Jump to content

New X-COM Announced


Gimli

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very concerned that it's listed as "XCOM XBOX360 Trailer". Since many people who own consoles don't play games on PCs (sometimes they do, mostly they don't from my own experience) why would they be trying to push a title most XBOX360 players don't know anything about on consoles over PCs, where PC players have a good memory and many have played X-Com games before.

 

I dunno. Seem odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh.

 

Rock Paper Shotgun has an interview up. Reading now....

 

Bit cagey about everything.

 

"but what we’re retaining is the core elements that made X-COM X-COM; the strategy, the base, the research, agents, all of those things being in charge, and dealing with this problem as you see fit."

 

Okay, cautious optimism...

 

"Anthony Lawrence, Studio General Manager: One of the great things about putting it together is it’s all unpredictable. You don’t what’s going to turn up, how things are going to turn out. It could be different every single time, you don’t know where things are going to be coming from."

 

Okay, could be marketing, hope it's true. Nice to keep the replayability stuff.

 

Oh. Hell. Yes.

 

Simplified environments are there primarily so you can blow them up. I mean, seems to be causing some trouble, might not work entirely, or get scrapped, and the devs are cagey, but...

 

"Those areas were closed off just because we don’t want to show them yet, but you are in command of this area, this whole base. We really want to make sure that you feel like that, so we’re doing whatever we can to make the player feel like he isn’t just a casual observer, and that he’s actually giving orders, setting directions, all these people are there to work for him. They’re all there to carry out his orders. That’s the experience that we’re trying to create. There’s going to be a lot to look at in the base. You’re at the top of the org chart, I suppose. You’ve got people like Dr Goldberg and Mal, who are your like seconds, you’ll be interacting with them, they’ll be interacting with their staff and all of the stuff will unfold."

 

Sounds like some commanding going on. Nice.

 

And, well, geeze there was a ton of "Can't comment on that". Still, some good stuff mixed in with that, here's hoping, ect. ect. ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in the other news post, I bet there'll be a lot of info they've been holding back for E3.

 

If they include something familiar looking to long-time fans of the franchise that might help. Even if it's just a single grey/Sectoid recovered from a crashed scout ship in Roswell. You can't tell me that this game about aliens set in the 50's isn't going to bother with the whole Roswell thing :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my thing...

 

Is this the X-Com that I've been waiting for for all these years? No, most certainly not, but up until this game was announced, as far as we all were concerned, the X-Com property as we knew it was buried, forgotten, lost, no where on our video gaming map.

 

Now, there's hope! Yes, this isn't the game we want, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the game we want. I hope this FPS is highly successful, and brings the X-Com name back from the depths of obscurity and maybe, just maybe, it will lead to the true sequel that we've all been waiting for.

 

So, it's most certainly better than nothing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my thing...

 

Is this the X-Com that I've been waiting for for all these years? No, most certainly not, but up until this game was announced, as far as we all were concerned, the X-Com property as we knew it was buried, forgotten, lost, no where on our video gaming map.

 

Now, there's hope! Yes, this isn't the game we want, but perhaps it will eventually lead to the game we want. I hope this FPS is highly successful, and brings the X-Com name back from the depths of obscurity and maybe, just maybe, it will lead to the true sequel that we've all been waiting for.

 

So, it's most certainly better than nothing ;)

The fact that this game hasn't shown us that it is even related to X-Com besides the name kinda defeats the purpose of bringing it back, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not a total loss if you're looking at it like that Matri - the site stats show an increase in visits to our site and Ufopedia.org since the game was announced, and suggest more people are looking up the old games than usual, so if that equates to more sales of the old games on Steam because people are getting nostalgic for a bit of bug hunting then it's not all bad ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. It is impossible to cater to all, IMPOSSIBLE.

 

If they did a rework of the originals we'd be all over them for the lack of originality, if they went ahead in the same direction we'd be bitching that in this and that the originals were better, now it's that it isn't even close to the originals... I for one see this XCOM not as an evolution but as a revolution that does NOT close doors for the originals to be recreated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they did a rework of the originals we'd be all over them for the lack of originality, if they went ahead in the same direction we'd be bitching that in this and that the originals were better, now it's that it isn't even close to the originals...

 

Thanks for posting that SV - I had in my head a vision of the disappointment a straight remake would be. You'd know exactly what to do, exactly what was coming and not even a Chrysalid would scare you. In short, there would be no point - if I want to play a game like the original, I know exactly where it is on my hard drive ;)

 

On to your second point, I also had in my head that if they did an almost-exactly-faithful remake and decided to change the research tree one tiny bit, or change the layout of the UFOs, or change the aliens slightly then we'd still be arguing over it not being faithful or representative of the original.

 

Can we judge the new game on its own merits/failings as and when we have more info as I suggested here please? This isn't censorship, this is an attempt to move the discussion forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not a total loss if you're looking at it like that Matri - the site stats show an increase in visits to our site and Ufopedia.org since the game was announced, and suggest more people are looking up the old games than usual, so if that equates to more sales of the old games on Steam because people are getting nostalgic for a bit of bug hunting then it's not all bad :P

True enough, but how much of the increased visit translates into new sales of the old game? Or new pirating of old games, as the case may be.

 

The sad truth is that developers are all over FPS games and actively discriminating against any other games that require strategy more complex than "Zerg rush kekekekeke". Disagree all you want, but then you'll have to explain to me why C&C4 completely did away with base building, resource harvesting and infantry & mixed unit tactics and devolved into a quintessential "tank rush" game, a mere shadow of its former glorious past.

 

The decision to make it FPS is purely a move to cater to the lowest common denominator. In this case, console'rs who have never played an FPS until Halo, believing it to be the only game worthy of being called an FPS. Go ahead, grab the nearest 16-year-old console'r and set them in front of a game of Enemy Unknown.

