171 replies to this topic

[lollersis]

Ok, since my "logic" can´t convince you that this IS a re-imagining, then let someone else explain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake

Click number 4 on contents. And READ IT carefully, please?

[The Veteran]

Just to save anyone else linking to wiki, here's the part of the article which lollersis is referring to and I must admit the first paragraph seems to back him up. But then you read the rest...

Quote

Reimagine or renovate

In recent years, the terms reimagine (or re-imagine) and, to a lesser extent, renovate have become popular in reference to remakes which do not closely follow the original. The terms are used by creators in the marketing of films and television shows to inform audiences that the new product is not the same as the old one. Reimaginings and renovations often contain tongue in cheek references to the original, with characters of the same name and similar concepts, while remaining significantly different from the original. In Tin Man, a reimagining of The Wizard of Oz, for example, the main character is named DG, a reference to Dorothy Gale from The Wizard of Oz, and the land she enters is called the Outer Zone (O.Z.).

The imagining of a franchise often leads to controversy within established fan communities as to which is more legitimate or more popular. There are various examples of remakes which are most associated with the reimagine or renovate terms, and these include Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, Nora Ephron's Bewitched, Marcus Nispel's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th, Rob Zombie's Halloween, Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica, David Eick's Bionic Woman, Nelson McCormick's Prom Night, Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, and Kenneth Johnson V. Tim Burton has denied that his 2010 film Alice in Wonderland is a renovation of Lewis Carroll's classic novel; however, the plot line of the film bears very little resemblance to the original or derivatives of it, such as the classic 1951 animated film from Walt Disney.

The reimaginging or renovation practice has also occurred within other media, such as video games and comic books. One example in gaming is Bomberman Act: Zero, a more hardcore version of Bomberman, which was not well received. Another is Bionic Commando Rearmed, which changes some elements of the game and story to fit into a sequel, while paying homage to the original. In comics, the new Sgt. Rock, with the Rock character as a member of the U.S. 442nd Infantry regiment, and the unknown "Easy Company", as well as Unknown Soldier, which takes place in Uganda in 2002, both change the character's background or setting in order for the story to be more realistic and interesting for modern readers. The term reimagine has also been applied to music releases, such as Brian Wilson Reimagines Gerswhin (Disney, 2010) and Cirque du Soleil's "Viva Elvis: The Album" (Sony Legacy, 2010).

Look at the comparisons used here and how incredibly deeply linked they are to the originals. Tin Man is a recent remake of Wizard of Oz which is discussed here. Guess what, all the characters are direct re-imaginings of their predecessors (as explained in the text above) The land of OZ is now called the O.Z and the story remains almost identical with an evil witch, flying minions, and of course the wizard... The fact that all of these aspects are altered slightly is what makes it a re-imagining and not a remake. If the characters, story and location were all different but it was called the Oz Wizard, that doesn't make it a re-imagining of the original. It just has a similar name...

Just to cover a few more of the films mentioned; Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes is very similar to it's predecessor, Nora Ephron's Bewitched features all of the same characters with a single new twist added to the old story, all of the horror films listed have identical villains and locations as the originals and so on... All of these films and many more (I'm surprised for example that King Kong wasn't listed in this wiki) share multiple references with the original imaginings and therefore are RE-imaginings. Remember, most of these films began life as books so even the original films were re-imaginings of the text...

Moving onto the ever helpful paragraph 3 I think we can quite easily employ that to put an end to this debate so thankyou for providing it to us... Enter Bomberman : Act Zero... A poorly recieved re-imagining of the old Bomberman series. In this case not too much has remained the same but the name and main character survive, which in a game like bomberman is all there really ever was!

This closes the debate in two ways. Not only does it show that a re-imagining must reuse a great deal more elements of the 'original' game or franchise than you are suggesting. IT also goes to show that these re-imaginings are often set to fail miserably in the video game industry. Because Bomberman used enough of the old bible to still be classed as a Bomberman game it's spent every waking hour being directly compared to it's predecessors and met with massive amounts of Criticism. Thankfully, XCOM is completely dissimilar to the X-Com franchise so I would hope that people can use their brains and look past the name to realise it's a completely new and totally different game, judging it on it's own merits without comparing it to the original franchise.

