Major Changes Rumored for XCom Shooter

[Andy Chalk]

The FPS was shit, and generic. They butchered Bioshock 2, and they had the audacity to try to slap XCOM onto Bioshock 2.5.

That's a pretty bold statement, given that almost nothing of substance was known about the shooter as originally planned. It does nicely illustrate some of the challenges the game was facing, however.

 

[digital warrior]

I just don't get it. The original FPS build looked interesting it just didn't look like x-com. They could have named it anything, like First Encounter, or just enemy unknown without x-com in the title and it would have been better received by everyone, they wouldn't have stepped on the toes of fans, they get a potential new IP to start, and they wouldn't have wasted money and resources on a game they are going to overhaul anyway.
This is why I cant be in marketing I can use logic and can actually guess fan reactions.

 

[VoidWanderer]

XCom fans weren't thrilled with the idea of their beloved franchise being turned into a shooter but the concept was fun (and is a lot easier to swallow now that we have a "real" XCom remake in the offing) and the aesthetic was great. But nothing says "quickie cash-out" like focus-group neutering.

I call bullcrap on that statement.

If the rumors were true, and the game HAS been reworked into a Socom-style title, odds are it was precisely BECAUSE of all the bitching people made about the original game being a "betrayal" because it was an FPS and not their beloved strategy game (even though they got that too, people STILL don't want to let it go: see the number of times people post that betrayal soundbite whenever the game comes up in discussion).

The developer probably looked at all that fanboy whinging and went "fuck, well now we can't sell this even if the game is perfect", and desperately tried to rework it into a strategy-shooter to try and appease the XCOM fans while retaining some of the spirit of the original.

They might as well not have bothered: people were determined to see this studio burn to the ground for "desecrating" their franchise, and even if this game winds up being incredible and was a good XCOM game in its own right, nothing will save it from the rabid hordes of people who were "betrayed" by a developer trying to do their own take on an otherwise dead franchise.

And people ***** about stagnation in the games industry. Way I see it, it's their own damn fault.

I would like to point to Syndicate.

A game, renowned for it's squad-based strategy element, and how 'well' it turned out in the FPS version.

Given the success of CoD and BF, every developer is making things into FPS to get in on that bandwagon. I loved the original Syndicate, and I am not surprised that the game floundered. When a developer 'honors' a game by making it into a genre that makes the fans of the original respond with WTF, they try to make it appeal to 'all gamers'. In doing so, they destroy the original feel of the game. If they drop the 'cashgrab' name of X-Com, it would probably go over better.

DX:HR feels more like a Syndicate game, than what Syndicate looks like.

Any developer that takes an existing franchise that was great in one aspect and make it a completely different play-style is playing with fire. But remember, Fallout 3 was fairly well-received, because while the gameplay is different, it still FEELS like Fallout.

Let me put it this way...

Are you going to see the Michael Bay version of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? You know, the one where they are no longer turtles from Earth mutated by alien goo into humanoids, and taught ninjutsu by a humanoid rat until their teens... They are aliens... who probably know ninjutsu (or since this is Michael Bay, 'Gun Fu')

 

[scotth266]

I'm unclear as to how you're disagreeing with me.

Yeah, sorta rage-posted there without thinking clearly. My bad, this topic just gets me worked up, mostly because of...

I would like to point to Syndicate.

People objected to the naming of it due to 'Xcom' being shoved on it as a pathetic attempt to generate interest in fans of the previous series instead of creating what could have been an interesting new name and IP.

Transforming an old series with a solid foundation in strategy into a generic first person shooter isn't stagnation?

Responses like this. The game wasn't allowed to be made and tested on its own merits because people automatically assumed "lol FPS failboat incoming" or "they're just using the IP without actually trying to make an XCOM game".

The game wasn't allowed to be made and tested on its own merits, both as an XCOM game and as a game in general. As someone who was thinking about going into game design at one point, that makes me more than a little mad.

Sure, Syndicate flopped. But what about other franchises like Fallout, where the game was rebooted into a FPS but still managed to be great in its own right? I thought that the footage of the original looked fantastic, but now that the game has essentially been condemned to development hell thanks to the close-minded fans, it seems that I'm not going to get that fantastic-looking game - I'm going to get a last-ditch rework aimed at appeasing people who they shouldn't have bothered with in the first place.