 

Half of them would leave before the intro finished because "the graphics sucks". Half of the remaining half will leave in the middle of their first sortie because "it's too f%#&ing hard". The rest will go "wtf is is this crap" because it resembles nothing like an FPS with the FBI, slime blobs and shotguns.

 

Check the stats. What are the age demographics on those who are buying the classic X-Coms? Chances are, none of them are any younger than 30. Yes, that includes you. You know who you are. You aren't kidding anyone. Stop it.

 

-Addendum-

 

Thanks for posting that SV - I had in my head a vision of the disappointment a straight remake would be. You'd know exactly what to do, exactly what was coming and not even a Chrysalid would scare you. In short, there would be no point - if I want to play a game like the original, I know exactly where it is on my hard drive ;)

 

On to your second point, I also had in my head that if they did an almost-exactly-faithful remake and decided to change the research tree one tiny bit, or change the layout of the UFOs, or change the aliens slightly then we'd still be arguing over it not being faithful or representative of the original.

 

I dunno, Doom 3 was essentially a re-make of the first Doom, and even though we all knew what to expect, it was unexpected. The first time an Imp showed up it was still pretty shocking and unexpected. And then there were the Flying Skulls. And the sense of dread when you realize those weren't pillars but actually the legs of the Cyberdemon, well...

 

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to purge this XCOM fiasco from memory. *throws foil ball* Oooh, shiny! *chases*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough, but how much of the increased visit translates into new sales of the old game? Or new pirating of old games, as the case may be.

 

I can't give a figure for that without contacting Steam and other places where you can purchase them. It's unlilkely they would give figures but I could ask if you like? The question to them would be something along the lines of "based on average monthly sales from the last 12 months, how many more X-COM games have you sold above this average since the new game was announced?"

 

Even if they came back collectively and said a small number like "100", is that a bad thing? 100 people would then have revisited the games or experienced them for the first time. For better or worse, there would then be figures heading back to 2K on increased sales of those games.

 

People playing the old games again isn't a bad thing, nor is being cautiously optimistic about the new game or reserving judgement until we know more. I'll happily call it a bad game when I've seen more and actually played it and assessed it on it's own merits. Assuming it will be rubbish because of the controversial name just isn't fair in the slightest.

 

The sad truth is that developers are all over FPS games and actively discriminating against any other games that require strategy more complex than "Zerg rush kekekekeke". Disagree all you want, but then you'll have to explain to me why C&C4 completely did away with base building, resource harvesting and infantry & mixed unit tactics and devolved into a quintessential "tank rush" game, a mere shadow of its former glorious past.

 

I can name dozens of games that don't fit that theory (Hearts of Iron series, Total War series, games like World of Goo, Railroads, Sword of the stars series etc etc - although I suspect you meant publishers more than devs as devs can have the power to develop what they want until a publisher pushes them about). I don't have to explain anything about C&C4 either as the whole series (to me) culminates in building up superior numbers and inevitably doing the "Zerg rush kekekekeke" bit you don't like in stereotypical FPS games (though if you did that in most FPS games nowadays you'd never reach the end due to natural selection). True, you're right with many games being dumbed down, but it's been happening for more than a decade and it's still to early to say whether that's the case with this game (at least for the non-tactical portion if you leave the tactical portion aside for a minute of which, I will say again, we've seen 30 seconds of).

 

Go ahead, grab the nearest 16-year-old console'r and set them in front of a game of Enemy Unknown.

 

I think their parents might report me to the police. And yes, I am being amusingly picky in my interpretation of your point :P

 

Half of them would leave before the intro finished because "the graphics sucks". Half of the remaining half will leave in the middle of their first sortie because "it's too f%#&ing hard". The rest will go "wtf is is this crap" because it resembles nothing like an FPS with the FBI, slime blobs and shotguns.

 

The graphics do suck by today's standards, and you're likely right with the "too hard" bit, but that's another observation of the gaming populace in general and has nothing specifically to do with this new game yet.

 

Check the stats. What are the age demographics on those who are buying the classic X-Coms? Chances are, none of them are any younger than 30. Yes, that includes you. You know who you are. You aren't kidding anyone. Stop it.

 

Again, I can't pull those stats because they don't exist. I would imagine it's mostly those looking for nostalgia, but I wouldn't discount a large portion of new nerds like ourselves after something a bit more cerebral. There arep plenty of strategy games out today with a lot of sdepth so why would those gamers not look to older titles too? They've certainly got a lot more choice than we have when we were younger.

 

I dunno, Doom 3 was essentially a re-make of the first Doom, and even though we all knew what to expect, it was unexpected. The first time an Imp showed up it was still pretty shocking and unexpected. And then there were the Flying Skulls. And the sense of dread when you realize those weren't pillars but actually the legs of the Cyberdemon, well...

 

Doom3 isn't a great example as they threw the old storylines out and (I assume, as my memory isn't all that great) the levels were completely different. Besides, Doom isn't as "deep" as the X-COM universe and doesn't pretend to be. If you changed those elements I just mentioned in a remake of X-COM, people would still be throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

So again, can I ask that we move on lest we continue in pointless circles of disagreement (and yes, my replying to your points is equally as pointless as it inevitably drives the pointless debate onwards and still doesn't actually change anything to do with the new game as it will still be made and in all likelihood still be called XCOM ;)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that this has any real bearing on this issue but Doom3 was utter crap. It was not at all scary and when you heard the teleport all you needed to do was turn around and shoot. Throughout the game same crap.

 

if I want to play a game like the original, I know exactly where it is on my hard drive ;)

Very true. A point some obviously are forgetting about. New graphics would NOT make the game any better. X-COM never was about eye candy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
  • Create New...