ShadowBlade Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I really want to be optimistic about this, but I'm having trouble with that. I'd like to see a larger structure around the FPS combat, sort of like Alliance would've had. I'd like to see a team-based FPS system used during the missions themselves and a separate management portion for bases, research and such. We've very limited information, but all of it strongly emphasizes the shooter portion, and makes no mention at all of any macro-scale nor squad-related features. If I were the developer and those feature were, in fact, in the game, I would've made it abundantly clear even on initial teaser blurbs. I find it unlikely the game will be anything but a standard shooter without much complexity (implied in the fact it's coming out for X360 as well). Maybe it'll be a good FPS, I don't know, but X-COM is considerably more than a special organization fighting an alien threat. Ergo, a plain shooter won't be X-COM. Connected to this is the worrying mention of a "reimagination", which may very well mean "keep what we like, ditch the rest" and result in a very loose, liberal interpretation of what X-COM truly is. I really hope they'll prove me wrong. I really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StVier Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Hmm... I wonder if one of the most common feature of X-Com is gonna be in... one-shot kills at the beginning of the game, that would REALLY remind us what X-Com was all about. Perhaps this is more about what happens before the official organization X-Com was formed? Before X-Com went international, it could have been probably just a minor agency (hence the name difference: XCom) within the government in the earlier days and members were probably misfits (e.g The down-on-luck FBI agent). Anyway, just letting my imagination continue to run, if it is indeed casted in the 50s or so, Roswell could very well be a possible setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiasaur11 Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I loved it also. Another crappy game in franchise which don't belong to the same genre like original ones, yet people are excited about it. See, this is what I hate. Not people worried. People saying, basically that nothing would satisfy them, and then claiming, when called on it, all they want is X-Com, but really X-Com, which turns out to mean the original game exactly. Maybe with a graphics tweak, but the exact nature of those tweaks, or minor glitch fixes, or other modifications is never clear. Which, you know, one of, if not the best game(s) ever, but it's already out there. Look. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm willing to admit there's dozens of ways for this to be a turd sammich. And people making your arguments, generally, won't admit that any change could lead, in any way, lead to a good game in a billion years. Now, you, personally, might just be of the position that the odds of a FPS X-Com being, well, X-Com are worse than winning the lottery and being hit by lightning at once. Fine and fair, and probably more rational then my position. But it's sounding like you're the kinda guy who didn't think Metroid Prime would work at all, and then claims the situation was entirely different every time they do pull it off, or insists that, say, Fallout 3 totally sucked rather than, you know, not being your cup of tea but a tolerable game on its own merits. I'm probably reading you entirely wrong, and I apologize in the likely case of that, well, being the case. But I do prefer that the possibility of this maybe being sorta good is left on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I am terribly disappointed to hear this news, but hardly surprised. The gaming industry (and that's what it is, a money generation machine where creativity is occasionally tolerated) routinely makes horrible decisions like this and then tries to fob off the resulting product to a new generation of initiates, telling them they are taking part in some sort of "grand tradition" with "roots" in some "glorious past." Fact is, for us true X-Com fans, this is about as low as the bad news can go. This is like finding someone's grave and p_____g on it. FPS shooters are fine for those who like them, but please don't call yours anything remotely to do with X-Com. I know X-Com and your game is no X-Com relative or derivative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael Strife Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I'm very excited about this, if you think about it, it's probably the best choice; a FPS is sure to get people excited about a franchise most new players have only read of, and not many, this is a good opportunity to have people get to know X-Com in a flashy shiny games like the great masses love and maybe, with all the hype, a strategy game can then be considered interesting enough for the companies to develop. Besides that, I would just love a good FPS in the X-Com universe, even if re-imagined, I was very much looking forward to Alliance back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiasaur11 Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Fact is, for us true X-Com fans, this is about as low as the bad news can go. This is like finding someone's grave and p_____g on it. I dunno. Is Alec Meer a true X-Com fan? Because he seems mildly excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NKF Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Hmm, X-Com