Has the 'X-com reboot approach' ever worked?

[Ragsnstitches]

Bethesda took an isometric turn-based RPG and made a real-time RPG-FPS. They pissed a few people off along the way, but the game was well received and sold a bunch.

The big question is - was this a success though?

If we're talking about sales, then sure. But then XCom/Syndicate/whateverotherheapofshittheyrebringingout might.

If it's a good addition to the canon, then you can say Soulcaliber etc. failed.

The main thing is, that it's a bit stupid to change an old, well-loved game into something that will leech off an over-saturated market.

It's like bringing XCOM out as a casual Tower Defence game, there's just no need.

BUT, as always, we'll have the people who love FPSs defending it because they hate nostalgia and they hate non-twitch games and most of all, they hate anything that doesn't include them.

In the change from X-Com, to XCOM, they've removed all canon, all tactics, all graphics, all settings, and everything that made the name. Then they've 're-imagined' it.

That's like having War and Peace 2 as a murder mystery starring Detective Leon Tolstoy and his spunky talking dog.

And I bet that would sell equally well.

Okay, just to set things up for myself. I played F1 and F2 before F3, I personally found F2 the best of the numbered sequels. That said, New Vegas is my favourite Fallout game to date, bugs be damned.

I didn't like what Bethesda did in terms of narrative and the setting was a bit hit and miss (it felt like fallout, but at the same time It felt like it was set in a drastically different era, rather then a different state). But bringing the Elder Scrolls formula of a first person rpg to was, personally, a good idea. Though they could have attemtped to do a classically styled isometric game with fancy new age graphics and and less clunky stat system, the choice of going FPS was a natural one, since it's what they are experienced in.

Obsidian took that and ran with it, and made a 3D FPS fallout game that FELT like fallout though with far more bugs then even 2. Essentially, bethesda played to their strenghts but missed the quality by a fair margin and Obsidian rectified it. To me, Obsidian proved Bethesdas idea was good (though rough), but their grasp of the ethos was off the mark.

Re-imaginings are not so bad, though the risk of a much loved name being mecilessly flogged for fat greedy bereaucrats to get their fix is there. Face it, games from 10-20 years ago do not stand up so well today, not because of graphics, not because of their genre, but simply because the games back then were crude and fledgeling and made games within the limitations of the technology. Games now are able to do barrels more then games of yester year, and in the case of rpgs, ditch the roll of the dice for more direct player based input/skill. Stats now serve to tell us what a character can do, rather then the chances of the character doing it. Frankly I prefer the new use of stats.

One more thing. In regards to changing up the core feel of the game (isometric to fps as per the current example). FPS (or even TPS) is by far the more immersive game type as it puts YOU the player in the hot seat, rather then some abstract distance above your character, like some astroprojected voyeur. If done well, you can get sucked into a game... and yes the same could be said about a Isometric far view game, but the former is far easier to accomplish.

Whats more, in a free roam adventure game, FPS/TPS is a little more special as it allows for the finer details to get emphasised. Small things like that skeleton of a man who worked his way through a dangerous mutant infested building to find a lost treasure, only to bring a manual on lockpicking to open a, sadly, computerised door (actual scene in fallout 3). In an ISO rpg that scene would probably been some skeleton model laid down on the ground with a block of textures next to it that we have to assume is a book, which when we interact with it, would explain to us what happened.

Frankly, for me, the former is more immersive and interesting as it allows me to piece together the events. The whole motto of "show don't tell" comes to mind. Fallout 3 is littered with those little touches... it's why I don't hate the game, despite it missing it's mark.

Bethesda had an actual reputation. The guys at X-Com does not, and 2K has a bad reputation for ruining good franchises like Bioshock.

Fallout 3's example doesn't work.

Eh... no. Bioshock 2 did not RUIN bioshock. Objectively it was the better game in terms of mechanics and gameplay, but even from my point of view I will say it didn't stand as tall as the rather sublime prequel. Also 2k games acutally has a pretty solid reputation as a producer/developer/publisher much like Bethesda. Here's a list of games that they have been involved with at various levels:

Sid Meier's Pirates!
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
Sid Meier's Civilization IV
Close Combat: First to Fight
MLB 2K5: World Series Edition
Dungeon Siege II
Jade Empire
Motocross Mania 3
Serious Sam II
Vietcong 2
24: The Game
CivCity: Rome
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Warlords
Dungeon Siege II: Broken World
Dungeon Siege: Throne of Agony
Family Guy Video Game!
Prey
Sid Meier's Railroads!
Stronghold Legends
The Da Vinci Code
Sid Meier's Pirates!
BioShock
Carnival Games
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Ghost Rider
The Darkness
The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization
Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution
Borderlands
BioShock 2
Mafia II
Civilization V
Duke Nukem Forever

So yeah... some hits and misses (not unlike bethesda... rogue agent, never forget). Funnily enough I notice a cross over here. I do believe Bethesda outsourced the xbox version of shivering isles.