 

[KapnKerfuffle]

There is just something very unsatisfying about shooting pudding. You may quote me on that.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I'm unclear as to how you're disagreeing with me.

Yeah, sorta rage-posted there without thinking clearly. My bad, this topic just gets me worked up, mostly because of...

I would like to point to Syndicate.

People objected to the naming of it due to 'Xcom' being shoved on it as a pathetic attempt to generate interest in fans of the previous series instead of creating what could have been an interesting new name and IP.

Transforming an old series with a solid foundation in strategy into a generic first person shooter isn't stagnation?

Responses like this. The game wasn't allowed to be made and tested on its own merits because people automatically assumed "lol FPS failboat incoming" or "they're just using the IP without actually trying to make an XCOM game".

The game wasn't allowed to be made and tested on its own merits, both as an XCOM game and as a game in general. As someone who was thinking about going into game design at one point, that makes me more than a little mad.

Sure, Syndicate flopped. But what about other franchises like Fallout, where the game was rebooted into a FPS but still managed to be great in its own right? I thought that the footage of the original looked fantastic, but now that the game has essentially been condemned to development hell thanks to the close-minded fans, it seems that I'm not going to get that fantastic-looking game - I'm going to get a last-ditch rework aimed at appeasing people who they shouldn't have bothered with in the first place.

Umm, I did point that out regarding Fallout... It even got it's own paragraph.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

-snip-

What did you expect? Gamers are a bunch of cynics (or at least the more vocal ones are). It looked like the name had been slapped on to an existing game and some of the dev comments didn't help with things.


Edit: another person you quoted has commented that you selectively picked parts of their posts to agree with your point.

I stated in my original post

General consensus is that the game as it was would have been fine.

 

[Product Placement]

Sure, Syndicate flopped. But what about other franchises like Fallout, where the game was rebooted into a FPS but still managed to be great in its own right?

First off, Fallout 3 still feels like an RPG, rather than an FPS. The first person format is a true and tested mechanic for roleplaying games that has been used for a long time. Take, for example, the Might and Magic series. Fallout 3 was developed by Bethesda, who are known for Elder Scrolls; a very successful first person RPG series. Bethesda also released artwork and game updates that clearly showed that they were staying true to the source material. 2K's game did anything but look faithful to the source material (no, the mere fact that it's an alien invasion, doesn't count). Fans of the original game tends to dislike stuff like that.

A turned based overhead strategy game doesn't translate well into a shooter. Strategy games in general don't. Westwood tried it with their C&C franchise and it panned. Blizzard canceled the development of one that was part of the Starcraft universe and then there's Syndicate, that's already been mentioned.

I thought that the footage of the original looked fantastic, but now that the game has essentially been condemned to development hell thanks to the close-minded fans, it seems that I'm not going to get that fantastic-looking game - I'm going to get a last-ditch rework aimed at appeasing people who they shouldn't have bothered with in the first place.

I'll admit that the game looks interesting and I'd like to try it out. What I don't get is that since the name is such a huge issue, why don't they just change the name of the damn game? Surely that would be cheaper than redesign the entire game so that it resembles more closely the game it's named after.

Besides, they're already developing a strategy game that will also be called "Xcom" and was scheduled to be released around the same time. Now, that's just grounds for confusion. Why can't this game simply be its own franchise?

 

[Burst6]

Responses like this. The game wasn't allowed to be made and tested on its own merits because people automatically assumed "lol FPS failboat incoming" or "they're just using the IP without actually trying to make an XCOM game".

The game wasn't allowed to be made and tested on its own merits, both as an XCOM game and as a game in general. As someone who was thinking about going into game design at one point, that makes me more than a little mad.

Sure, Syndicate flopped. But what about other franchises like Fallout, where the game was rebooted into a FPS but still managed to be great in its own right? I thought that the footage of the original looked fantastic, but now that the game has essentially been condemned to development hell thanks to the close-minded fans, it seems that I'm not going to get that fantastic-looking game - I'm going to get a last-ditch rework aimed at appeasing people who they shouldn't have bothered with in the first place.