meets Deus Ex? According to a Bill Cosby quote, the key to failure is to try and please everyone, so I don't think they are going to be able to please everyone in this venture. However, saying that, I hope they put out a really good game that you can play over and over again. Without that, it's not going to be any different from your everyday first person shooter. If it's good enough, I hope they end up porting it to other platforms eventually. Not too keen on the idea of shelling out heaps for a XBox 360 just for one game. - NKF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimli Posted April 15, 2010 Author Share Posted April 15, 2010 I find it odd that nobody has brought up the name yet: XCOM. Why did they drop the X-COM (with dash) terminology? They hold the license so that isn't the issue... - Zombie Well the UFOPaedia entries of the first game don't use the hyphen so technically it is legitimate. You could say tha the organization changed its name from XCom to X-COM. Perhaps this is more about what happens before the official organization X-Com was formed? Before X-Com went international, it could have been probably just a minor agency (hence the name difference: XCom) within the government in the earlier days and members were probably misfits (e.g The down-on-luck FBI agent). Anyway, just letting my imagination continue to run, if it is indeed casted in the 50s or so, Roswell could very well be a possible setting. The problem is that this is a direct contradiction to what is stated in the official timeline which states that X-COM was formed in 1998 from X-Inv. Maybe they'll figure out a way around it, but I don't see it. I'm very excited about this, if you think about it, it's probably the best choice; a FPS is sure to get people excited about a franchise most new players have only read of, and not many, this is a good opportunity to have people get to know X-Com in a flashy shiny games like the great masses love and maybe, with all the hype, a strategy game can then be considered interesting enough for the companies to develop. Besides that, I would just love a good FPS in the X-Com universe, even if re-imagined, I was very much looking forward to Alliance back then. Or we get an MMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomb Bloke Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 The "X-COM" title wasn't introduced until later in the series, but it did end eventually up as the standard. Note that it stands for "Extraterrestrial Combat unit", a multi-national organisation formed when each country's separate attempts to deal with the aliens met with failure. How will they "find their way" around this? My guess would be "by ignoring it all". In all my experience, "re-imagining" has always meant "let's sell something new under an old brand name in order to boost sales". Oh, I'm sure there'll be plenty of shout-outs, but I find it very hard to believe they're interested in making a "real" X-COM game. After all, if they were gonna do that, wouldn't they just follow on from the events of Apocalypse? But I'm probably doomed to a negative outlook on this. It's been TOO LONG. There's no way any new X-COM game could live up to my hopes. I don't think even the original developers could create a game that everyone would accept as a proper X-COM game. But still... One thing I know for sure is that there isn't much room for "plot" in this series. The story was always a foregone-conclusion; the aliens are here, and by the time you're done, their forces'll be defeated. The only matter of doubt was in whether your beloved high-ranking officers would survive that next battle... As soon as you say "this character, who appears during actual gameplay, is so important that the story can't go on without him", you take away that suspense. You know he's going to survive each and every battle. It's entirely out of your hands. Urgh, I'm heading into all-out "pointless biased unfounded rant" territory now. They seriously need to release some less ambiguous statements on what this game will BE, to stop my imagination running rampant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StVier Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 But still... One thing I know for sure is that there isn't much room for "plot" in this series. The story was always a foregone-conclusion; the aliens are here, and by the time you're done, their forces'll be defeated. The only matter of doubt was in whether your beloved high-ranking officers would survive that next battle... That's probably the worst case scenario but if it's gonna be like as NKF suggested, in a Deus Ex style of game, there could be some potential there? Whether to stay true to human side or cross over to the aliens, which could tie in with the story (if there is an intention to) of causing a full-blown counter-alien movement, being either the pivotal person to start up X-Com, or put the whole world on alert on the alien threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodmoney Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 See, this is what I hate.Not people worried. People saying, basically that nothing would satisfy them, and then claiming, when called on it, all they want is X-Com, but really X-Com, which turns out to mean the original game exactly. Maybe with a graphics tweak, but the exact nature of those tweaks, or minor glitch fixes, or other modifications is never clear.When I listen to X band I expect to hear similar kind of music like they did before. When I want do drink X beer I expect a typical taste of such beer. When I want to play X-COM I expect strategy with Turn-Based combat, since hey, this series from begging where all about it. I don't want the identical everything like in previous ones, no. Which, you know, one of, if not the best game(s) ever, but it's already out there.Then why don't start new franchise instead of milking down this one? Look. