izigame.me

Review based on a full playthrough with the final patch on Normal difficulty.

This game reportedly flopped so hard it cost publisher Paradox Interactive $22.7 million. The fallout led Paradox to declare they’re done with XCOM-likes—calling them a poor fit for their portfolio.

A $21.7 million flop can ripple through the industry—especially when the statement implies “XCOM-likes” are no longer commercially viable.

The reality is simpler. Lamplighters League didn’t suffer from market fatigue, but from lacking the toolset to realize its potential—creating cascading issues. Not a misunderstood gem. Not recommended for players, but for developers, it offers a case study in how even a promising concept can collapse in execution.

Players looking to scratch that XCOM itch could try Hard West 2 (2022). For Long War mod fans, check Cyber Knights: Flashpoint.


1. Market Opportunity

This game aimed to blend XCOM-style strategy with an adventure-game twist. Framing it as an adventure rather than a war sim was clever—a chance to dodge genre baggage and build fresh IP.

Since the original X-COM: UFO Defense (1994), the genre has been rooted in war games. Julian Gollop’s design recognized that bridging tactical combat and strategic decision-making required abstraction to be approachable—distilling global military infrastructure into manageable layers like base-building and resource allocation. Players didn’t oversee every factory or supply line; they ran one or more bases, balancing threat response with research and production. The 2012 reboot streamlined these systems but kept the essence intact: a strategic loop built on managing war logistics, not just combat tactics.

Lamplighters League tried something else: smaller maps, puzzle-flavored combat, and an action-point system paired with a real-time stealth layer. Exploration and takedowns occurred in real time, but once combat began, it depended entirely on the AP economy.

The concept was strong—a fresh spin on tactical strategy with narrative flair, aimed beyond the usual war-game audience. It’s easy to see why the pitch looked good to the publisher.


2. Uneven Implementation

The AP system resembled XCOM, but gameplay leaned heavily on restoring AP or signature abilities through items or buffs. Most missions allowed three agents, ideally a mix of Bruiser, Saboteur, and Sneak—special missions like Heists allowing four.

Class skills offered unique access and powerful takedowns—but were often undercut by system limitations. Bruisers and Sneaks relied on melee takedowns, leaving them vulnerable to detection due engine issues—undermining their ability to set up encounters cleanly. Worsened by a lack of visual aids—no outlines appeared when terrain like tree branches or canyon walls blocked line of sight, sometimes obscuring up to 70% of the view.

Battles began with more enemies than the system was designed to absorb—because the Takedown mechanic underdelivered. Even before reinforcements arrived, some encounters crossed the line from tense to tedious, unless players had min-maxed their agents.


3. Strategy Layer

3.1 Incomplete Systems
Item management was broken. The HQ inventory displayed only 18 item types—even though more existed. With no scrollbar or overflow indicator, excess items could disappear unless manually assigned to an agent’s pack.

Item level inconsistencies added to the confusion: Level 0 gear mislabeled as Level 1, armor tiers missing, and a surplus of Supplies with no use—likely remnants of a crafting system that never made it into the final patch.

3.2 Strategic Missteps
Multiple resource types (Intel, Ink, Aether...) couldn’t be exchanged or converted. This killed flexibility and harmed long-term planning.

The Undrawn Hand—random post-mission cards—offered passive or active agent buffs. Upgrading a card required Ink at exponential costs (32 → 2048). Yet players couldn’t preview card pools, rarity, or effects. No list. No in-game planning. The only reference to cards is a Reddit post from two years ago.

Card slots and access depended on Ally recruitment order and upgrade speed—adding more randomness to a system already hidden from the player.

Card swapping was too restricted. Cards could be reassigned only after missions—and only among agents who were present. This removed the one system that could have offset combat fatigue from the sheer number of enemies left on the field due to the unreliable takedown mechanic.

3.3 Tactical Friction
Mission variety existed in form—Sabotage, Supply Runs, and item theft missions—but objectives repeated across recycled maps. Even missions framed as unique, like Assassinations, often played out as standard encounters with renamed goals.

The Doomsday Clock system felt off. I could try to manage it—but the mission pool didn’t respond. “Sabotage Transmitter” showed up three times in a row as the best option for managing both the Clock and resources—not because the game adapted, but because it didn’t.

The best design idea—multi-phase Heists with optional Prep missions—worked. Removing enemies before big encounters added real tension.

Streamlining can work well—Chimera Squad nailed that—but in Lamplighters League, the unreliable availability of specific resources required to unlock Ally abilities undercut its original goals.

The game encourages exploration, but recruiting more than seven agents can be counterproductive. The shared Skill Point pool mitigates the issue—late-game recruits can be left undeveloped. Still, with mission slots fixed, expanding the roster drags on pacing. There's a tradeoff between narrative and system economy that never quite resolves.



4. Characters, Setting & Design

4.1 Characterization & DLC DOA
Pre-made cast can work, but here, the characters are paper-thin and inauthentic in distracting ways. Only Eddie’s backstory reflects the 1930s setting. The rest drift in a pulp-noir vacuum.

There are no normal NPCs, aside from the group’s pilot, and a roster of fringe factions or magical orders burdens the setting.

Planned DLC focused on adding more characters—but random recruitment and a limited skill point economy made that strategy dubious.

4.2 Enemy Design
Enemy factions draw from Nazis, Cthulhu mythos, and occult cabals... and blur together in the process. Nicastro’s faction is perhaps more memorable than the rest.

That said, elite enemy designs were clear and well-telegraphed, with memorable powers.

4.3 Environment, Audio, and Tactical Maps
Art direction is excellent. Clarity is high: ladders, cover, hazards—all intuitive. While maps are static, they feature clever interactive elements like oil puddles and traps.

The use of multiple biomes across tactical maps was a smart, deliberate choice. It created a sense of variety and helped stave off repetition. Standard missions reused layouts, but the maps themselves were economically designed—appearing large, yet focused and efficient in how they staged encounters.

The soundtrack, composed by Jon Everist, supports the adventure with subtle power. It adapts fluidly to shifts in tone—suspense, escalation, brief triumph—without overwhelming the player, one of the best I have experienced.

Voice acting is equally strong—confident, expressive, and well-cast—but underserved by writing.

And the 1930s? Mostly wasted. No airfield depots, no railway hubs. Cars, but no gas stations. A world set in the interwar era, but designed without it. Contrast that with Hard West 2, which leaned into its setting with trains, robbers, and folklore.


Had the studio tried something smaller—like Chimera Squad—it might’ve revealed engine limits before committing to a full-scale campaign. Instead, project overreached. It’s not a failure of concept, but of calibration.