Video Game Analysis Choice Award Goes To...

I am really, really happy that I can be playing video games and be technically doing homework for class at the same time. This is amazing, and I may or may not brag to my friends about this. While I do this, I have been considering what game I will doing an analysis on. Something I really wanted to do while selecting a video game is keep in mind the depth of which I can dissect it.

I’ve mentioned Fortnite in the past, and I do think there are some interesting dynamics that are able to be explored in that game. This has to do with the decision making, social aspect, and critical thinking skills that force the user to engage in a thoughtful manner while playing. I was going to do Overwatch, as there is a unique and fun character profiles that give the game a world outside of simply playing it. But I felt like I wanted to explore a different game that is not as well known, and is involves more game elements than most games out there.

This game is XCOM 2. This game is similar to chess. It is termed as a turn-based tactics game, as opposed to a real-time strategy game. Real-time strategy games occur in exactly what is in the title, real and actual time. So as players play, the game will progress and decisions need to be actively made. Turn-based allows the players to take their time in making decisions, and are thus less reactive and more thoughtful, in my opinion. And that is why XCOM 2 is like chess, in that regard.

The background of the game is slightly confusing to me, but essentially the world is being taken over by aliens. The world is coming together to fight these aliens. I did not play the first one, but I think there was a war against the aliens in the first game, and the humans actually lost. This is different than most video games that usually have humans being the victors. Regardless, this game is where the humans are resisting and fighting back against the aliens. Missions involve defense, attack, sabotage, rescue, and intel gathering.

You roll with a squad that you get to select, and typically the composition of the squad is based on the mission you are on. The different roles are ranger, grenadier, specialist, sharpshooter, psi operative, and SPARK. I will describe these in more detail in my actual analysis paper, but basically you do need to have a balance and try to have one to two of each role in your squad, but your squad can only be six characters. This means you end up not using one or two roles depending on the mission. The mission details and briefings can be extremely vague, so sometimes you feel like you’re going in blind.

One thing the game does that is incredibly memorable and most games do not do: when your character dies, they die for good. You get to customize your characters and name them. I name them after my family and friends, so you get emotionally attached to your characters. You do not want them to die. In fact, I’ll admit that I will save multiple times during a mission so that none of my characters die, because I do not want them to! I do not want to lose all the work I’ve done developing them as a character, and I like my family and friends.

There is so much more to write about this game, and it is perfect for my personality type. I love games that challenge me, but that also force me to really be thoughtful about the decisions I have to make. This game does that, and so much more. I end up researching more about tactics and strategies than I do playing the actual game, which I think says something.