcom or any other game in the genre)

Add to this almost perfect presentation, art direction, performance, almost no bugs (there is only one that I know of which only some players experienced) etc. and you have brill game at your hands :)

Now, I must say that I miss strategic layer or at least some sort of non-linearity! There is no doubt that this fact is going against Gears... But, as said earlier, the quality of everything else is simply stellar!

Also, another thing I mentioned few times in this thread, this is their first attempt at the genre - let's not forget about this!

Imagine what expansion or two could do to it - not to mention potential sequels!

Progressive difficulty scaling is another important thing...

All XCOMs play the same - really hard early game with things getting progressively easier to the point where you simply run over the enemies in late game missions.

Gears scales MUCH better in this regard!

And how about triggering invisible enemy pods in XCOM? One wrong tile and you can accidentally trigger more than you can handle... None of this in Gears.

They have nailed tactical layer almost perfectly while simultaneously introducing some wtf-this-is-awesome original mechanics! You can easily find yourself in position 4 (your squad) vs 20+ enemies, game over scenario basically... But thanks to some crazy mechanics and stellar game design you can in fact pull yourself out from such situations. etc.

Pure brilliance :)

[Ichthyic]

引用自 John Thicc 3 - Parabelly：

Nice bait.

and of course... it worked. *sigh*

[drz30]

Ever looked at the metacritic ratings for those two games ? CS got so many negative reviews while being a cheap spin-off. It makes no sense. Then we have Gear Tactics with almost only positve reviews.
It's obvious to me that Microsoft got their hands in this.