Angel Dust on 14/4/2010 at 10:56
I'm completely puzzled by this. Why use the X-COM franchise if you aren't going to make a game that appeals to the audience? Why not just roll your own IP if you want to make an 'aliens are attacking' shooter? It's not like X-COM name means a hell of a lot to most gamers today.
Malf on 14/4/2010 at 11:10
Even more fucked up?
X-Com was originally published by Microprose. Guess who founded Microprose?
Sid Meier.
So 2K even have someone who was (albeit indirectly) responsible for the original on their payroll, and who knows his shit when it comes to turn-based strategy, yet they still felt the need to farm it out to someone else and make it an FPS.
Utter genius.
Morgoth on 14/4/2010 at 11:27
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
I'm completely puzzled by this. Why use the X-COM franchise if you aren't going to make a game that appeals to the audience? Why not just roll your own IP if you want to make an 'aliens are attacking' shooter? It's not like X-COM name means a hell of a lot to most gamers today.
Same could be said about Fallout 3, but look how well it sold.
All the pissing and moaning from the old Fallout fans only helped building up hype and awareness. Players that never heard or played of F1/2 were suddenly excited about F3.
Same will happen with XCOM.
Eldron on 14/4/2010 at 12:15
Quote Posted by Morgoth
Same could be said about Fallout 3, but look how well it sold.
All the pissing and moaning from the old Fallout fans only helped building up hype and awareness. Players that never heard or played of F1/2 were suddenly excited about F3.
Same will happen with XCOM.
Except fallout3 followed much the originals gameplay, you play as one character, the skillset is nearly the same, you're still getting out of a vault and exploring a world, you're doing quests.
What changed was that it become a first person perspective game, with a real time combat mode, and still kept a "turn-based" combat mode in there.
I wouldn't mind a tactical shooter in first person where you have a squad, manage a base, gather remains for research, and do skirmishes while hireing new personel.
but making it an ego shooter with a story centered around one character?, that's way different from what fallout3 did to fallout.
Morgoth on 14/4/2010 at 12:26
Quote Posted by Eldron
Except fallout3 followed much the originals gameplay, you play as one character, the skillset is nearly the same, you're still getting out of a vault and exploring a world, you're doing quests.
What changed was that it become a first person perspective game, with a real time combat mode, and still kept a "turn-based" combat mode in there.
I wouldn't mind a tactical shooter in first person where you have a squad, manage a base, gather remains for research, and do skirmishes while hireing new personel.
but making it an ego shooter with a story centered around one character?, that's way different from what fallout3 did to fallout.
So? Why should they tailor the whole game around the old XCom games? Doesn't make sense. There just aren't enough Xcom fans out there that would justify a real followup. Besides, we're talking 2K Marin here. They're known for making shooters, not strategy games. Why would they want to make a strategy game?
Eldron on 14/4/2010 at 12:47
Quote Posted by Morgoth
So? Why should they tailor the whole game around the old XCom games? Doesn't make sense. There just aren't enough Xcom fans out there that would justify a real followup. Besides, we're talking 2K Marin here. They're known for making shooters, not strategy games. Why would they want to make a strategy game?
Why even use the xcom IP then? what's the point of it?
EvaUnit02 on 14/4/2010 at 13:08
Quote Posted by Eldron
I wouldn't mind a tactical shooter in first person where you have a squad, manage a base, gather remains for research, and do skirmishes while hireing new personel.
That's the sort of thing I would've liked to have seen with a triple-A reimagining of X-Com as well.
Quote:
but making it an ego shooter with a story centered around one character?, that's way different from what fallout3 did to fallout.
They could make that work, where you've got a linear storyline and a fixed protagonist. He would be like a Hero unit in more recent RTSes.
Random UFO encounters (shooting them down with Interceptors, investigating the crash site, et. al.) could be turned into side-quests. These would compliment main campaign storyline, which would of course have fixed scenarios. Procedurally generated environments would likely have to go though, enemy placement could likely still be random though.
Success in campaign missions would of course depend on researched tech.
I honestly think that a talented developer with enough time and resources could pull off such an ambitious project. With a good marketing push such a game could very likely be successful too - with the mainstream press creaming their pants over how innovative it is, when it in reality would just be iterative.
EvaUnit02 on 14/4/2010 at 13:18
If they did a well made remake of UFO Defense for digital delivery on say Steam, XBLA, etc as a tie-in project, it could very well be more successful than the "modern day AAA reboot". Bionic Commando: Rearmed and Dark Void Zero come to mind.
demagogue on 14/4/2010 at 13:34
I called this years ago when they gave some teaser hint about it (or anyway agreed with whoever mentioned it first), and I remember then having that question in my head... How are they going to update that without it being dumb? Now I guess I see that they aren't. Still might turn out to be a decent FPS; just doesn't seem much like X-Com without the tactical parts.
Malf on 14/4/2010 at 14:45
You know, this may sound paranoid and cynical, but I think this could very well be a new marketing technique, and I suspect this game is going to sell incredibly well.
I think that after observing the vitriolic feedback the Fallout community offered up while Fallout 3 was in development, the marketing guys in gaming noticed that it was also a huge commercial success. So I think this could be an attempt to harness negative feedback to generate sales.
People all over the web are saying exactly the same things about this new X-Com that they said about Fallout 3; that it's a completely different genre, that there's no need to go using the X-Com IP and that they could make their own IP and be just as successful.
And with Fallout 3, it was still a massive success despite these exact same complaints from the Fallout community.
It just that marketing is now seeing that last sentence this way:
And with Fallout 3, it was still a massive success because of these exact same complaints from the Fallout community.