 

[Spitfire]

Some might disagree, but I'd argue that Command & Conquer Renegade is one such example. The game was more or less an FPS reimagining of the original C&C, which was obviously an RTS. The gameplay was fun as hell, the dialogue was humorous, and the game managed to adapt almost every aspect of the original. Of course, the major difference between Renegade and X-com, is that Renegade was made by the same studio that made the original game, whereas X-com is not. Take from that what you will.

 

[CD-R]

The actual question can't be answered, unless you define what "it worked" means.

There are some instances where game franchises took a turn, and I will briefly talk about the examples.

Fallout:
Already mentioned, and it did work on a publishers point of view. On a fan's of the original point of view though, it didn't. It's not that I outrightly dismiss FO3, I actually really want to like it, but it can't hold my interest sadly. So for me, it didn't work.

The same goes for Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six:
I loved the original games, but both took a dive for a more casual/arcade approach, which made them sell better, but made them sucky in my eyes.

X-Com is kind of a special case, because people rage about it being a FPS, while most seem to forget that, after a stellar, a good and a mediocre turn based tactics game, the franchise became a bad space sim and a bad third eprson shooter... So while I am not too fond of the newest one either, it's not that surprising actually.

And then there is Operation flashpoint, which made a nice heel turn into CoD territory. At least it wasn't too successful with it.

I do fear the new Brothers in Arms (a somewhat realistic, drama driven game turned into Borderlands meets Inglorious Basterds) and Syndicate (top down real time tactics becomes Riddick... ) will outsell with thsese, in my eyes crappy and unneeded iterations, the originals, thus erasing the contiunation of the originals...

But come to think of it, the question shouldn't be if it works, but why publishers shoehorn games into exisiting franchises, even though they are clearly not in the same vein.
I just don't understand the logic behind that, because people who didn't care for Fallout 1 and 2, wouldn't mind if FO3 was called "Aftermath", while fans of the franchise will be alienated and pissed.

Bethesda though at least tried to make a Fallout game. They at least tried to create the same feeling of wandering a nuclear wasteland. They at least tried to make it you know, look like a Fallout game. Were they successful? In some areas yes in other areas no. Game play and setting wise I think they were. The Capital wasteland was a generally interesting place to explore and the VATS system worked very well. Story and character wise I think they fell short. Sure there were some good side quests and the locations (vaults etc.) had a lot of interesting stories, but the main story wasn't really that great. Fortunately New Vegas came along and picked up the slack story wise.

This new X-Com's main problem is that it doesn't even look like X-Com. Seriously if it had the same setting and aliens from the original I'd at least be willing to give it a shot. As far as the new Syndicate game goes that at least looks like it could be a Syndicate game. Then again I only played a few missions of the original so I don't know. EA could have avoided 90% of the backlash if they just said it was "a visceral first person shooter set in the grim dystopian universe of Syndicate". Rather than saying it's a direct sequel or series reboot.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Whats more, in a free roam adventure game, FPS/TPS is a little more special as it allows for the finer details to get emphasised.

Taking XCOM for a moment:
Do you think the terror of a Chrysalid invasion will be there?
Do you think mind-controlling other aliens will be in there?
Do you think juggling the various countries chance of being invaded will be in there?
Do you think the fully destructive environments will be there?
Do you think sending the tanks out will be there?
Do you think things like the blaster bomb will be there?

Do you think you'll actually "care" if one of your people gets killed?

These are all staples of X-Com that appear to be nowhere in XCOM.

Equally, all of the staples of Syndicate (chest-nukes, clones) seem to be missing apart from the Persuadotron - which is being amped up to the Sonic Screwdriver stage of being able to do anything.

Fallout 3 acted as a big brush over the original IP. As did Transformers - effectively producing two IPs. Both XCOM and the remade Syndicate could have their names swapped with little difference apart from the setting - and also rebranded as Call Of Duty: Alien Invasion or Call of Duty: Cyber Invasion.

