Trailers: XCOM - Gameplay Trailer

Recommended Videos

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
Let me be blunt: while this game MIGHT end up being OK as an FPS on its own merits, it has pointedly chosen to be judged as an X-COM game (despite the lack of hyphen). And as an X-COM game, it's pathetic. It's linear (missions are pre-generated to advance the "story" and scripted), shallow (you can only take 2 agents into the field with you at once and they level up along set lines), lacks any of the difficulty or tension of the original (since you play a precreated character obviously there's no risk of "losing" him otherwise you'd just get a game over), pointlessly muddled (who cares about the social setting aspect of the story when ALIENS are invading?!) and the action is mindless, generic, cover-based shooting.

Play the original X-COM for an hour. You had to choose where in the world to build your bases, what facilities to upgrade them with, how to equip them. You would deploy squads of up to 12 men or women right off the bat, with casualty rates of over 50% being COMMON in the early missions before you developed proper weapons, armour and more experienced soldiers. You had to expand your operations based on funding from the various world governments while repelling the aliens on a global scale to keep them from infiltrating humanity and cutting off your support. You had to shoot down the alien UFOs as they performed their missions and raid the crash sites for whatever you could scavenge, respond to enemy terror strikes before they had a devastating effect on your public support. You had to perform the research necessary to determine the aliens' plans yourself, eventually finding their base and destroying them in a mission you constructed and organised YOURSELF, in your own time- yet in a race against the clock before the Earth's inevitable defeat. And if you didn't want a mission to end in a total wipe-out- (which DIDN'T actually cause an immediate "game over") you had to be a tactical genius, scouting, using cover for protection, laying down covering fire, destroying terrain. The designer talks about how the original game was "overwhelming"? Well, that just proves that he's COMPLETELY the wrong person to be working on a game marketed with the 'X-COM' name. The game was deep. It was brilliant. And, despite being released in 1994, it makes this piece of rubbish look like cheap, shallow crap.

Like I said, this game may have its own merits, although to be honest I'm not really that impressed by the trailer- the graphics are unimpressive, especially the creepy uncanny-valley character models, despite the alien design being intially impressive when you see they just play as "creepy looking gun-toting humans" any sense of fighting aliens just goes to waste, and completing missions seems to be more based on "give the correct command to solve this scripted problem" rather than using your head. But if they call it XCOM they immediately burden the game with the demand that it live up to the X-COM franchise- and this is a total failure. This is NOT X-COM. It does not recapture the feel of X-COM, it does not invoke the spirit of X-COM, it does not do justice to the brilliant gameplay depth of X-COM. If they'd called the game ANYTHING else I would certainly have been more generous to it, but they really have shot themselves in the foot. I feel fully justified in pre-judging this and I judge it not even slightly worth my time.

Now excuse me, I'm going back to blast some more Ethereals before they manage to overrun my underground base in Central Europe.
 

chstens

New member
Apr 14, 2009
993
0
0
This actually looks really good, but goddamnit it, developer playing the game, YOU'RE WASTING RESOURCES!
 

MrMoustaffa

New member
Oct 3, 2010
185
0
0
Its not a real xcom game unless my units cant hit the broad side of barn.

All trolling aside, the game does look like it has some promise to it. I just have no clue how they're going to tie this into the other xcom games as a "prequel". I mean these aliens are nothing like the ones in the other games, and unless they're a different race that fights the ones from the original games or something, its going to be a far stretch.

I really hope they dont go through the game, have you beat these ones. Then at the very end, you get a brief glimpse of a sectoid or something, with the words "to be continued..." because then it'd kind of just feel like a cheap cash in to me.

Oh well, I guess we'll see soon enough
 

Product Placement

New member
Jul 16, 2009
475
0
0
My message to 2K:

Please for the love of god, rename that game. It will be much better received if it's allowed to stand on it's own merits. Stop claiming that you're "Re-inventing" X-com. I played the original game in my early teens and any notion of it feeling "overwhelming" was what gave it the reputation of being a scary game. The whole atmosphere of the game, the music, art stile, the genuine danger of losing your entire team during a mission, never knowing what was going to be around the corner, all of these things contributed to a racing heartbeat when the next wave of alien ships came flying in.

You sirs did not make a X-com game.

We don't want this.

We really don't.
 

ZombieGenesis

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,909
0
0
Can someone please tell these people they're making a sequel to X-COM not 51 BLACKSITE.
They seem to have their IP confused, someone needs to set them straight right away.
 

shadowform

New member
Jan 5, 2009
118
0
0
This does like it could end up being a decent and even good game, but calling it a sequel to X-Com is like falling Mass Effect a sequel to X-Com.

Different time period: check.
Different aliens: check.
Different genre: check.
Different character advancement: check.
Different special abilities: check.
Different continuity: check.

...you know, I kind of thought I would have found some sort of major difference, but ME really DOES look like what might have happened if 2k would have done a future interpretation of the game instead of jumping back in time.
 

chimeracreator

New member
Jun 15, 2009
300
0
0
So much about this seems wrong.

1. Why is your squad limited to three people? Part of X-COM involves your squad losing members, that means you need red shirts.

2. Why do the aliens only focus on the officer?

3. It feels overly scripted, no two X-COM play throughs are exactly the same because a huge chunk of it was done procedurally. We can do much more with that now, yet this game just feels scripted with too many cinematics.

4. Why do enemies use normal guns?

5. Why are they using time units? This is a real time game. You should just be treating it as as time. If something is supposed to take a large number of time units, then make it force the agents performing the action to sit there exposed instead.