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm willing to admit there's dozens of ways for this to be a turd sammich. And people making your arguments, generally, won't admit that any change could lead, in any way, lead to a good game in a billion years.Well maybe because people like me are playing games for more then 10 years and see how gaming market have changed, especially after experiencing more then one ripped franchise. There a difference in being optimistic and naive (I'm not saying that you are). They wan't do FPS, fine with me, but please don't stick it to X-COM (already violated) franchise. Btw. I wouldn't be surprised if the game was aimed towards Bioshock games fans. Now, you, personally, might just be of the position that the odds of a FPS X-Com being, well, X-Com are worse than winning the lottery and being hit by lightning at once. Fine and fair, and probably more rational then my position. But it's sounding like you're the kinda guy who didn't think Metroid Prime would work at all, and then claims the situation was entirely different every time they do pull it off, or insists that, say, Fallout 3 totally sucked rather than, you know, not being your cup of tea but a tolerable game on its own merits.I never played Metroid Prime or was interested in it so I'm a bit about this. About Fallout 3 it would take some time to explain what I don't like about it and well it's not discussion/board about FO3. Maybe other day thought The thing that plagues modern FPS are single-corridor like levels, auto-regenerating health or quest compass, which are not my cup of tea. Since it is some kind of standard in modern games, the odds that the same crap will be in this game are pretty high. I'm probably reading you entirely wrong, and I apologize in the likely case of that, well, being the case. But I do prefer that the possibility of this maybe being sorta good is left on the table.Honestly I don't think so. Gaming from "geek stuff" turned in $$ business, where Publishers don't have even a bit respect for Developers or Franchises. Yeah, in the past when X-COM was released it wasn't much better, but still Publishers tried to keep continuations in the same genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomb Bloke Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I never played Metroid Prime or was interested in it so I'm a bit about this.They took Metroid (a 2D platformer) and turned it into a FPS. The result was indeed a Metroid game, and a dead good one at that. They did this by putting the "Metroid" elements of the game first, and the FPS elements "second". I have no doubt that if this were done with X-COM, the result would be one of the best games out in quite some time. (... They should call such a game "Alliance"). However, I find it difficult to believe that this is where they intend to take this new game. Again, there's not enough information to be sure, but the information that exists suggests they're simply using the brand-name to boost interest (and indeed, it IS generating interest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 The "X-COM" title wasn't introduced until later in the series, but it did end eventually up as the standard.Actually the only place where "X-COM" wasn't used was the first few Enemy Unknown releases in the UK. "X-COM: UFO Defense" (the title given to the first game in the series in the American market and released only a few months later) already was using it. And the X-COM title continued unbroken and unmodified straight through to Enforcer. Initially the issue was that there wasn't a single unified title for the same game in the US and UK. And it didn't help that there wasn't a consistency officer in Microprose who would be responsible for title enforcement within the in-game text either. So "X-COM" was adopted as the standard quite early. I'm just confused as to why the title has been suddenly changed now. Maybe the "re-boot" everyone is mentioning is the new developers attempt to reimage the series by making the title different. Whatever the case is, it just irks me that the title isn't the same anymore. - Zombie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomb Bloke Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Actually the only place where "X-COM" wasn't used was the first few Enemy Unknown releases in the UK. "X-COM: UFO Defense" (the title given to the first game in the series in the American market and released only a few months later) already was using it.I dunno, I thought pretty much all the European releases of UFO used XCOM... At least, that's what my Sold Out Software release uses. Granted though, X-COM was well in place by the time of the sequel. I'm just confused as to why the title has been suddenly changed now.It could be a nod at the fact that it was originally XCOM (which was the point I was getting at) - since they're "going back to the beginning" and all. It might be intentional; to change to