I have never played Xcom, but I have heard some good things about it, particularly from TheSpoonyOne himself since it is one of his favorite games of all time. Back in E3 2009, when he heard about the XCOM reboot by 2K Games, this is what he had to say:
Now according to one article on Destructoid that I found through Hard News, the boss of 2K Games said that the reason they did not make it into a turn-based strategy game is because "turn-basd strategy games are not contemporary" and that he made the call to renew the game to make it fit in with the times.
Hmmm... where do I begin with something like this.
First of all, turn-based strategy games can still fit in with the times at least amongst the PC gaming community. Examples of this are: Civilization V, and Heroes of Might and Magic VI, which will come out soon, I believe.
Secondly, if turn-based games are not contemporary, how about making the game a real-time strategy game, then? Ever consider that?
Finally, 2K's head honcho should just say that the reason this game is gonna be a shooter is because it will be played on consoles herpdederp! There is one exception to that though: a game called Valkyria Chronicles on the PS3. That game had some pretty decent turn-based tactical mechanics on a console and it looks like a third person shooter. The game plays according to Spoony in a similar manner as that of Mass Effect. :/
From what I can gather, I have a bad feeling that for the decisions 2KGames have made for their IP, the game will sell even less. I mean, the game doesn't even look good from the trailer.
While I don't think it's wrong to have games of the same IP be of different genres, I do think it's indeed a bit of a sad injustice considering it's such a distant sequel and seemingly has little to nothing to do with the originals, and they seem to have no plans of doing a more appropriate sequel either.
Why take a risk when you can just make another FPS and sell a bajillion copies to Xbox owners? Moneymoneymoneymoneynomnomnomnomnom.
As a fan of XCOM, while I understand the decision, it certainly sucks.
On July 14 2011 21:30 Mikilatov wrote: While I don't think it's wrong to have games of the same IP be of different genres, I do think it's indeed a bit of a sad injustice considering it's such a distant sequel and seemingly has little to nothing to do with the originals, and they seem to have no plans of doing a more appropriate sequel either.
Why take a risk when you can just make another FPS and sell a bajillion copies to Xbox owners? Moneymoneymoneymoneynomnomnomnomnom.
As a fan of XCOM, while I understand the decision, it certainly sucks.
I agree. I'm still a fan of the original X-Com Games UFO:EU and X-C:TFTD (eventhough i never managed to win them without cheating ), but the later games got worse (and a lot buggier) with every release, so they probably had to fight declining customer numbers and decided for this drastic change.
I don't understand the decision at all. Why the hell would you try to compete with the Halo and CoD markets? Do they honestly think they can tap into those markets with that? All they did was buy the name that's it. This has nothing to do with X-COM.
If I hadn't already been convinced 2K were complete scumbags before this abomination was announced, it would have been more than enough to make me despise them.
On July 14 2011 21:37 StarStruck wrote: I don't understand the decision at all. Why the hell would you try to compete with the Halo and CoD markets? Do they honestly think they can tap into those markets with that? All they did was buy the name that's it. This has nothing to do with X-COM.
They thought they can peak the interest of the young gaming crowd with aliens and people from the 40s-50s. I am wondering why in the heck wasn't there any sort of boycott going around?
On July 14 2011 21:37 StarStruck wrote: I don't understand the decision at all. Why the hell would you try to compete with the Halo and CoD markets? Do they honestly think they can tap into those markets with that? All they did was buy the name that's it. This has nothing to do with X-COM.
They thought they can peak the interest of the young gaming crowd with aliens and people from the 40s-50s. I am wondering why in the heck wasn't there any sort of boycott going around?
There was already a boycott when they introduced an intrusive copy-protection mechanism (don't remember the name... starforce or something, don't know...) with one of the newer sequals a few years back, though i don't know how many really followed the boycott.
The ‘90s generation of gamers all love Xcom and we own the IP, so we thought OK, what do we do with it? Every studio we had wanted to do it and each one had its own spin on it. But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing – strategy games are just not contemporary.
I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.
On July 14 2011 22:41 JohannesH wrote: The ‘90s generation of gamers all love Xcom and we own the IP, so we thought OK, what do we do with it? Every studio we had wanted to do it and each one had its own spin on it. But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing – strategy games are just not contemporary.
I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.
Change is good for a gaming franchise. Fallout 3 for example was a decent example of that. XCOM could have been anything but a shooter imo.
On July 14 2011 21:37 StarStruck wrote: I don't understand the decision at all. Why the hell would you try to compete with the Halo and CoD markets? Do they honestly think they can tap into those markets with that? All they did was buy the name that's it. This has nothing to do with X-COM.