Of course the game isn't allowed to be judged on its own merits. It's not an original IP, it's supposedly part of a series. If people judged games individually without looking at the history of the series dragon age II wouldn't have gotten such a negative reaction. You don't take an old game with a fan base, radically change it into a genre famous for its cash grabs, and then expect the fans of the old game to take it.

The game wasn't condemned because the fans were close minded, it was condemned because 2K decided to dig up a RTS, steal its name tag, and put it on an FPS instead of coming up with something new.

Like product placement said, Fallout 3 succeeded because it was still at it's heart an RPG. It just transitioned from an isometric one to an action one.

 

[scotth266]

Umm, I did point that out regarding Fallout... It even got it's own paragraph.

I know that. But why is it that this game wasn't given the same chance as the Fallout rework?

You mention that the Fallout reboot worked because it still felt like Fallout. Well, the XCOM FPS still looked like XCOM to me - tactical decision-making on the battlefield, limited power usage, choices about when/how to research things for potential long-term gains vs short term gains, mission selection, invasion of alien dimensions/ships... everything there sounds like it was taken off an XCOM checklist.

General consensus is that the game as it was would have been fine.

Whose general consensus? The only thing I heard when the original announcement came out was wailing and the gnashing of teeth coming from the whole "BETRAYAL" faction. That and people saying that it shouldn't have been an XCOM title, which is hardly saying that the game looks "fine": if it looks fine, why not let it keep the XCOM name?

The first person format is a true and tested mechanic for roleplaying games that has been used for a long time.

A turned based overhead strategy game doesn't translate well into a shooter. Strategy games in general don't. Westwood tried it with their C&C franchise and it panned. Blizzard canceled the development of one that was part of the Starcraft universe and then there's Syndicate, that's already been mentioned.

Prior failures do not mean that something can't be done - I wonder how many times FPS RPGs failed before they became an acceptable form of RPG.

The gameplay trailer looked great. Where Syndicate and other titles failed, this one looked to succeed. Now it won't be given that chance.

2K's game did anything but look faithful to the source material (no, the mere fact that it's an alien invasion, doesn't count). Fans of the original game tends to dislike stuff like that.

...

I'll admit that the game looks interesting and I'd like to try it out. What I don't get is that since the name is such a huge issue, why don't they just change the name of the damn game? Surely that would be cheaper than redesign the entire game so that it resembles more closely the game it's named after.

Here is one of the things I don't get, and it ties into the reason I made that comment about stagnation.

If people complain about stagnation, about being handed the same thing over and over again, particularly when it comes to the rehashing of sequels, then why do they get up in arms whenever those same series get taken in new directions?

This was looking to be a fine new take on XCOM: yes, it didn't look like it was a thorough copy of the original, but what is more important - parroting the past, or reflecting upon it and making your own, unique take on it? If you just keep making more of the old, and only do minor updates, you're not making that great a game compared to those that came before, and you MUST, as a rule, change it in some dramatic fashion in order to make it new enough to be worth a purchase. Otherwise you end up making Dynasty Warriors games.

This new game had enough of the spirit of XCOM in it to merit the name. But because people didn't want a new game, now it's being put through the wringer.

 

[scotth266]

Of course the game isn't allowed to be judged on its own merits. It's not an original IP, it's supposedly part of a series.

Whoops, meant to include this in that last argument.

 

[Burst6]

Here is one of the things I don't get, and it ties into the reason I made that comment about stagnation.

If people complain about stagnation, about being handed the same thing over and over again, particularly when it comes to the rehashing of sequels, then why do they get up in arms whenever those same series get taken in new directions?

This was looking to be a fine new take on XCOM: yes, it didn't look like it was a thorough copy of the original, but what is more important - parroting the past, or reflecting upon it and making your own, unique take on it? If you just keep making more of the old, and only do minor updates, you're not making that great a game compared to those that came before, and you MUST, as a rule, change it in some dramatic fashion in order to make it new enough to be worth a purchase. Otherwise you end up making Dynasty Warriors games.

This new game had enough of the spirit of XCOM in it to merit the name. But because people didn't want a new game, now it's being put through the wringer.