That makes an extremely worrying thought for any other IP that isn't an FPS now, because it soon might be "reimagined" as one.

Sabrewulf, Ant Attack, Monty on the Run, Blagger....Sonic?

 

[ChupathingyX]

Fallout 3 may have been a critical and commercial success, but from the fans perspective...it's probably one of the biggest battles of preference and opinion.

The problem is that critically, well most reviewers are dickheads, I'm sorry but that is how I feel about them 90% of the time. As for awards...they're bullshit too.

As for commercially many fans of the original did not like the move to 3D FPS, but they couldn't make their final judgement until they actually purchased it and played it. In the end it turned out that Bethesad took so many liberties with the Fallout universe that the lore became a mess, and even when looking at it without considering the Fallout world, things like the story, characters and all that were still boring and stupid.

Personally I really didn't like Fallout 3 and neither did a lot of other people, so no, I would not call it a success.

New Vegas on the other hand pretty much fixed all of the issues Fallout 3 had (except for bugs) and if it replaced F3 then that would have been a much better success, and the game did sell well.

 

[Continuity]

I think the real question we need to ask is why have these old genre died? is it impossible now to make a successful AAA game that doesn't fit into one of the major genre slots? Thats a sad thing if true.

However this is clearly the reason for the re-work, its not because there was anything wrong with the original formula its just that the AAA industry isn't geared to making these sorts of games anymore... all the talent and all the game engines and development tools and all the development practises and design paradigms that exist in these AAA studios are geared for first or third person 3D games. The shift needed and the risk involved in creating a true modern AAA sequel to XCOM is incomprehensible to these people.

 

[Vault101]

No doubt the vast majority of you are aware that the old X-Com games are getting the reboot treatment in the form of an FPS with RPG upgrade elements and a 1950s America aesthetic.

Needless to say, fans are a bit miffed about this. (For the record, I am not one such fan. Never played the old games. Not terribly interested in the reboot.) The general feeling seems to be that the developer/publisher is just using the name for the sake of brand recognition. This is viewed as a bit stupid, since non-fans won't give a damn that it's called X-Com and fans of the old games will hate your guts for shaking down a classic. There's also a bit of the usual bile being thrown about regarding FPSs, lowest common denominators and so on, yeah... you've heard it all before.

There's a similar scenario regarding the Syndicate games which are also set to be rebooted as, heh, you guessed it, a FPS.

So, my question is, has this approach ever worked in the past?

The closest example I can think of is Fallout 3. Bethesda took an isometric turn-based RPG and made a real-time RPG-FPS. They pissed a few people off along the way, but the game was well received and sold a bunch.

Are there any other such examples?

I couldnt really say from experience

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

I think in regards to others it doesnt reseble the originals at all...its just the name really

 

[Vault101]

Fallout 3 may have been a critical and commercial success, but from the fans perspective...it's probably one of the biggest battles of preference and opinion.

The problem is that critically, well most reviewers are dickheads, I'm sorry but that is how I feel about them 90% of the time. As for awards...they're bullshit too.

As for commercially many fans of the original did not like the move to 3D FPS, but they couldn't make their final judgement until they actually purchased it and played it. In the end it turned out that Bethesad took so many liberties with the Fallout universe that the lore became a mess, and even when looking at it without considering the Fallout world, things like the story, characters and all that were still boring and stupid.

Personally I really didn't like Fallout 3 and neither did a lot of other people, so no, I would not call it a success.

New Vegas on the other hand pretty much fixed all of the issues Fallout 3 had (except for bugs) and if it replaced F3 then that would have been a much better success, and the game did sell well.

Im not sure I buy the "critcs dont know what they are talking about!" as a way to justify your veiw that they were WRONG when saying FO3 was great, not saing your veiw is wrong but still....

they way I see it, they took the series and made it into an action RPG, since you like New vegas that shows at least you dont dislike FO3 and NV beccause they arnt isometric turn based strategys

alot of people (sadly) hate them for this reason and this reason alone

lets not discuss FO3...again

 

[Continuity]

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

You know they didnt do that good a job on FO3. Sure the aesthetic was neatly preserved for the most part but the humour was almost completely absent, and the humour was a major part of what made fallout fallout. Really FO3 is just a pale impression of content of the originals. Plus although they created a fantastic sandbox world with tremendous detail, they were rather light on the actual number quests they put in there.

