E3 2010: XCOM Is a "Strategic Shooter" in Name Only

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
E3 2010: XCOM Is a "Strategic Shooter" in Name Only



XCOM is big on 50s flavor, but where's the strategy?

For many, the title X-COM brings back fond memories of tactical turn-based strategy. 2K Marin's reboot of the franchise is gunning for a more visceral first-person experience. In a room decked out with many 1950s stereotypes of wholesomeness and Donna Reed-style décor, producer Drew Smith and designer Harvey Whitney showed us what this new XCOM is all about.

You play as William Carter, a special agent in charge of a secret organization called XCOM. Carter is the guy who discovered an alien artifact that portended the invasion that's now taking place, and instigated the creation of XCOM. The demo began by taking us into the base of operations which was hidden in a non-descript airplane hangar. The flavor of the 50s is in abundance, with agents quipping as Carter walks by, "I don't like the feeling that someone's looking up my wazoo with a microscope, you know what I'm saying?" Only a clean-cut agent from that age would use a word like "wazoo" and actually mean it.

At the comm center is a map of the United States where all of the information gleaned from radio and police broadcasts is filtered for possible alien activity. The map shows possible missions that you can undertake, from helping a woman's 911 (did they have 911 in the 50s?) distress call to ways to gain money or Elerium. "Elerium is an alien resource that we need to keep XCOM going," says Smith. "We can also go collect money, we can go do research, etc. You should note that when you pick a mission, you're doing something at the potential sacrifice of another mission. If we take, for example, the California mission, then the Montana or Oklahoma missions may not be available when you come back." I suppose that this is a strategic decision but it feels like the player will be missing out on content instead of feeling that they are making a strong choice.

The demo went with the woman's distress call in California, but first we have to pick up some new tech gizmos. A scientist named Mal has been using the alien artifact that Carter found, along with Elerium, to make weapons that use the alien's tech against them. We grabbed a glass vial filled with parts of a black blob (an enemy that you encounter in the game). This "blob-otov cocktail" bursts into flame when it's thrown, which Mal demonstrates for us. In a nice departure, Mal is a Buddy Holly bespectacled 50s greaser, instead of the standard Q (from Bond movies) clone.

The mission sent us to a 50s neighborhood, and we tracked a blob trail into a house. Here, the gameplay devolved into your standard shooter. Carter and his agents blasted away at a series of creepy black blobs with shotguns and blobotovs. Another weapon was showcased, the lightning gun, but it didn't seem terribly effective against the aliens. The woman saved, the agents needed to make their way back to the car to get back to base. Unfortunately, a huge alien disturbance showed up in the sky and formed a circle of rock which sent rays at us that vaporized everything in the beam. Clearly, Carter is going to need some bigger guns.

The new XCOM from 2K Marin is big on 50s flavor, but the shooter gameplay feels like much of what you've played before. Here's hoping that when the game comes out (slated for 2011), there's more of the strategy that you would expect from the successor to the X-COM that many gamers loved.

Keep track of all our E3 2010 coverage here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/e32010].

Permalink
 

Deofuta

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,099
0
0
Well, it sounds interesting as a game, but it aint no XCOM

Should have just gone with a new IP, because you could even say it is 'XCOM' in name only, well apart from setting and such.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I still have absolutely nothing good to say about this game.
*zips mouth*
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
I'll try to keep this nice and, well nice.

If your going to make an XCOM game and call it strategic, you better make it a damn XCOM game and make it strategic.

Choosing what alien weapon to use and when isn't going to cut it.
 

TheDist

New member
Mar 29, 2010
200
0
0
I just feel very disappointed. I love Xcom ufo defence and if they had made it an fps set in that "timeframe" a quasi futuristic 1999, I think I would have been sold (well ok maybe not sold, just not massivly as disappointed and nerd raging as I am now)

Alas, 'tis not to be it would seem.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
There's one way to save this totally. All it takes is a name change and a few small graphical alterations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It Came From The Desert 3

Now that would sell like hotcakes.
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
L...let's just wait and se...s....see? Oh god, it's no use, this is just terrible news. D:
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
Consider my childhood memories raped after reading this review.