X-COM later on would be an appropriate "shout out" to the original progression of the title. Or it could be that they're in the "early days" stages and haven't picked up on all these details yet; a simple mistake. Or - and this is what my optimistic nature is telling me - it could be that they really just don't care about maintaining canon. I'm doubting they'd put much research into a matter like this even if it were pointed out to them. But, again, I guess we'll find all this out in due time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimli Posted April 15, 2010 Author Share Posted April 15, 2010 But I'm probably doomed to a negative outlook on this. It's been TOO LONG. There's no way any new X-COM game could live up to my hopes. I don't think even the original developers could create a game that everyone would accept as a proper X-COM game. I think your thinking is wrong. I hate to draw comparisons, but I had been watching the development of Fallout 3 and a lot of people who complained about people who complained () said something like this. They said that the people who didn't like what Bethesda was doing would be unhappy with any kind of a game. At the time I thought there was merit to that, but lately I've begun to think differently. Recently Croteam remade the original Serious Sam and it has so far sold over 100 000 copies, which is a decent amount considering everything and most of the core fans are satisfied. As far as I am aware, the same is true for the Monkey Island remake (please correct me if I'm wrong).You are never going to please everyone, but you don't need to please everyone in the first place. In my opinion it's silly to worry about the fact that someone won't be pleased. I can say for certain that I would buy a remake of any of the first 3 games as well as a sequel as long as I thought they did a good enough job. Heck, the Serious Sam remake is missing multi-directional gravity, but I still bought it. I think if the same was done with an X-COM remake or sequel, most fans would buy it if for no other reason than to support future sequels. The big question is, would the game be profitable? This is hard to answer unless you know what kind of a budget is required. But still... One thing I know for sure is that there isn't much room for "plot" in this series. The story was always a foregone-conclusion; the aliens are here, and by the time you're done, their forces'll be defeated. The only matter of doubt was in whether your beloved high-ranking officers would survive that next battle... As soon as you say "this character, who appears during actual gameplay, is so important that the story can't go on without him", you take away that suspense. You know he's going to survive each and every battle. It's entirely out of your hands. I disagree with this to a degree. That is, the plot done in the style of Bioshock would be a bad idea, because the game was linear. However, it is possible to put in a story into existing games without ruining the game. Don't forget that the research was used to give the plot in the games so far. Now personally and in an ideal world, I would have expanded on the story in several ways and honestly I don't think this changes anything to a player. I would introduce optional (!) missions that would have story in them (still semi-randomly generated where possible). They would be tougher than ordinary missions so you would have to take that into account. They would also have a reward if you completed them or would hamper you somewhat if you chose to ignore them. For some missions both could be applied. On top of that you would get some background story, which is not essential to the main story but adds to it. Now because the essential part of the story is told through research, even if you don't have a complete picture of it, it is no big deal if you don't see it. The story is and has always been just for flavor. Finally, I would create a mod that would allow you to axe these altogether.How would this work? I'll give a fictional example from the canceled Genesis (with some of my own story added). You may want to read the intro here. As you may know, shortly after Apocalypse was over, the original aliens returned and quickly took control of Earth. Meanwhile the Frontier branch of X-COM had lost communication with Earth and for a long time had no idea what happened. Communication shouldn't have failed, and the X-COM commander orders a full investigation. Soon enough it is revealed that it was sabotaged, but not by whom or why exactly. During the course of the game a story mission would happen in which you would somehow find out that it was sabotaged by one of the Sectoids you brought home from that mission in Apocalypse, who was actually a spy of the original aliens. Later on you would find out that the aliens from Apocalypse were engineered by the original aliens and that this was an elaborate plot to quickly take over the Earth. There's more to it than that, but I'll skip it now. The bottom line is that this would explain why the communication failed and yet you can finish the game without ever knowing.I would be interested to hear what you guys think of this? Just a note: this is in an ideal world. Obviously I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I didn't like Bioshock, or Bioshock 2, and I'm a fan of X-Com, but I'm still somewhat optimistic. It's not going to be what any of us would call a 'real' X-Com game, but then, I don't honestly