Those are my only complaints really, so on the whole the did a good job, far better than I expected.

 

[Vault101]

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

You know they didnt do that good a job on FO3. Sure the aesthetic was neatly preserved for the most part but the humour was almost completely absent, and the humour was a major part of what made fallout fallout. Really FO3 is just a pale impression of content of the originals. Plus although they created a fantastic sandbox world with tremendous detail, they were rather light on the actual number quests they put in there.

Those are my only complaints really, so on the whole the did a good job, far better than I expected.

you may be right, however somone like me (and many others) who werent very familiar with fallout, it introduced us to the world, it was fun and allowed New Vegas to be made...and just brought fallout to a wider audience

anyone who has a problem with that needs to get over themselfs (the whole "new fans" thing, not disliking the game)

 

[Souplex]

I'd be okay with this if they also gave us a real XCOM game (Turn based strategy is so hard to find these days, and let's be honest: RTSes aren't real strategy games as your strategy will always be hampered by your ability to manage the interface. XCOM was one of the best, and I'd like to see it back.) on the DS or something.

 

[Abengoshis]

In the future 99% of games involves guns and 90% of them are FPSs. Oh wait, that's now.

 

[veloper]

So all the re-imaginings and spin-offs mentioned sofar, kept (most of) the setting of original, even if the gameplay genre changed.

That makes the new XCOM idea a unique little brainfart in game land.

The best thing you can say about buying the IP is that it's giving the game some negative attention and that also puts the game on people's radar.

Reception will depend on how the game will compare to the Mass Effect series, since it copies most of it's gameplay mechanics from Bioware's.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Im not sure I buy the "critcs dont know what they are talking about!" as a way to justify your veiw that they were WRONG when saying FO3 was great, not saing your veiw is wrong but still....

I'm sorry but reviewers for the most part are just total bullshit.

They review games these days based on some really bad criteria and the amount of bias is astounding. It's impossible to be 100% free of bias, but sometimes it's just too much. Look at IGN, one of the most well known video game journalism and critic sites, they constantly give the Call of Duty games scores over 9 or 8, and how much have they changed?

Now look at the Dynasty Warriors series, since DW5 they have been getting very low scores based on the reason that they similar, however, if you ask me they've been innovating, or at least trying to anyway and they get much lower scores (this is of course only one example).

I also hate how 8 seems to have become the average score for games these days, this video explains it quite well...
(0:57 - 1:44)

I'm not saying that I'm right because I believe that reviewers are crap, just that basing a games success on the review it gets from one person whose opinion is apparently more important and legit is crap.

Same thing goes for awards, especially GOTY, which is an award that can go seriously go jump off a cliff. No game can be considered better than all other released during the year, no game is perfect or superior above all others (which also brings number scores to mind, they need to go jump of a cliff too).

they way I see it, they took the series and made it into an action RPG, since you like New vegas that shows at least you dont dislike FO3 and NV beccause they arnt isometric turn based strategys

No that isn't the reason I don't like Fallout 3, the reasons I don't like Fallout 3 are typed up and stored so that I can whip it out when I need to, it's almost 3000 words long and unfinished.

alot of people (sadly) hate them for this reason and this reason alone

I don't think I've ever seen someone who hated it for that single reason, there is always another reason.

 

[Vault101]

Im not sure I buy the "critcs dont know what they are talking about!" as a way to justify your veiw that they were WRONG when saying FO3 was great, not saing your veiw is wrong but still....

I'm sorry but reviewers for the most part are just total bullshit.

They review games these days based on some really bad criteria and the amount of bias is astounding. It's impossible to be 100% free of bias, but sometimes it's just too much. Look at IGN, one of the most well known video game journalism and critic sites, they constantly give the Call of Duty games scores over 9 or 8, and how much have they changed?

Now look at the Dynasty Warriors series, since DW5 they have been getting very low scores based on the reason that they similar, however, if you ask me they've been innovating, or at least trying to anyway and they get much lower scores (this is of course only one example).

I also hate how 8 seems to have become the average score for games these days, this video explains it quite well...
(0:57 - 1:44)

I'm not saying that I'm right because I believe that reviewers are crap, just that basing a games success on the review it gets from one person whose opinion is apparently more important and legit is crap.