I'll stop right there before I go off into a deeper rant. <.<
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
5,093
0
0
I still don't know how people insist its not an X-com game when its set in the same universe. I get its not the same genre but it is still XCOM themed right?
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
dogstile said:
I still don't know how people insist its not an X-com game when its set in the same universe. I get its not the same genre but it is still XCOM themed right?
You did watch the trailer didn't you? It really isn't, remove the name and there is quite literally no relation other than: Aliens invading.
 

Kojiro ftt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
425
0
0
Fuck this game. Fuck 2K for using the XCOM name. They should sell the rights to someone who has some fucking respect for the franchise.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
dogstile said:
I still don't know how people insist its not an X-com game when its set in the same universe. I get its not the same genre but it is still XCOM themed right?
If nothing else, X-Com was founded in 1999. If Elerium et. al was discovered 50 years hence, then it would require a world rewrite, not to mention concepts like Eurasia. It Came from the Desert, Zombies Ate My Neighbours, and even Duke Nukem would work with this, but not X-Com.
 

Skoldpadda

New member
Jan 13, 2010
835
0
0
Damn. This might really be a solid game on its own, and if so, I'll play it.

But abusing the XCOM-name like this is a really cheap move. Not cool.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Ill on fence about it...sounds like it will be a good shooter but...I'm syil going to wait on more
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Ah dammit. Another first person.

Not had enough of those?

As someone who massively enjoyed the original games, it depresses me that someone who probably loves the game as much as I do manages to screw it up this badly.

Not hoping for much.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
An action game inspired by a strategy game rather than a strategy/action hybrid game? Sounds like a homoeopathic remedy in game form.
 

obisean

May the Force Be With Me
Feb 3, 2009
407
0
0
There is a good reason why this game is first person, and it actually makes sense:

RTS doesn't work well on consoles.

Just cause Bethesda pulled off Fallout from an RTS (technically) to a console friendly FPS, doesn't mean every game is meant to be one. I can't wait for the Civ FPS.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
obisean said:
RTS doesn't work well on consoles.
X-COM was a TBS. They work perfectly on consoles. The predecessor to X-COM was designed to be controlled with a one button Atari type joystick.
 

Kandon Arc

New member
Mar 10, 2009
115
0
0
The main reason this is going to be an FPS is simply because there isn't a big enough market for a AAA version of the original X-COM. It's far too risky to attempt for a major studio so they're trying to make XCOM accessible to many more people. If you want another X-COM type game, it might be worth checking out Xenonauts; but expecting 2K to do it just isn't realistic.

The game looks like a might be a shooter with a lot more depth than usual so I'm tentatively looking forward to it, but I'm hoping that the squad mechanics are somewhat more interesting than they presently seem.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
And the older fanboys bias countinues unabated.

Mind you, I can think of some ways to make a new X-Com how you like it, but it would be a PSN XBLA title, not a triple A.

I'll admit the squad mechanics have be concerned. Squadmates seem pretty damn stupid to be so valuable. Now I know you lose squadmates like nobodies business in the early stages of X-COM, so maybe the power armored super agents come later, but damn, I hate escourt missions and babysitting.

If you played Battlefield: Vietnam's story mission (or was it some other vietnam game?) it had real time combat that you could freeze at any time, and jump between controlled teammates. You could also level up your soldiers with skills in various stats, though they came with preconfigured specializations (I remember the main character, 'Cherry', was the medic, and the black guy was the machinegunner, etc etc).
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
To the people who told me to stop assuming 2K games wasn't going to treat the X-COM name and premise with respect, rather than shitting out another utterly generic first person shooter meant to wring the last few pennies out of an old popular title.

I TOLD YOU SO YOU NAIVE FOOLS

Why does this game have the name X-COM on it again?
Anyone who has actually played the games knows that they aren't the intended audience.
You want proof that remakes are nothing more than market exploitation? Here it is people.