believe it's possible to create another real X-Com game. AFAI am concerned, there have only been three: EU, TFTD, and Apocalypse. The problem is that when you run a series, people come and go. Films are probably a better example of this, the Terminators, for instance. Terminator 1 and 2, bloody good films, shared a director. Terminator 3 and 4, crap. Because the people making them changed completely. The rules set out in 1 and 2 (predominantly the fact that the future is not set)? Thrown out, because they hinder future iterations. It's the same here. They can't set the game during a period already covered by one of the games, so they have to go earlier, or later. They won't adhere to the 'official' timeline, because it's inconvenient, and if they own the X-Com series the official timeline is whatever the Hell they say it is anyway. The people working on it know of the previous works, they may even have played them, but they have to do their own thing, which is going to be different. It's impossible for them to satisfy the diehard X-Com fans, no matter the game they make, because the game's been out for what, fifteen years, and become so deeply ingrained in some of us that nothing other than the original will really do. Even if their entire dev team played the games for a year, they still wouldn't be as steeped in X-Com as us. It's not going to be strategy, and even if it was, it wouldn't be turn-based since that is (at least perceived as) the kiss of death for a game. It's not going to be made for the same reasons, for the same market, under the same circumstance, etc etc. Quite frankly the number of really hardcore X-Com fans is so small as to be insignificant. There's no financial sense in pandering to a tiny group, who are only going to lambast your game even if it turns out to be really good, for what they perceive as failings judged from their position on top of a vintage turn-based strategy game. Not when there's millions of people out there who will happily buy the game because they weren't even born fifteen years ago. I'm not saying it won't be good, I'm saying no matter how good it is, it won't be X-Com. Also, I thought of the idea of the agents years ago and am going to sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I'd love to eventually live in a time when people hold of slating things til they come out, but then they wouldn't be able to say "I told you so" I guess I'm in the cautiously optimistic bunch. Ask me again when XBOX magazine hits the shelves with more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodmoney Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 I dunno, I thought pretty much all the European releases of UFO used XCOM... At least, that's what my Sold Out Software release uses. Granted though, X-COM was well in place by the time of the sequel. From what I read, Microprose introduced the X-COM title so people would connect the game to the X-Files TV Show, which was very popular in that time. Thanks also for explaining the Metroid sequel situation, Bomb Bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimli Posted April 15, 2010 Author Share Posted April 15, 2010 I am undecided until I hear more about the general design direction. In my specific case though, it is unlikely that it would be designed in a way that I would be satisfied with. I already have a set picture of how it should be designed for me to be able to enjoy it and quite frankly I don't know if something like that is even possible to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StVier Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Some of the...err.... old-timers that grew up with X-Com over the years are pretty much resistant to any changes and will definitely be able to nit-pick just about everything off a new game. X-Com is an excellent game in the genre and trying to 'improve' the original is a daunting task. Even from the small step of changing from EU to TFTD, there has already been some noises from the community, although granted, the core formula of the game remains more or less the same and so there were no major complaints. Moving on to Apocalypse, with the introduction of new 'enhancements' like graphics among otheres, there was even more discomfort in the community as it strays away even further from the original. Following a long period of silence, all the other spiritual successors still get torn to shreds because they were simply 'not X-Com'. It's very confusing as to what exactly do they want? If they want the old X-Com, then why bother with the new games? If the company just 'fine-tune' the original game, and put it on the shelves as a full price game, will gamers be willing to buy it? I suspect most would but will there be enough sales? In addition, 'fine-tune' is a matter of perspective and to come to the point of satisfying every single person takes years of communication between developers and fans, that or a very dedicated modder. That said, I absolutely stand by the fact that long-time fans have a right to not see the name of their favourite game being tainted but if we were all to accept that the original X-Com was the best game ever made, perhaps we could lower the bar from 100% and look at games in the 90% regions on the level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 I see a number of people asking "what do the X-COM hardcore fans really want?" I'll be happy to answer that. I want a new, modern, updated version of the game. Is