Thread is weirdly out of date. This was true for a decade or so, but now we're inundated with nu-XCOM clones and Hard West and that stupid game where you play as a boar and that other stupid game by the Grimrock devs and all sorts of other nu-XCOM ripoff crap. All of which is ignoring that nu-XCOM and its ilk are abominations that are regressions from what was being done 20 years ago in fucking DOS games. The reality is that turn-based games are improbably popular again, but in a hideously reduced form for YouTube streamer idiots, kinda like how 'Boomer Shooters' are improbably popular again due to the same.
The real question is why the 'West' hates actual turn-based wargames (X-Com) but loves thinly veiled Skinner's box / gambling machines (XCOM).
It doesn't. Because X-Com is not a wargame. More importantly no one hates it because no one plays a game of 30 years today. At least not in numbers that matter.
There isn't any "gambling machine", those games are the exact same genre. One might be better, or even much better, than the other but that's it. So many people on the Codex who mindlessly jumps onto nuXCOM's system haters bandwagon. Yes the game wasn't very good, certainly much worse than the original X-com. It doesn't mean that you can't make a good game without granular movement/a lot of action point system. It only means that Firaxis couldn't pull it off. Even basing on nuxcom flawed system itself you can make something way better - even as a modder - namely Long War. Even nuXCOM system can result in great tactical play. Thinking that dozens of action points is absolutely necessary to have a good TB game is nonsense. It is needed if you have a (semi-)realistic game in mind. If you want a game that is more abstract and game-y other system might work too. However to have a good system you need talented people who can create one and then build around it.
As to turn-based games being reduced now compared to 30 years ago. I played them then and now. There was some great ones back then - like for example X-Com and there are some great ones now, like for example Battle Brothers*. Reasons why it looks like decline today? First one is that we don't remember the bad games from 30 years ago, only the good ones, which is natural. Another and more important is the fact that in 2010s-2020s every moron can make AND distribute any abomination of a game thanks to Steam. It results in the market being flooded with bad clones of successful games. It was the case even before digital distribution but not nearly to the same extent. In other words, today we are flooded by shit while in 1990s-2000s we just walked in it. But there are diamonds in the shit to be found still.
*A system with 9 action points where movement costs 2~3 and attack 4~6, do the math yourselves.
I agree with a lot of your points, but this isn't strictly nostalgia glasses. I would offer this as a counterpoint: If I had a child, I would have no problem with them playing X-Com. However, I would be reticent to have them playing XCOM. X-Com has a layer of complexity that requires abstract thinking to 'git gud.' XCOM largely just requires a gambling mentality to 'git gud.'
In order to beat X-Com at a high difficulty setting, you have to understand several layers of strategic complexity and adapt to dynamic situations on a tactical level. XCOM reifies all this to 50/25% cover mechanics. It's a gambling machine. You learn how to 'hedge your bets' with various percentages. X-com is ironically, despite being decades older, a much more complex ballistic simulation that requires you to think similar to a
wargame -- in that you devise the roles of each of your soldiers based on your resources and their skills, etc, and take shots based on situational awareness and not just purely on some simplified cover mechanic. XCOM simplifies all this out in the favor of just having a perpetual yes/no/yolo gambling machine. At the risk of getting really deep into the weeds here, X-Com actually simulates
where your shots go and what unexpected effects that will cause, whereas XCOM only cares about whether your shots 'hit or not.' It's literally only a did it hit, yes or no? It's a gambling game. The original X-Com is more a wargame in the sense that your missed shot might end up setting that wheat field aflame which will enormously, tactically alter the way you play the rest of the mission and your preparation for further such unforseen circumstances. XCOM doesn't give a shit. You either hit the enemy or you didn't. There's really no comparison.
I agree that a lot of the rose-tinted glasses here are nonsense. I just recently played Ambermoon for the first time and found it to be tedious, simplistic pablum. I get the accusation that actually a lot of older games were more crap (or, more politely, 'of your precious childhood') than people acknowledge. But I know X-Com in my bones, and honestly have a lot of problems with its overworld design especially, and yet can still acknowledge that XCOM is a tedious cocaine-mentality addiction-based bullshit version of it.
I get that crap games were also released 20 years ago. But can you answer why a DOS X-Com game released 30 years ago is
so much more mechanically complex than an XCOM game released a decade ago? The correct answer, I suspect, is an increasing societal preferance for raw gambling mechanics and a disinterest in actual
wargaming mechanics. This would also answer why XCOM is a much,
much bigger seller than X-Com ever was, even including inflation. And if this isn't enough, please explain to me how XCOM: Chimera Squad is not the ultimate example of this decline?