To the new market, this is just another shooter, outshined by its competition in every way.
But to me, this is my childhood sold for profit by talentless hacks.
 

zombie711

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,505
0
0
no offense but I have never herd of X-COM until this new game came out. I dont see the big deal. going first person worked for fallout
 

obisean

May the Force Be With Me
Feb 3, 2009
407
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
obisean said:
RTS doesn't work well on consoles.
X-COM was a TBS. They work perfectly on consoles. The predecessor to X-COM was designed to be controlled with a one button Atari type joystick.
Why make an intuitive interface for console when everyone will just throw up their hands in frustration after 10 minutes screaming that it has too much of a learning curve? Back in the day when games were simpler the one button approach was not too hard to pull off (click to shoot, and that was about your only option). Why make things complicated when you can make it a first person shooter, sell more than you ever would have as a TBS (I played it and know it was one, but RTS was just easier to relate to for most people).

Consoles have poisoned everything PC gamers hold dear about non-FPS games. If it wasn't for people like Sid Meier (Sim City would have a mention here, but they are focusing on The Sims as of late, which is for the most part console friendly, if only consoles had the processing power necessary and didn't require a small dumb down on some features and graphics) making "complicated" games that really only work on PC, most everything would be an FPS or TPS for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. Which is where X-COM comes in to play.
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
zombie711 said:
no offense but I have never herd of X-COM until this new game came out. I dont see the big deal. going first person worked for fallout
Fallout 3 is first person in the same way Oblivion is first person: It's third person with the camera zoomed all the way in. At least, that's how it always felt to me, I've noticed some FPS'es when they do this, and it feels quite awkward. It's mostly the way they seem to 'anchor' the camera to the player model, always felt clunky to me. Compare say, Fallout 3 to Team Fortress 2, ever feel that the movement in TF2 is just more fluid, even though like Fallout 3 you can zoom out (like when using the Bonk!) and see the player model, but still retain a proper feeling of movement?

With Fallout it just seems off. This could be the fault of the animations however, and I did eventually get used to it.
 

DJPirtu

New member
Nov 24, 2008
55
0
0
So, unknown, hostile alien force attacks earth.
A team is assembled and they go into battle, knowing just about nothing about the enemy.
They fight, die and scalvage what they can from the enemy.
They research their enemy and their tech as they go.
They get money for doing their job well, less so if they screw up.

I've only played the first three X-COM games and got into any depth with only the first one, but this does seem to be the basic formula of the series.
And as far as I can see, the new installment does follow along those lines.
 

ZephrC

Free Cascadia!
Mar 9, 2010
750
0
0
Kandon Arc said:
TsunamiWombat said:
Look, everybody here knows a TBS game wouldn't sell particularly well. Nobody's asking why 2K isn't making a sequels that the fans would actually like. We just want to know why they're making an XCom game at all.

I would personally love to get a new PSN/XBLA sort of game or something else like that. It's just... They must have payed good money for the right to slap the XCom name on their random 50s era alien shooter. Why would they do that? Not one single person on the face of the Earth will buy this because of the XCom name, (I exaggerate of course, but XCom is pretty obscure and this is not popular with its fans. Fans of XCom will not contribute anything meaningful to sales of this game.) and it has absolutely nothing to do with XCom. (That is not an exaggeration.) Why? Just... Why?
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
obisean said:
Why make an intuitive interface for console when everyone will just throw up their hands in frustration after 10 minutes screaming that it has too much of a learning curve? Back in the day when games were simpler the one button approach was not too hard to pull off (click to shoot, and that was about your only option). Why make things complicated when you can make it a first person shooter, sell more than you ever would have as a TBS (I played it and know it was one, but RTS was just easier to relate to for most people).

Consoles have poisoned everything PC gamers hold dear about non-FPS games. If it wasn't for people like Sid Meier (Sim City would have a mention here, but they are focusing on The Sims as of late, which is for the most part console friendly, if only consoles had the processing power necessary and didn't require a small dumb down on some features and graphics) making "complicated" games that really only work on PC, most everything would be an FPS or TPS for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. Which is where X-COM comes in to play.
Console gamers do have the patience to buy turn based, menu driven games.

