Xcom Publisher: Strategy Games Are Not Contemporary

[Greg Tito]

Xcom Publisher: Strategy Games Are Not Contemporary

Many fans of Xcom were upset the series was being rebooted as a shooter, but 2K Games thinks that's what today's gamers want.

One of the most lauded games of the 90s was called Xcom: UFO Defense where you controlled a squad of soldiers on an isometric grid. The tactical action was turn-based, meaning you could think about the implications of your next move before it blew up in your face. 2K Games owns the Xcom trademarks and intellectual property and they announced last year that Xcom would soon be reborn as a shooter. The president of 2K, Christoph Hartmann, said that's because old school strategy games are a taste from a bygone age.

"Turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth," Hartmann said. "But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

[gallery=311]

He continued explaining his position through a comparison to the music business. "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."

While the truth of that comparison could certainly be argued (Ray Charles = Kanye? Um, no.), Hartmann brought it back to why Xcom is now a shooter. "That's what we are trying to do. To renew Xcom but in line with what this generation of gamers want," he said. "The team behind it is asking themselves every day: 'Is it true to the values of the franchise?' It's not a case of cashing in on the name. We just need to renew it because times are changing."

If the times they are a-changing, then why am I still buying way more strategy games than shooters? I mean, I get the fact that people buy more shooters, but I don't think pulling an IP known for its excellent turn-based strategy into the shooter genre is how to tap that market. From what I saw of last month, it doesn't look like it will be worth it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101416-E3-2010-XCOM-Is-a-Strategic-Shooter-in-Name-Only].

Source: MCVUK [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216]

Permalink

 

[Jou]

So now they are saying it is part of the series? I thought they had back-pedaled before saying that it was Xcom and not X-com. I am not buying this game cause it is an obvious cash in. What part of this game is anything along the lines of the old X-com. Nothing that I've seen so far that could be seriously considered.

 

[Irridium]

Yes, because it's not like 2K has a best-selling, award winning turn-based strategy series that just saw the release of it's fifth game in the series to strong sales. No, that's impossible, because those things are totally dead and have been for years!

 

[Camarilla]

That still doesn't explain why their Xcom game isn't even set in the same universe as the old ones. Or is futuristic sci-fi 'not contemporary', because there are plenty of games that'd disagree?

 

[WanderingFool]

"Turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth," Hartmann said. "But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

He continued explaining his position through a comparison to the music business. "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."

Yeah... in my line of work, we call this type of response "Bullshit".

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

If your goal with the marketing for this new XCom is to piss off as many fans of the original games as possible, mission accomplished.

If, however, you were trying to calm the fanbase... the fuck?

 

[Ghengis John]

Wow, between the whole Kanye west Ray Charles comparison and the claims of strategy games not being contemporary this guy just keeps digging a bigger hole for himself and looking more and more clueless.

I can't really say that games like league of legends, Civilization or Starcraft II are hurting in the pocket book. I wonder if Hartman has never considered that the reason that this generation isn't buying a lot of strategy games might be because so few of them are offered? Meanwhile, he has inexplicably decided to wade into a genre that calling "crowded" would be generous.

I will say this: The whole "time points" thing sounds interesting. But keep your mouth shut Hartman and let your game do the talking. You only make things worse every time you try to defend yourself.

 

[teebeeohh]

first of all: hilarious typo.
second: that's by far the dumbest argument ever and the comparison is just horrible. it would only work if i invented time travel, went back to the past and kidnapped ray Charles so his music would never exist. What 2K is doing is digging up his corpse and making him dance to bad versions of Kayne West songs.

If you decide to dig up an old IP for brand recognition you just have to deal with the fact that with few exceptions no IP ever made a successful shift in genre. The x-com thin doesn't look too bad, if they went with another name it might have interested me.

 

[FFHAuthor]

This new lineup of screen shots actually gives me a bit of hope in this game now.

Lining this up against the teaser trailer, I can pick out customization characters, squad selection, research dynamics and a strategic map with mission choices... I'm, not entirely sold on this (I would have preferred the real time reboot they were working on before it got canceled.)...but... I'm willing to not pass permanent judgement on this game. I'm just rather skeptical of an FPS mechanic for the game.

 

[Jim Grim]

I don't know what to say. That's stupidest thing I've heard all day. Not content with talking bullshit about strategy games, he then goes on to prove he knows fuck all about music. What.

 

[vrbtny]

One of the most lauded games of the 90s was called Xcom: UFO Defense where you controlled a squad of shoulders on an isometric grid.

A squad of shoulders eh? To command them must take some serious skill.

 

[OrenjiJusu]

They have made it look more interesting since the inital reveal.
buuuuut I think the only way I could personally enjoy it is if i went back in time and stopped myself from learning anything about x-com.

 

[jamez525]

I can sort of see where he is coming from, but surely it is better to try to keep current fans happy rather than risk making a shooter, which will inevitably be ignored by the masses for not being Battlefield or Call of Duty.

where you controlled a squad of shoulders

Either this is a typo, or I have missed a joke somewhere.
(It is difficult for me to tell on the internet, too many 'in jokes')

 

[Laser Priest]

It's interesting to see the new setting and gameplay. Frankly, I think the game currently looks quite interesting, but I need to slap these developers in the face for thinking that all gamers want only one genre of games.

 

[hansari]

Sounds to me like its a sci-fi Brothers in Arms...only sandboxy....

 

[Domehammer]

Argument sounds completely pulled out of someones rear end. Strategy games are still popular and example is starcraft 2. Though still not gonna judge this game till I play it because it could still be good. I for one am ready to welcome a sci-fi shooter that isn't about space nazi's or space squids. Though if anything aliens might be biggest let down for me about this game and not that it's a shooter.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I guess that means that Starcraft is due for a reboot as a shooter as well?[footnote]Now that I think of it, a shooter based in the Starcraft universe would be pretty cool....[/footnote] I don't see any of this working out too well. It's not necessarily what today's gamers want, is what they think will sell better.