Sid's theory about games seems to suggest that Invisible, Inc. should be boring. I have to say I've found it anything but.
Has anyone played both Covert Action and Invisible, Inc for comparison?
Has anyone played both Covert Action and Invisible, Inc for comparison?
I don't think the "Covert Action Rule" (which I assume is what you're referring to with "Sid's theory) really applies to Invisible, Inc. The strategic layer in that game is really just basically "pick your next map" with a bunch of other options that are all related to your next break-in.
Covert Action isn't like that. Every minigame/layer switch that you make is fairly jarring. It can be hard to remember things between layers unless you've got a notepad handy, and it breaks immersion enough to be frustrating unless you really, really like the game (which I do).
For instance, during a break-in, you can hack computers to get information you want if the people whose building you are breaking into have it. But you have to type a name query in a text box. It leads to moments where you ask yourself "What was that guy's name? Was I looking for the Stasi hideout in Budapest or Bucharest?" And there's no easy way to get the answers unless you have good memory or you write stuff down.
Same problem with the crypto minigame, but worse because it's explicitly timed, though also easier because you can decrypt without knowing what you're reading in lower difficulty.
Any time you enter the driving minigame is also jarring because it basically has no connection to the stategic layer at all. You kind of succeed at it, or you don't.
So I don’t really think the two games are actually that directly comperable (but I like both of them, fwiw)