should be TBS, with a strategic layer and a tactical layer. Missions should be randomly generated but their overall outcomes should impact the course of the strategic game. Economics, recruitment, technology, alien culture & interrogations, surprise raids on friendly bases, all should be in the game, because that is part of what I love about the original. I would have no problem if some creative additions were made. Go for 3-D, destructible environments, different tactical POV's, even character development. I would be happy to see such things. What I don't want is an RTS twitch game, a shooter or some bastardized RPG game where I have to play one character. None of those is X-COM. They could be based upon it and so advertised, but they are not the real X-COM. Look, innovation is good. I cite for example what is happening to the Civilization franchise with their new hex-based approach that eliminated unit stacks in favor of an entirely new combat paradigm. At the same time they removed religion and spying. I can live with such changes because I trust the team that owns that franchise not to kill the cash cow. Sid is no fool and he loves the game he created. He will do it justice and we will all ultimately benefit from the changes. And it will still be Civilization! TBS strategy at its best. So is it too much to ask for some development house to step forward and take a chance with the X-COM franchise and to make a new, updated and really fresh TBS game for the current generation? "Oh, no, TBS is for HARD CORE" gamers is the response one seems to get. Since when is using one's head a little bit considered "hard core?" Unless, of course, your intended gamer is a hyperactive 12 year old. Unfortunately, with the industry now increasingly run by professional entrepreneurs who listen only to their accountants and carefully selected screening groups, the games we will see for the most part will consist of an endless stream of mindless shooters and pretty RPG's, because that is what they envision the consumer to want. The fault lies in their definition of consumer, which is way to restrictive and excludes the fact that many people besides 12 year old boys buy games. It is an industry that forever seems to seek the easy path to a quick buck. It leaves it up to the small design houses and independents to come up with what the rest of us are really pining for...to play another, true X-COM, a worthy successor to the game, again in our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raion Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Ya, it is the new Hanna Montana X-COM version. No need to fear spacetime aliens, humans are on this Planet in this Universe. And forever shall they go by market of 12 year olds or something like that. It must be due to the educational system. Now, all sing with glee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jverne Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Why is everyone twisting their panties on turn based. Turn based is one of the later aspects of what x-com is about. X com is about: -Humans vs Aliens-Plot, not necessarily story -Strategic planning-Tactical combat (Interceptor swayed off a bit but there's still some tactics for a space sim) Turn based is just the method for combat used back then, it was the only one appropriate for that time and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Why is everyone twisting their panties on turn based. Turn based is one of the later aspects of what x-com is about. X com is about: -Humans vs Aliens-Plot, not necessarily story -Strategic planning-Tactical combat (Interceptor swayed off a bit but there's still some tactics for a space sim) Turn based is just the method for combat used back then, it was the only one appropriate for that time and age. I think an FPS X-COM would be absolutely spectacular if done right. The problem is, I'm still hung up on "reimagined," "FBI," and the obvious 1950s setting. Why is this even called X-COM? If the game was a story of an X-COM operative during the First Alien War, I would actually be ecstatic over it, whether it had any of the management in it or not. Landing at missions in the Skyranger, clearing UFO crash sites at night, and seeing your buddies or yourself in that nifty personal or power armor in first person with modern graphics would be spectacular. But from what they're saying, we're not going to see any of that. We're not going to see much of anything familiar to X-COM except maybe some aliens we might recognize if this is truly going to be in the 1950s. So what gives? Why is this even carrying the X-COM name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBlade Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 I think an FPS X-COM would be absolutely spectacular if done right.I concur. I wouldn't blindly reject everything that's not TBS. As I said earlier, a tactical FPS Battlescape portion would be a great innovation for missions as long as there's a macro-scale section in the game, a proper Geoscape. Add a clever twist to that as well and you'd have me in awe. However, I can't help but think that idea is too advanced for the simplistic gameplay the mainstream industry seems to have grown attached to, only because they want to appeal to the dreaded "casual gamer". Those that come in throngs and therefore represent the best source of profits, which is all the industry cares about these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now