It's still beyond me why anyone thought that giving this X-Files/Ghostbusters FPS the name of a 20 year old isometric squad based combat game was a good idea... It is however my opinion that it will do them much more harm than good. No X-Com fans will EVER buy it because it has the XCOM name, quite possibly they'll avoid buying it for just this reason... People who aren't familiar with, or are not true fans of, the original franchise really won't be affected either way so what was the point?

Shame on you 2k, you should've known better...

[lollersis]

The Veteran, on 5th June 2011, 10:00am, said:

-snip-

Right, you win. But my aim is that give it atleast a try. You know Fallout 3, I am a Fallout fan myself and when Fallout 3 was announced by Bethesda, I wasn´t really enraged. I found it interesting that it was in first-person perspective as it would give the game another experience of interaction. Of course, in the end, it wasn´t the Fallout I was hoping for. But I admit that it was not that bad and I had some fun times with it. This may not convince you to try it, but wait and give it a chance before sawing it. I mean, it´s like a year before it released, they might have more in store then we know.

[The Veteran]

lolleris you seem to have somehow missed the underlying argument in every single one of my posts here. Every one of them is me explaining why people need to stop comparing this game to X-Com so it can be received fairly by gamers and reviewed as a standalone game rather than a botched attempt to capitalise on a far superior franchise.

Do me a favour and have a quick read back over my posts and you'll quickly see that I haven't once said 'this game will suck because of x, y and z.' Rather I've accused 2k of making the poor choice of licensing this game under the XCOM name when it really shouldn't be. Based on what I've seen so far, it probably won't be my cup of tea as it looks like a pretty mindless shooter. I imagine that's probably not the case though so we'll have to wait and see. No doubt I will play it one day and if I were to write about how I found it afterwards I would NOT be mentioning X-Com a single time because they just aren't similar games.

The whole point of my debate with you regarding a re-imagining is that anyone talking about this new game needs to completely forget about the X-Com franchise while they do so. There should be NO comparisons either direct or indirect. It shouldn't share the same name but then to be fair it doesn't thanks to their incorrect punctuation... I am NOT flaming this game, I am NOT a hater, I AM an old-school fan of the X-Com franchise and I HATE seeing it be compared to this new title. As far as I'm concerned they just got the name wrong, as for the game? Well maybe it'll be brilliant but rest assured it won't be X-Com...

[lollersis]

The Veteran, on 5th June 2011, 10:46am, said:

lolleris you seem to have somehow missed the underlying argument in every single one of my posts here. Every one of them is me explaining why people need to stop comparing this game to X-Com so it can be received fairly by gamers and reviewed as a standalone game rather than a botched attempt to capitalise on a far superior franchise.

Do me a favour and have a quick read back over my posts and you'll quickly see that I haven't once said 'this game will suck because of x, y and z.' Rather I've accused 2k of making the poor choice of licensing this game under the XCOM name when it really shouldn't be. Based on what I've seen so far, it probably won't be my cup of tea as it looks like a pretty mindless shooter. I imagine that's probably not the case though so we'll have to wait and see. No doubt I will play it one day and if I were to write about how I found it afterwards I would NOT be mentioning X-Com a single time because they just aren't similar games.

The whole point of my debate with you regarding a re-imagining is that anyone talking about this new game needs to completely forget about the X-Com franchise while they do so. There should be NO comparisons either direct or indirect. It shouldn't share the same name but then to be fair it doesn't thanks to their incorrect punctuation... I am NOT flaming this game, I am NOT a hater, I AM an old-school fan of the X-Com franchise and I HATE seeing it be compared to this new title. As far as I'm concerned they just got the name wrong, as for the game? Well maybe it'll be brilliant but rest assured it won't be X-Com...

Hehe...okey, sorry for that. I just easily get confused sometimes. But I will leave this debate or otherwise I will be stuck here for weeks to come Sorry for the babbling of mine...

[Space Voyager]

lollersis, on 5th June 2011, 10:32am, said:

Hehe...okey, sorry for that. I just easily get confused sometimes. But I will leave this debate or otherwise I will be stuck here for weeks to come Sorry for the babbling of mine...

Any (civil) debate is a good debate, so do stick around!

Can't wait for E3!!!

Is anyone here at SC attending the show?! I'd love it if we could get some "home-grown" info on games like XCOM and Sword of the Stars 2.