People aren't complaining about stagnation because games in an IP are too similar to each other, they're complaining that there are too many IPs that all try to go into a single genre, namely linear FPS spectacle games. From the trailer i, and apparently a lot of other people, saw that's what the game looked like. A linear spectacle shooter.

A lot of people want games in a series to be relevant to each other where each game is the last with a bit of change so it's still relevant to the last game, but improved. When a series loses its steam we don't want it to be rehashed, we want it to end and for the dev to move on to a new IP. Like i said before, taking an old IP and slapping it onto a game that's only mildly related and is part of a genre that is famous for its cash ins will ruffle some feathers.

Stagnation isn't games in an series being similar to each other. That's what a series is, the games are supposed to be similar to each other. Stagnation is too many IP's being similar to each other. If anything the game would have contributed to it by changing another IP into the genre that the industry is stagnant with at the moment.

 

[Product Placement]

The first person format is a true and tested mechanic for roleplaying games that has been used for a long time.

A turned based overhead strategy game doesn't translate well into a shooter. Strategy games in general don't. Westwood tried it with their C&C franchise and it panned. Blizzard canceled the development of one that was part of the Starcraft universe and then there's Syndicate, that's already been mentioned.

Prior failures do not mean that something can't be done - I wonder how many times FPS RPGs failed before they became an acceptable form of RPG.

Before it became an acceptable form? First person RPGs have been around for 20+ years. The oldest game I've found that fits that description is Dungeons of Daggorath, which was released in 1982. There are tons of successfull first/third person rpgs out there (Knights of the Old republic, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Gothic, Elders Scrolls (Including Skyrim) and so on) so it's hardly a surprise that this one was well recieved.

General consensus is that the game as it was would have been fine.

Whose general consensus? The only thing I heard when the original announcement came out was wailing and the gnashing of teeth coming from the whole "BETRAYAL" faction. That and people saying that it shouldn't have been an XCOM title, which is hardly saying that the game looks "fine": if it looks fine, why not let it keep the XCOM name?

The gameplay trailer looked great. Where Syndicate and other titles failed, this one looked to succeed. Now it won't be given that chance.

Most reviews agreed that the game looked interesting while adding that the fan community was obviously unhappy with it.

You may ask why not let it keep the Xcom name but it takes me to the previous question: Why do they need it? If the developers were getting so much grief about the name, why didn't they just change the name? Why scrub years of development just to redo the entire game so it fit's more with angry demands of looking more like a game that it's named after? It must be cheaper to just rebrand the game.

At any rate, I'm not gonna argue with you that the game looked intriquing but I fully understand where the negative voices are comming from. UFO - Enemy Unknown (the first Xcom game) was one of my first PC games and it carries a lot of sentimental value in my heart. I also don't see this game having much in common with the Xcom franchise.

 

[scotth266]

Before it became an acceptable form? First person RPGs have been around for 20+ years.

That doesn't really address my point - that there were likely a bunch of failures before there were successes, and that failures do not mean that something can't succeed.

It must be cheaper to just rebrand the game.

Not really.

New IPs are a risk, and having a licensed name gives you a lot of selling power - even if people are skeptical about it. Not to mention that these devs by that point had already put a lot of effort into making an XCOM game - if they had just renamed it, when it came out people would have just said "but it's just XCOM". And there's no point in re-branding the title when they had fully intended to make an XCOM title in the first place.

That's not even going into issues with licensing, PR, marketing, and even making a good name up for the game in the first place.

When a series loses its steam we don't want it to be rehashed, we want it to end and for the dev to move on to a new IP.

This never happens in reality. Mega Man fans, for instance, are complaining that Capcom hasn't made any Mega Man games recently. Fans of franchises do not stop demanding more games from that franchise: Silent Hill fans still want more Silent Hill games, even though the last several have been crap - they just want BETTER Silent Hill games.

-------

At any rate, these arguments are just becoming more circular. I still don't think anyone will satisfy my annoyance with the XCOM fanbase demanding that this game not sully their franchise, and the game's downward spiral that seems to be taking place because of that. It looked great, and thanks to their close-mindedness it looks like it's been consigned to development hell.