Laser Squad, the game I was talking about, had a menu driven interface to control the characters. In fact with the joystick and menus you sometimes had more control than in X-COM. For example the automatic fire option let you select a start and end position to strafe and select how many shots you could fire. Decisions about how complicated turn based games are often more due to design philosophy and goals of the developer than limits of the platform or controller.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Bleah. The might as well call it Roswell.
What does this have to do with Xcom?????
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
zombie711 said:
no offense but I have never herd of X-COM until this new game came out. I dont see the big deal. going first person worked for fallout
It's a matter of perspective, and in this case, it's the original players seeing 2K Games gutting out the good things in the original to replace with marketable stereotypes.

Fallout 3 did this to an extend, but at least Bethesda kept the original premise of being a wasteland wanderer in a very strange world. While I give Bethesda credit here, I still hated Fallout 3 for being little more than a collection of idiot-proof (read: console-centric) missions with no real sense of danger.

Don't get me wrong; it is totally possible to make X-COM work as a shooter as long as you leave some of the strategy elements in place. But since this game is being marketed at the Xbox 360 crowd, I somehow doubt those elements will remain.

Actually, I take that last bit back...
The game won't require any thought by default since 2K Games is working on it.
Since they can't find enough creativity to make any more than the usual MMO scenarios (as they proved with flying colors in Borderlands). it's guaranteed that this game will have all the depth of a thimble and the strategy will boil down to "Shoot the aliens, get the goodies, repeat in a new area".

You can bet money that I just described the entire game. Now you just have to add in some smug jackass monologue and shiny graphics and you have a likely candidate for the final product.

So why am I and other fans unhappy? Because there was no need to do this to X-COM.
They are literally dangling their bullshit product in front of our eyes saying "Lookie what we got? You want to see us rape it? We will be making millions while we do it."

If you have not played the original games, or simply don't have the patience to try, then this game might be for you. Though I think you might find other, better shooters elsewhere by the time this game hits the shelves.
 

obisean

May the Force Be With Me
Feb 3, 2009
407
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
Console gamers do have the patience to buy turn based, menu driven games.
Really? Even JRPG's, the modern day adopters of turn based combat, are starting to get away from true turn based combat in favor of a closer to real time combat system.

You also keep sticking to the fact that they at one time did exist when gaming was a recreational activity and less of a sport. That alone proves the point that modern day console gamers don't like the slower more strategic games. I know that most console gamers own PC's and do play games on them, and that they do play the slower games on them, but it's the PC they are playing them on, not the console. Games like that won't sell on consoles much anymore, unless you make it some arcade type title at $10-$20 like Catan or something.

Atmos Duality said:
zombie711 said:
no offense but I have never herd of X-COM until this new game came out. I dont see the big deal. going first person worked for fallout
It's a matter of perspective, and in this case, it's the original players seeing 2K Games gutting out the good things in the original to replace with marketable stereotypes.

Fallout 3 did this to an extend, but at least Bethesda kept the original premise of being a wasteland wanderer in a very strange world. While I give Bethesda credit here, I still hated Fallout 3 for being little more than a collection of idiot-proof (read: console-centric) missions with no real sense of danger.

Don't get me wrong; it is totally possible to make X-COM work as a shooter as long as you leave some of the strategy elements in place. But since this game is being marketed at the Xbox 360 crowd, I somehow doubt those elements will remain.

Actually, I take that last bit back...
The game won't require any thought by default since 2K Games is working on it.
Since they can't find enough creativity to make any more than the usual MMO scenarios (as they proved with flying colors in Borderlands). it's guaranteed that this game will have all the depth of a thimble and the strategy will boil down to "Shoot the aliens, get the goodies, repeat in a new area".

You can bet money that I just described the entire game. Now you just have to add in some smug jackass monologue and shiny graphics and you have a likely candidate for the final product.

So why am I and other fans unhappy? Because there was no need to do this to X-COM.
They are literally dangling their bullshit product in front of our eyes saying "Lookie what we got? You want to see us rape it? We will be making millions while we do it."

