Revitalizing the Tactics Genre: Insights from the Creator of X-COM

“We haven’t yet managed to establish a strong foothold,” remarks Julian Gollop, the inventor of the original X-COM (before Firaxis revised it as XCOM in 2012). He and I are fending off waves of brain-in-a-jar aliens in cooperative mode in his distinctive game, Chip ‘n Clawz vs. The Brainioids, and this is the second time he mentions the foothold, which makes me sense a slight tension in his voice.

“One of our structures is under attack!” adds the disembodied voice of Clawz, not helping much. At this moment, I decide not to reveal that despite my claims of having sound strategic gaming skills, I don’t exactly understand what a foothold entails (we are also literally assaulting a bridge, which complicates matters a little). I deploy some turrets and anxiously follow it up with some smashing. A few moments of additional zap-and-bark action later – during which I can’t quite shake the feeling that I am playing alongside a legend in strategy games, a remarkably astute individual, while simultaneously being a total novice – my minor disaster is resolved. “We’ve established a solid foothold now,” Gollop states almost to himself, in full tactical mode. Phew!

Chip ‘n Clawz vs. The Brainioids is an exceptional real-time action-strategy hybrid, not unlike Pikmin or Orcs Must Die!, where you are on the ground exploring and battling, but also constructing buildings and defenses, gathering resources, and giving commands. Gollop indeed cites these as references. “Some of the levels we’ve incorporated feel a bit more Pikmin-like, as you need to utilize your minions to solve various puzzles and interact with the environment – although I must admit they aren’t as clever as Pikmin,” he shares.

Wrapped in a charming early-2000s 3D platformer aesthetic, the levels of Chip ‘n Clawz – at least the few early ones I experienced – typically involve running around a map collecting small items and creating useful resource-gathering structures, which spawn little miner troops that chip away at stockpiles of Brainium. This resource is then used to unlock additional buildings, which produce melee or ranged soldiers – each unlocked during every stage by discovering and hacking a specific terminal somewhere on the map – which you command to gradually advance through increasingly tougher waves of adversaries. There exists a light rock-paper-scissors dynamics of counters and counter-counters, in classic RTS fashion: turrets excel at taking down flying units, artillery excels against turrets, and flying units are effective against artillery. Additionally, there is a quick, controller-friendly tactical overlay that you can access to organize them into well-arranged groups.

This marks a notable departure from Gollop’s usual specialties – turn-based strategy games like Phoenix Point, which stick much closer to the now conventionally recognized XCOM formula (a series he joked he’d be more than happy to revisit if Firaxis were to extend the offer). He explains that there are several reasons behind this shift. One objective is to create a game he can enjoy with his children – the cooperative aspect being essential – and he points to Nintendo’s Pikmin and even Kirby and the Forgotten Lands as games that influenced him in various ways, despite their cooperative elements being “a bit lackluster.” The co-op feature here is well-implemented: it’s easy to start a game with a friend by simply sharing a code, and there are nice little touches like a single-button resource transfer system that allows you to give Brainium to your partner so they can quickly build or repair.

However, another motivation seems to extend far beyond that, aiming for something much broader. This goal is to “modernize the real-time strategy genre,” as he articulates. “I believe it’s been a challenge to genuinely innovate in this domain. Therefore, you could say Chip ‘n Clawz is my modest attempt to do something a bit different.”

As Gollop states, is that in strategy games “you’re contending with nostalgia, considering you may recall how popular RTS titles were during the late ’90s and early 2000s – it was the leading gaming genre at least on PC. And how they declined, as MOBAs seemed to have significantly impacted them.”

I offer up a few examples of where innovation has occurred to some extent, albeit with mixed results. Efforts by Subset Games like Into the Breach, or last year’s impressive Tactical Breach Wizards from Suspicious Trends, provide some vivid turn-based examples. Relic’s attempt to innovate the classic RTS model with the MOBA-inspired Dawn of War 3, not so much.

“I enjoy those games,” he expresses, “but they have progressed in a different direction as they evolved, because both Into the Breach and Tactical Breach Wizards operate like puzzle games, where the complexity arises from all the different combinations of setups – but they’re still puzzle games because you need to solve them in some manner.” Regarding DoW 3, “they definitely attempted something novel, but their audience didn’t seem willing to follow that path.”

It is, he acknowledges, “challenging – extremely challenging – to innovate in that context. Because, as I mentioned, there’s the enduring influence of the classic RTS that’s always looming. It’s similar with turn-based games – I mean, is Civilization ever going to regain its former prestige? Perhaps not.”

That being said, it’s important to highlight the “humble” aspect Gollop alluded to earlier – I don’t imagine Gollop will fail.