Same thing goes for awards, especially GOTY, which is an award that can go seriously go jump off a cliff. No game can be considered better than all other released during the year, no game is perfect or superior above all others (which also brings number scores to mind, they need to go jump of a cliff too).

they way I see it, they took the series and made it into an action RPG, since you like New vegas that shows at least you dont dislike FO3 and NV beccause they arnt isometric turn based strategys

No that isn't the reason I don't like Fallout 3, the reasons I don't like Fallout 3 are typed up and stored so that I can whip it out when I need to, it's almost 3000 words long and unfinished.

alot of people (sadly) hate them for this reason and this reason alone

I don't think I've ever seen someone who hated it for that single reason, there is always another reason.

thats what I ment, you dislike Fallout 3 because of how they handled the lore/story, not only because it isnt exactly the same as the originals

you havnt heard of "no mutants allowed"? from the little ive herd they hate all the later fallout games with burning passion, asside othat I dont see it as unreasonable to assume there were those out the who eather totally wrote off the last two fallouts games because they werent turn based

you like NV which shows your not like that, thats what I was saying

 

[ChupathingyX]

thats what I ment, you dislike Fallout 3 because of how they handled the lore/story, not only because it isnt exactly the same as the originals

Well that's an understatement, but yes you're basically right.

you havnt heard of "no mutants allowed"? from the little ive herd they hate all the later fallout games with burning passion, asside othat I dont see it as unreasonable to assume there were those out the who eather totally wrote off the last two fallouts games because they werent turn based

you like NV which shows your not like that, thats what I was saying

Yes, I am quite aware of NMA and I know that some of the members there do in fact like New Vegas, one of the more infamous admins of the Fallout wiki is quite well known on NMA and he hates Fallout 3 but thinks NV was a massive step in the right direction.

 

[Scow2]

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

You know they didnt do that good a job on FO3. Sure the aesthetic was neatly preserved for the most part but the humour was almost completely absent, and the humour was a major part of what made fallout fallout. Really FO3 is just a pale impression of content of the originals. Plus although they created a fantastic sandbox world with tremendous detail, they were rather light on the actual number quests they put in there.

Those are my only complaints really, so on the whole the did a good job, far better than I expected.

I found Fallout 3 as feeling VERY true to the tone of the first Fallout game. The difference in tone and style between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 is staggering.

Going straight from Fallout 1 to Fallout 3, I found Fallout 3 to be very true to the IP, while the third game also references the continuity of the second game. If Bethesda made Fallout: New Vegas into Fallout 3, instead of giving us the Fallout 1 clone first, the game wouldn't have been nearly as successful because Fallout New Vegas doesn't have the "introductory" nature of Fallout 3.

I find most "Successful" game series to follow a remarkably similar pattern:
1. First game is an innovative sleeper-hit. (X-Com, Dawn of War, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, Duke Nukem.)
2. The second game is a great improvement on the first, surpassing it in quality. (X-Com 2, Dawn of War:Winter Assault. Fallout 2. The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall)
3. The third game takes a different approach to the formula, and becomes the most memorable game in the franchise for the time. Unfortunately, it also breaks the fan base. New fans love it, fans of the first two enjoy it but don't like/are wary of the dramatic change. (Dawn of Warark Crusade, X-Com:Apocalypse, The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind)
4. The fourth game tries to reconcile the third and first games, shattering the fan base and becoming reviled as a "Piece of Shit", regardless of commercial success or failure. (X-Com: Interceptor, Dawn of War: Soulstorm, The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion.)

When a game switches developers, it generally carries qualities of its current installment of the series, and the first game.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Does Resident Evil 4 count? It took a series that had more in common with adventure games than action and turned it into a third person shooter, and everyone loved it. Then again, it wasn't a revival of a long dead classic, just a reimagining of a concept that they'd done to death.

The DEFINITIVE third-person shooter, in point of fact, and it's arguable that it made the series actually, you know, playable.

 

[Therumancer]

I loved the first two x-com games, and i like the trailer for the new game. Looks interesting. All those fans are bitching about nothing. They can still play the old games, or even that new Xenonauts game that is like x-com thats being made. People just need to get over it already, a remake or redo doesnt make the original games any less good. Just a different interpretation of the material.

I tend to disagree here when your dealing with differant types of games.