If you have not played the original games, or simply don't have the patience to try, then this game might be for you. Though I think you might find other, better shooters elsewhere by the time this game hits the shelves.
I like you. This game isn't completely un-doable as an FPS, it's just likely that they didn't take the original and translate it to the sameish game but from a first person view. This game sadly did not do that, and it would have been great if it had. This may as well be a prequel to Area-51, they have about as much in common.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
obisean said:
Really? Even JRPG's, the modern day adopters of turn based combat, are starting to get away from true turn based combat in favor of a closer to real time combat system.

You also keep sticking to the fact that they at one time did exist when gaming was a recreational activity and less of a sport. That alone proves the point that modern day console gamers don't like the slower more strategic games. I know that most console gamers own PC's and do play games on them, and that they do play the slower games on them, but it's the PC they are playing them on, not the console. Games like that won't sell on consoles much anymore, unless you make it some arcade type title at $10-$20 like Catan or something.
If you think that console gamers don't care about their RPG combat systems being streamlined and automated then you are wrong. They care and make more a fuss about it than PC gamers ever did.

I don't know what you are talking about with this recreation vs sport thing but it is true that many people play games on console and PC. I can't tell you how fast or slow the games I play are depending on the platform but I think that PC has some of the fastest games out there. Especially some of the strategy games which to almost require a frantic pace of mouse clicking and hot key pressing. Fans of these games would see the slowing down of gameplay as the reason why games don't work on consoles without becoming simplified.
 

ark123

New member
Feb 19, 2009
485
0
0
*something about raping 2K Marin employees with a dildo covered in glass shards*
 

Dirty Apple

New member
Apr 24, 2008
819
0
0
obisean said:
That alone proves the point that modern day console gamers don't like the slower more strategic games.
If by "modern day" you mean younger and by "slower" you mean non-ADD then I agree with you.

Recently replaying some of my older FPS's (ie JKII, Deus Ex & Half-Life) there was still a strong emphasis on puzzle solving and strategy. The recent crop of FPS's place the player on a scenic treadmill replete with regenerating health and auto-aim. Having grown-up with helicopter parents, the new kids just don't want a challenge anymore.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
ZephrC said:
Kandon Arc said:
TsunamiWombat said:
Look, everybody here knows a TBS game wouldn't sell particularly well. Nobody's asking why 2K isn't making a sequels that the fans would actually like. We just want to know why they're making an XCom game at all.

I would personally love to get a new PSN/XBLA sort of game or something else like that. It's just... They must have payed good money for the right to slap the XCom name on their random 50s era alien shooter. Why would they do that? Not one single person on the face of the Earth will buy this because of the XCom name, (I exaggerate of course, but XCom is pretty obscure and this is not popular with its fans. Fans of XCom will not contribute anything meaningful to sales of this game.) and it has absolutely nothing to do with XCom. (That is not an exaggeration.) Why? Just... Why?
That is weird why they would even bother with that. Nobody under the age of 25 is even going to know what X-Com is. Hell the only reason I know about it is because I used to have a subscription to Computer Gaming World and they sent a disk with X-Com and a bunch of other classic titles on it.

If they were going to make this game related to X-Com they should have kept the X-Com parts a secret. Picture this. You beat the game and the last scene of the ending is 40 years later in the Oval Office. The president is looking over a document. Signs it. Camera zooms in on the document. The title. "X-Com Initiative" Make the X-Com part a twist ending and the entire game a setup for a sequel, which is a proper X-Com game. A proper X-Com game with, base management, finance management, international politics, shooting down alien ships,randomly generated destructible environments, and of course FLYING POWER ARMOR!!! But sticking X-Com in the title is just going to piss people off.

I have no problem making the combat sections of the X-Com franchise a first person squad based tactical shooter. Using the FLYING POWER ARMOR in that type of setting would kick all sorts of ass. You could even support coop play with it. But I just don't know if we have the technology to really pull it off at this time.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,708
1,057
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
gears of halo would have made a better name for it and had as much to do with xcom as this game appears to
 

poiuppx

New member
Nov 17, 2009
674
0
0
On the one hand, this sounds like a fun game with an interesting aesthetic.