On July 14 2011 22:41 JohannesH wrote: The ‘90s generation of gamers all love Xcom and we own the IP, so we thought OK, what do we do with it? Every studio we had wanted to do it and each one had its own spin on it. But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing – strategy games are just not contemporary.
I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.
Change is good for a gaming franchise. Fallout 3 for example was a decent example of that. XCOM could have been anything but a shooter imo.
No, change can be good, but it can also be bad. FO3 was alright, they tried to keep the RPG aspects even though they changed the way they were presented. This "X-Com" game looks like Bioshock with the power wheel from Mass Effect thrown on to distract people.
On July 14 2011 22:41 JohannesH wrote: The ‘90s generation of gamers all love Xcom and we own the IP, so we thought OK, what do we do with it? Every studio we had wanted to do it and each one had its own spin on it. But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing – strategy games are just not contemporary.
I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.
Ray Charles is a fully trained musician, Kanye is an "artist", you simply can't make the comparison and there is a huge difference. Ray Charles wrote music until the day he died and it did change with the times but it was never anything like modern Hip Hop or RnB which rely on sampled beats or rehashing of other people's songs. Not to mention that Ray Charles basically invented his own genre and sound and was always original, not many modern artists can say that. If Ray Charles started out today he would probably do the same.
The comparison you were looking for would be someone like Diana Ross, who was an artist and not a musician.
Anywho on topic, I don't see how strategy games aren't contemporary when one of the biggest games on the planet right now is SC2.
Honestly I still have some hope for it. There is a part of me on the inside that wants to believe that despite savagely destroying the roots which X-COM is founded in that there will be more to this game than what was shown in the trailers.
I still avidly play X-COM games (mostly UFO Defense). I have followed the other projects that Microprose had before getting bought out (Genesis / Alliance), and have long awaited the day for a new X-COM. I am withholding final judgement until the game is closer to release, but until then I am going to keep hope alive.
If you haven't played the original X-COM, you should. Unlike most of today's games it is difficult and challenging, but it is also incredibly rewarding. It has stood the test of time very well I think. You can grab it on steam for a pittance. There's a reason for this:
Since its release, X-COM: UFO Defense was named the #1 PC game of all time by IGN in 2000, 2007 and 2009;[19][20][21] the #8, #12 and #21 best video game of all time by IGN in 2003, 2005 and 2007;[28][29][30] the #7, #15 (by readers), #3, #8, #10, #10 and #11 best computer game of all time by PC Gamer in 1997, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2010;[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] the #22, #3 and #10 (by readers) best computer game of all time by Computer Gaming World in 1996, 2001 and 2001;[38][38][39] the #2 best video game since 1992 by Pelit in 2007;[22] the #35 best video game of all time by GameSpy in 2001;[40] and the #78 best video game "to play today" by Edge in 2009.[41] The game was also inducted into Computer Gaming World, IGN and GameSpot's Hall of Fame or equivalent in 2005, 2007 and 2003 respectively.[16][18][17]
On July 14 2011 22:43 DocNemesis wrote: Change is good for a gaming franchise. Fallout 3 for example was a decent example of that. XCOM could have been anything but a shooter imo.
TBH I think most people invested in Fallout 1/2 didn't really think "change is good" with FO3. I don't know anyone who enjoyed FO1/2 and still thought FO3 lived up to the name.
On July 14 2011 22:43 DocNemesis wrote: Change is good for a gaming franchise. Fallout 3 for example was a decent example of that. XCOM could have been anything but a shooter imo.
TBH I think most people invested in Fallout 1/2 didn't really think "change is good" with FO3. I don't know anyone who enjoyed FO1/2 and still thought FO3 lived up to the name.
Yeah. Though many people have said New Vegas was a proper Fallout game - I can't comment though since I haven't played either of the new FOs. Neither old nor new FOs had a good combat system though, the charm in the originals was the setting, exploration, nonlinear questdesign and use of noncombat skills.
Now compare to X-com which is pretty much defined by the squad tactics combat, that no longer exists at all.
If they want to make a shooter with aliens using the name serves them well though. Whether they care about the original at all or not, they get free coverage from the brand name. Not just to the old X-com fans (who aren't likely fans of CoD-like games anyway), but simply everyones more likely to hear of it because of all the controversy.
EPT
), but the later games got worse (and a lot buggier) with every release, so they probably had to fight declining customer numbers and decided for this drastic change.