 

[Burst6]

At any rate, these arguments are just becoming more circular. I still don't think anyone will satisfy my annoyance with the XCOM fanbase demanding that this game not sully their franchise, and the game's downward spiral that seems to be taking place because of that. It looked great, and thanks to their close-mindedness it looks like it's been consigned to development hell.

And i doubt that you can satisfy XCOM fans who think you're trying to justify a mediocre "Betrayal!" - Spoony 2010 - of a game that could have easily and safely been a new IP but instead tried to coast on the XCOM label and failed miserably. It didn't look good at all and it strayed way too far from the series. So what if it's been consigned to developer hell. You could go to the shooter section of steam, pick a random game, and probably get the same or better experience.

 

[Product Placement]

Before it became an acceptable form? First person RPGs have been around for 20+ years.

That doesn't really address my point - that there were likely a bunch of failures before there were successes, and that failures do not mean that something can't succeed.

You asked how many shooter style RPG games (which apparently are called RPS (Role play shooters)) failed before they became an accepted form. I'm assuming that you mean that fans of yore fought against these types of games being made in the past. I'm saying that's incorrect because game making was still in its infancy back then. Most of these games were made in garages, with a shoestring budget. The gaming industry was non existent. The question you asked simply wasn't applicable with today's situation.

I've also witnessed Fallout 3 brought up time and again as an counterpoint against those that don't like this Xcom game. "Oh, fanboys whined about Fallout 3 too". "If we'd listen to the fanboys, there wouldn't have been Fallout 3". "Everyone shut up as soon as they saw how good Fallout 3 was".

I payed close attention to the development of Fallout 3. I was psyched about that game. All of my friends that played the old games were psyched. The forums I attended were psyched. I heard surprisingly little negative feedback from people discussing Fallout 3 and if there were any, it wasn't nowhere near as prominent as the negative feedback the 60's Xcom game's been getting.

And really, how could we've complained? You could tell from the first sneak peaks, the news updates, the concept arts, the teaser trailers and pretty much every single info released about the game that they were staying true to the franchise. The concept and setting was the same, so was the atmosphere and art style. They did a great job integrating the turned based Pip-boy targeting system, from the older games, into the new one. They even got the bloomin' voice actor that narrated the older games to be the narrator in this one.

New IPs are a risk, and having a licensed name gives you a lot of selling power - even if people are skeptical about it. Not to mention that these devs by that point had already put a lot of effort into making an XCOM game - if they had just renamed it, when it came out people would have just said "but it's just XCOM".

Ooooh, I must admit that I really don't think that many people would have made the connection, if they'd never mention that this was based on Xcom.

Making a new IP always carries an inherent risk but you said it yourself that the game looked good. It's also made by the creators of Bioshock; which was a brand new IP that 2K took risk with and turned out to be a huge success. If they'd market this as a new IP and had simply put "From the makers of Bioshock" into a single ad, that would have been more than enough to turn few heads.

Besides I'm sure after aaaall that publicity, it's gotten to the point where just about everyone knows whether or not they're going to pick up that game, regardless what they'll do with it now.

When I look at the two Xcom titles being developed today, I can look straight at Xcom - Enemy unknown and say "Now there's an Xcom game". I can also guaranty that I will buy it. I'm sorry but the other one just doesn't look like an Xcom game.

 

[Studsmack]

Well hell! I was actually looking forward to the XCom FPS. Now not only do they push forward the damn strategy one first, they change the only one that looked unique.

Unique? It was a bioshock rip off.

Research by cameras?

Models seemingly ripped from Bioshock?

Cheap 50s aesthetic?

BASIC SHAPES AS YOUR MAIN ENEMY?

The FPS was shit, and generic. They butchered Bioshock 2, and they had the audacity to try to slap XCOM onto Bioshock 2.5.

The only unique one was the strategy game in the sea of generic COD shooters with faux strategy.

I had the same exact feelings off all the media I saw for the FPS. Visually, the game looked like a fan-made BioShock mod and I wasn't impressed. If nothing else, I am genuinely happy that 2K or however decided to move forward with XCOM: Enemy Unknown. We really need more methodical strategy titles with the AAA polish, especially in the console space.