On the other hand, this is so not X-COM, it physically hurts. I am actually, in real life, experiencing internal bruising from reading this and trying to mentally pair this with the idea that THIS... THIS is suppossed to be our new X-COM game. I... this would be like if the next Fallout game was revealed to be a go-karting and fast food management simulator with a wise-cracking fairy sidekick. It might sound good, and have awesome jokes and racing, but it would be about as much Fallout as my left thumb is a 747.
 

Chadling

New member
Oct 8, 2008
141
0
0
If 2K was to remake UFO Defense with modern graphics and a bit more tactical complexity, I would be singing their praises.

As it is, I want to take a Blaster Launcher to their offices.
 

Freyar

Solar Empire General
May 9, 2008
214
0
0
I'm just disappointed that with such a rapid shift from what was already established, they effectively try and re-write what Microprose has already done. X-Com started in 1999, I suppose a few small investigations could have had an impact, but 40 or 50 years earlier is a bit far-fetched.

This just doesn't seem to be the level that it should be. They're too busy trying to extend Bioshock it seems.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
Wow.

Way to NOT BE AN XCOM GAME.

And seriously...911? In the '50s you dialed 0 for the operator and screamed for a connect to the police department, if you didn't actually have the number written on the phone (a lot of phones came with labels you were expected to write your local PD/FD numbers on).
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,153
0
0
I just hope it has the awesome music. (Ba-da ba da-da da baaa da ba)
And UFO dogfights. And tense night-time missions. And the ability to order rocket tanks off the internet.
But not psychic powers. Those psi-amps made the game waaay too easy.
 

Diligent

New member
Dec 20, 2009
749
0
0
I never really played the old xcom games (unfortunately) and I can understand the fans hating the idea of such a radical departure.
For me it would be like if they took fallout, and transposed its name onto a shooter with really pathetically light RPG elements and...oh wait...
Still, objectively it still looks like it could be decent, but it may as well have been called Alien-shock or something.
 

Unrulyhandbag

New member
Oct 21, 2009
462
0
0
CD-R said:
ZephrC said:
Kandon Arc said:
TsunamiWombat said:
Look, everybody here knows a TBS game wouldn't sell particularly well. Nobody's asking why 2K isn't making a sequels that the fans would actually like. We just want to know why they're making an XCom game at all.

I would personally love to get a new PSN/XBLA sort of game or something else like that. It's just... They must have payed good money for the right to slap the XCom name on their random 50s era alien shooter. Why would they do that? Not one single person on the face of the Earth will buy this because of the XCom name, (I exaggerate of course, but XCom is pretty obscure and this is not popular with its fans. Fans of XCom will not contribute anything meaningful to sales of this game.) and it has absolutely nothing to do with XCom. (That is not an exaggeration.) Why? Just... Why?
That is weird why they would even bother with that. Nobody under the age of 25 is even going to know what X-Com is. Hell the only reason I know about it is because I used to have a subscription to Computer Gaming World and they sent a disk with X-Com and a bunch of other classic titles on it.

If they were going to make this game related to X-Com they should have kept the X-Com parts a secret. Picture this. You beat the game and the last scene of the ending is 40 years later in the Oval Office. The president is looking over a document. Signs it. Camera zooms in on the document. The title. "X-Com Initiative" Make the X-Com part a twist ending and the entire game a setup for a sequel, which is a proper X-Com game. A proper X-Com game with, base management, finance management, international politics, shooting down alien ships,randomly generated destructible environments, and of course FLYING POWER ARMOR!!! But sticking X-Com in the title is just going to piss people off.


I have no problem making the combat sections of the X-Com franchise a first person squad based tactical shooter. Using the FLYING POWER ARMOR in that type of setting would kick all sorts of ass. You could even support coop play with it. But I just don't know if we have the technology to really pull it off at this time.