[Julius_Sneezer]

The Gollop brothers Didn't make TFTD.   They were hired as consultants, because Microprose owned the rights at the time.  Thats probably why I only really liked Xcom 1 and Xcom 3.

Anyways, I guess everyone heard the rumours a few years ago about 2 Xcom games coming out eventually.  One was to be a FPS the other was to be a turned based game similar to Xcom I and that Firaxis was secretly working on it.
But for the last 3 years I havn't heard anything since, so it doesn't look promising.

[The Veteran]

Hey Julius, thanks for your input but it's kind of in completely the wrong place And yes we're the first to know about pretty much EVERY X-Com rumour that rears it's head here lol I have a question though, how can you like UFO but not like TFTD? They're basically the same game with different sprites...

[Julius_Sneezer]

TEXT DELETED

As for mentioning TFTD, I thought people were talking about Xcom and Xcom like games here.

TFTD; was definitely not Xcom I;  The gamescapes were too...too repetitive and boring and didn't have an interesting development as you went along.  Also there was nothing new game design wise was that created.  I was looking forward to a Next Step in development.   I had to wait unitl Xcom 3 for that.
Xcom 3 should have been Xcom 2, actually.

TFTD was called a "Money Grab" on the part of Microprose.  I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[The Veteran]

Firstly, let me warn you you've just put yourself on very thin ice. I simply pointed out that you were commenting in the wrong place and you personally attack me. Oh and hilarious jibe by the way, I'm the newbie right? Course I am... I've been with this site for way longer than StrategyCore has even existed in it's current incarnation and if you haven't noticed I'm site staff so be careful what you say or you may find that your next post becomes your last. We're all entitled to our own opinions here but not at the expense of other members...

Julius_Sneezer, on 7th June 2011, 1:59pm, said:

TFTD; was definitely not Xcom I;  The gamescapes were too...too repetitive and boring and didn't have an interesting development as you went along.  Also there was nothing new game design wise was that created.  I was looking forward to a Next Step in development.   I had to wait unitl Xcom 3 for that.
Xcom 3 should have been Xcom 2, actually.

TFTD was called a "Money Grab" on the part of Microprose.  I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Of course I know what TFTD was, it was born out of impatience while Apocalypse was still in development. As such the software was virtually unchanged between the first two games and the biggest difference was graphical. I don't even know what you mean by 'gamescapes' do you mean the battlescape? And here's me being told I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about   I agree you're right that there was no change in game design between 1 and 2 but there wasn't really any between 2 and 3 either. It just changed the scale of the gameplay but all of the basics remained pretty much the same.

Anyway, you're welcome to your opinions, just remember that everyone else is too. You've also given me personal reason to keep you off my xmas card list, play nice with the other forumites or you'll be getting a lump of coal...

[NKF]

On the surface it doesn't look the same, but there lots of subtle changes between the two to games. Some good, some bad. But certainly enough to make TFTD provide a slightly different experience.

- NKF

[silencer_pl]

Wish they grabbed X-com alliance if they wanted FPS. But I guess it may not be that bad.

[The Veteran]

It is odd that they've decided to use the name but not any of the canon. I think that's what all the debates have been about to date. If they REALLY wanted to capitalise on the X-Com franchise then they should have used more than just the name. It's not enough to sell the game to Commies if the story and gameplay don't reflect any parts of the games they love.

I think Silencer is right, if they'd have followed up a story like Alliance then I would be really excited about this game, chances are I'd buy it right away or maybe even pre-order. As it is I'm going to wait for reviews/previews, other members to play the game, price to be slashed a dozen times and THEN maybe I'll get round to playing it.

It's just so baffling that they've taken the name but nothing else, I really don't understand why they think it was a good idea to pay for the name and not stick to the franchise. It's like the Starcraft name only to make a game about creating Hollywood celebrities...

[Azrael Strife]

May be a bit too early to say that they are using none of the canon we may find ourselves fighting Sectoids in no time, who knows, let's wait for release, I'm optimistic

[The Veteran]

I'm glad someone is Az! Tell you what, if there turns out to be Sectoids in the game, I'll buy you a copy. If not you can buy me a copy

[NKF]

They could just be withholding all the really juicy bits that would grab the attention of the older X-Com fans and only tossing out scraps to stir up a bit of controversy until it's rolled out - then go "Hah! we tricked you, it's really awesome and everything you've wished it to be!"  