See, there is a decent market for things like turn based RPGs and strategy RPGs, and when you take defining games of a genere that people want but are rarely being made due to the increasingly corperate attitudes, it slots people off. Especially seeing as when they are re-creating a game pretty much from the ground up, since there is no reason why they shouldn't use a new franchise name. It's like taking a can of spam, putting the word "beef" on the front and then claiming it's a steak. Someone might like spam (it sells quite well) but no matter what they call it, it's not a steak.

The way I see the things is the game industry not willing to cater to niche audiences, as in real gamers, and instead going after the big bucks in the mainstream. It's not about making a profit or good games, but about making as much money as possible, if something is a niche audience they don't consider it enough money to justify. A good example of this would be say the "Red Faction" games, in the latest "Game Informer" there is a "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" section talking about how the "Red Faction" series is being cancelled, not because it didn't make any money but because it's a "niche audience" and didn't make ENOUGH money. Basically, producing a more derivitive shooter in a less unique enviroment could potentially make them more money, so it's better to chase that than keep something that is simply making money.... and this is within the shooter demographic, turn based fans (of turn based anything) have it even rougher since casuals HATE turn/stat based games, and due to the amount of work it takes to make games like that (due to visible, consistant mechanics, and creating a unique game engine as opposed to using one from a toolbox) the industry doesn't want to make them even if they make good money off of them. Professional reviewers and critics tend to more or less follow the casuals, because they are paid to try and help create the enviroment the game companies desire. Game companies want to try and generate hype for the cheapest kinds of games for them to roll out, and the influx of casual gamers gives them the oppertunity to exploit paid media to create the kind of customers they want, as opposed to catering to the whims of the customers on their own... which is classic corperate marketing.

Agree or disagree, things like this... what we're seeing with "X-com" is why you have a divide in the gaming community and so much hatred by "serious" gamers for the casuals. See serious gamers might not always play the same niche games, but they all love things that are considered niche games usually as a primary choice for gaming entertainment, that's part of what makes them what they are. Despite an attempt to present them as "hardcore" people who primarily play shooters and such are actually just a differant version of the "Farmville" crowd, which is why they are increasingly being targeted by the same kinds of marketing. These guys will flock to the "Call Of Duty" and "Halo" clones, no matter how derivitive, the same way chubby middle-aged housewives will flock to Farmville. Likewise for all their whining this crowd is increasingly willing to pay for things like multi-player maps, and other gimmicks, which is very similar to how content is sold in a game like "Farmville" it's just styled differantly for a differant audience.

There are plenty of shooters with customizable elements out there and a "quirky" vibe, however there aren't all that many turn based SRPG games being made at a big-budget level. There is room for all kinds of games to be made for everyone in theory, but the problem is that the gaming industry does not do this on a suffiient level. Things like Xenonauts are hardly being developed on the same level as shooters, nor are there enough for the community.

See, with X-com, the actual thought process was probably that they wanted to poop out another shooter. They already have the engines via toolboxes, and largely they just need to decide on what kind of graphics to hire people to draw... the "flash" added to the same basic framework everyone is using. Rather than hiring a creative team, they probably looked back at what properties they had access to, saw X-Com, and pretty much decided "okay we'll do this, and while the retro-one was the least popular, Fallout is popular right now so we'll use that and try and grab it's coattails". The name still having some recognition... enough to get attenion, is also a boon, especially seeing as they can play off the differances with the old games to get attention.

THAT is why people hate the casual market, because it being there has arguably created the industry and turned everything into a casual game. It's funny, but when have you ever seen an FPS property turned into a dedicated TURN BASED game? It might have happened, but not as often as you see this kind of thing. You know... something like the original X-com except using Gears Of War warriors fighting Locusts or whatever, that would be awesome and I would actually play it (where I don't generally play shooters), but it won't happen because even if it made money it's too much of a niche audience.

Thanks for reading this far, whether you agree or disagree with me. This is how I see things. In short it's a big deal because the industry has become so one sided. If you could actually say "there are plenty of recent X-com like games undergoing AAA quality development right now for that niche" it wouldn't be a big deal. Right now you can point to "Xenonauts" which really doesn't fill that void. With things like "Fallout" it's even worse, the only game I can think of that was close to the original two games for those who want isometric turn based games is probably "Planet Alcatraz" which has horrible localization, and some pretty bad production values, and it's hardly brandy new.

 

[Scow2]

Oh yeah: Duke Nukem 3D turned a side-scrolling Platform game into an FPS.

Also: Warcraft to World of Warcraft.

RTS to MMORPG.