This article is just all bad news :(


you know I could live without the geoscape and all the management goodness I so enjoy if I was given a solid tactical shooter themed on x-com. I imagine it to be a lot like the original rainbow six game on PC, You get a map of the area and use it to plan ahead setting up squad sweeps patterns and telling troops where to deploy before running into the mission (Hell, maybe there could be a basic deployment pattern for those who just want action.)

The AI squad-mates assume their positions during play reacting to fire as necessary, shouting down their radios to let you know where the problems are, and you get to play the hero commander. Technology you capture could be available a couple of missions down the line and special missions open up based on the amount of live captures you make. It's not x-com but it could be made to feel like it, and it's not a huge stretch concept wise.

Asking for randomly generated environments based on geoscape location that could also satisfy graphics whores would be an ideal but that is a stretch.
 

Giftmacher

New member
Jul 22, 2008
137
0
0
GothmogII said:
L...let's just wait and se...s....see? Oh god, it's no use, this is just terrible news. D:
I hate to prejudge a game... but I agree. I can cope with a genre departure if it's interesting enough, but this just sounds like a weak game full-stop. Damn it. Hope I'm wrong.

Gift.
 

Warnolo

New member
Apr 30, 2010
79
0
0
Seriously, why there are so many shooters? Now everything comes back as a shooter.

Seriously, whats the big deal? i want to look at my character.
 

Xennon

New member
Apr 24, 2004
37
0
0
I actually don't get why people are so annoyed about this.

Remaking the first game would never work... ever. If you want the first game so bad, just go and play it! Thats what I do and it is still awesome.

TFTD was also awesome.

Apocalypse was also awesome.

Interceptor? You guessed it.. AWESOME. In fact, Apocalypse (because of the real time) and Interceptor (being able to fly the ships and use the weapons you researched and created) were my favourites.

When they announced Genesis I wasn't too fussed (would have been a 3d remake of the first) but when they announced Alliance where you would be able to use those weapons in a first person environment, I almost messed my pants! And then it got canceled and I damn near cried.

I never bothered with Enforcer because that was just an FPS

The last real XCom's (Genesis and Alliance) were going to be the same old great XCom with strategy and FPS combat respectivly and it is my hope that this is what 2k Marins version will be. If it turns out that they really dumb down the strategy part, so there is no research, base building, finance management etc, then it will be a real shame, but until then I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they will produce the XCom FPS that I always wanted, where I can take an alien weapon, reasearch it, and then go and blow an aliens head off with it! If it becomes too linear, that will spoil it. One of the great things about XCom is the fact that things constantly happen around you, whether you keep up with them or not.

It would be a shame if it just goes 'Do mission A - Get Weapon A - Do Mission B - Get Weapon B and Item A' etc. CHoice and discovery and research etc have to be there.

If they remade the first game, all that would happen is you would all play it and then cry that it wasn't as good as the original. Remakes of games (especially ones we all have fond memories of as children) do not and will never work! They never live up to our expectations.
 

spookydom

New member
Aug 31, 2009
309
0
0
Sounds to me like they just admited to dumbing down base building and the other strategy elements. I still play the original (thx Steam)but a lot of people have wanted to see an updated version of the classic X-Com system for a long time. Not making one seems as sensible to me as cutting off your private parts to help your sex life, and a kick in the face for the fans who have been keeping the spirit of the game alive for all these years.

How many decent first person shooters are there on the market at the moment? = Shed loads.
How many decent turn based strategy games? = Ummmmmmm?
question for me is, is there still a market for the classic format? I think very much so.
 

stickmangrit

New member
May 30, 2008
57
0
0
since Zephr and Atmos already covered the "rational, intelligent dissection of why this sucks" angle, i'll just join everyone else in the "parade the heads of 2K Marin's employees through the street on a pike" crowd.
 

Borntolose

New member
Aug 18, 2008
308
0
0
Well, I checked Google Images and it appears that XCom is indeed the game I thought it was, though I think I knew it as UFO. It really is strange that they turned it into a shooter. It was a great game.