Of course that's taking an optimistic view on it.

Part of me is hoping they end up dropping their Mild Mannered Daily Planet Reporter regalia and get in some International Rescue styled outfits before the game's over. Just to stick to the period.

- NKF

[Pete]

Must say I was hoping for more info on the game... guess I can wait a bit longer before I make my mind up.

Unfortunately the FPS elements and story mode would have to grab my attention at least half as much as Portal 2 in terms of enjoyment, story and atmosphere to convince me. Not that I expect a portal gun, just some innovation would be nice.

Oh, and is it just me or is this game reminding anyone more of Apocalypse than any of the other X-COM games? Seems that they're leaking in from a different dimension which, aside from anything else, lets them put whatever aliens they want into a sequel should there be one.

[The Veteran]

I agree NKF, that IS being optimistic Never know though I guess hey so we can continue to hope... It certainly smacks more of Apocalypse than the first two games due to the fact there's no discernable reason for the invasion, the enemies are hideous and I don't care one iota if the good guys win or lose. At the same time though it's a very low-tech and graphically uninspired venture and for it's time Apoc was quite the opposite. Don't get me wrong the wierd face block thing is kinda cool and the aliens do look quite freaky but there's no visible variation so far in terms of troops, weapons, vehicles, or even the aforementioned aliens... So far I've seen small blobs, big blobs, floating rectangles, donut guns and blocky faced civilians... Doesn't suggest great things to me...

The mentioning of Apocalypse does actually show another trick these guys have missed though doesn't it? This black stuff could be like the Micronoids from X-Com 3 that the aliens are sending through dimension gates to conquer the world. But of course the year is wrong and the timeline is completely separate to our own... Right now everyone should be worrying about roswell, not some freaky black blob things. Quite frankly I'm not even sure if Roswell happened in this timeline as liets be honest, these aliens don't look like they even need ships...

[Space Voyager]

Gamespot E3 interview! I am hyped. A lot.

[Gimli]

It looks like 2K Games is removing the top rated comments from the Top comments section of the Youtube video (video in first post of this thread). Open up all comments and you'll see some comments with more likes not appearing in the Top comments. I could understand the ones with bad language being taken down, but there are some legitimate ones which are simply negative. I don't like what I'm seeing so I've asked the 2K Games representative for a response on the official forum.

Edit by BB: Seems this forum mangles links with exclamation marks in them. Luckily, this link doesn't need one in order to work.

I've got a bad feeling about this, so I'm going to quote myself to make sure the contents of the post are preserved - just in case.

Me said:

@2K Elizabeth:

What's going on with the disappearing Top comments on the Youtube video? I can understand taking down the ones with bad words, but some of these don't have them, yet are still not appearing as the Top comments. Can you please explain what's going on?

I hope this isn't what I think it is.

Edit: I'm also adding some of the Youtube comments for you to see:

88Meters said:

NO. STOP IT. STOP MAKING GOOD GAMES INTO FPSES. STOP. STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPST­OP.

38 likes

gunnergoz said:

I'm not sure what it is, but X-Com it ain't. Marketing trumps gaming again.

43 likes at the moment

lefr33man said:

1) watch the 2010 trailer

2) watch the 2011 trailer

3) cry.

42 likes

Keyanf said:

So, why are there fortifications when it's clearly a surprise attack?

Oh right. Cover shooter.

24 likes

ShadowGJ said:

So how is this X-COM other than in mere name?

32 likes

trucane said:

Was so excited seeing some new footage from the new X-Com after playing through both X-Com 1 and 2 last two seeks but when I see this I can't help but feel disgusted. The fact that the old games still can be enjoyed 15 years later says a lot, this awful remake will be forgotten within a year.

It's sad to see how extremely predictable todays game industry is, everything has to be a clone of CoD.

58 likes

2K Games said:

@wonderboy2402 we won't be disabling comments - we read them all.

20 likes <-- this is their own comment, so I don't get why they would remove it.

scrotumface333 said:

Terrible, terrible, terrible. Just call it "Halo: Call of aliens", not XCOM.

30 likes