6. The enemies seem pretty bland. Scripted block people aren't half as scary as the idea that there is a chryssalid on the battle field who will kill all of your soldiers and turn them into more chryssalids. Likewise the feeling when a turn is ended after firing a full automatic shot from a heavy plasma into a muton only to have it still standing is never pleasant. Then there's there will always be that first battle against etherals before you have any psionics of your own where you'll be lucky to have any of your squad survive the battle. So yeah... block enemies who "convert" civilians off screen or in cut scenes seems pretty damn weak.
 

Pedro The Hutt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
980
0
0
I'm kind of looking forward to it now. I'll accept it as some sort of reboot origin story for X-Com, but I'll most importantly hope that if this game does well that they'll humour us with a proper strategy game.

That said, I also see this as a last chance for X-Com, if XCOM doesn't sell at all then I figure the franchise will be buried for good.

That said, it does get a few things right, squad hiring and management, capturing alien tech and taking it back for research. "Oh crap" moments when you see your opposition and fearing you won't make it at all. And having to out-think rather than out-gun your opponent in the early stages of the game.

I would like it however if you could bring more than two guys to the party, heh.
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
I have to say... after having just watched a movie from 1963 linked in another (Movie Bob related) thread... I had to stop and say.

There's a surprising amount of 'color' in that opening film.

I'll edit this post with more X-Com shouldn't be a FPS hate when I've finished the video.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
jericu said:
This would look like such a good game... If they weren't trying to tell us it's X-com.

I don't even understand the logic of calling it XCOM. It won't sell more copies to fans, because it differentiates so much from the original games, and it won't sell to people who aren't fans, because they have no prior basis for whether or not it's a good series, if they even know it's supposed to be a continuation of a series.
Yeah, this has always been my thought as well. Using the XCom name doesn't actually benefit them at all. Fans of the series as it existed are just going to be ticked off that they are stealing the name for a nearly totally unrelated game. Incoming new fans of the game they are creating aren't even going to know what XCom is/was and so the name will have no cache with them anyway.
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
So... I have to admit. The game looks like it has some pretty interesting mechanics. It looks like it might be a fairly interesting FPS in a land of dull generic modern FPSers.

If only it wasn't called X-Com. If it were a new IP I'd be more interested in it.

Edit:

I see others feel the same way I do.

Editx2:

Oh... and what's the point of a squad when you have to do everything.

When that shield was paying attention to you and not your squad, way didn't THEY shoot the generator?

I've always hated the one man army thing about FPSers.

Editx3

After reading this thread in it's entirety, I have to downgrade my interest to "Somewhat interested if I'm ever bored enough to try it."

It's been a LONG time since I played X-Com... and I was young, so I was bad at it and always losing on my father's saved files... but I now remember, thanks to the above, what made the game so great.

Scary scary Sectopods... And the feeling of being uneasy because nothing was ever the same.
 

Product Placement

New member
Jul 16, 2009
475
0
0
JoesshittyOs said:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?
No. All it takes is to claim to be a part of something that it's not. When Bethesda announced a sequel to Fallout, they quickly shut down concerns from the fan community by showing us that they were making a game that was true to the franchise. 2K is clearly failing on that aspect. If they wanted to make this game, like that, they should have created a new franchise.

It's more sad that you don't get that.
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
JoesshittyOs said:
All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?
Names are powerful. Like words, names are identity.

If we started to use the wrong words and just accepted it, it would mean the end of communication.

Nothing so destructive would happen with the misuse of a name, but would you not complain if the next Halo game were sports related? Or if you went to see a "Fast and the Furious" movie and found it was about RC boats?

Names are identity, and it's expected that that identity be respected.
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Product Placement said:
JoesshittyOs said:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?
No. All it takes is to claim to be a part of something that it's not. When Bethesda announced a sequel to Fallout, they quickly shut down concerns from the fan community by showing us that they were making a game that was true to the franchise. 2K is clearly failing on that aspect. If they wanted to make this game, like that, they should have created a new franchise.

It's more sad that you don't get that.
My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material
 

chimeracreator

New member
Jun 15, 2009
300
0
0
JoesshittyOs said:
Product Placement said:
JoesshittyOs said:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?
No. All it takes is to claim to be a part of something that it's not. When Bethesda announced a sequel to Fallout, they quickly shut down concerns from the fan community by showing us that they were making a game that was true to the franchise. 2K is clearly failing on that aspect. If they wanted to make this game, like that, they should have created a new franchise.

It's more sad that you don't get that.
My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material
Entirely possible, but that's why they should be treating it like new IP instead of claiming it has a tie to a completely different history. Cats can be nice, but if you see someone trying to pass off a cat as the offspring of a horse it makes sense to point out that it clearly is not. It serves a different purpose, looks different, smells different and acts differently. This is no different.

Also I don't really buy the nostalgia argument. X-COM UFO Defense (the original) is on Steam now for $5, you can play the original if you feel like it. The interface is clunky, the graphics suck and the learning curve is built on a cliff. The game could definitely be rebuilt into a far better product, but this isn't it. I will even admit that it could be made into an interesting shooter with a strong co-op option to cover up for potential weaknesses with the AI.
 

Product Placement

New member
Jul 16, 2009
475
0
0
JoesshittyOs said:
My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material
And who should be blamed for that? Perhaps the designer who makes the claim of it being a successor to said source material?

Really, it's like making a new superhero that's supposedly based on an established superhero, has none of the same powers, looks totally different, yet they insist on it being the same superhero.

I'm sorry but that type of stuff will rub the fan community the wrong way, every time, regardless of how well designed the new thing might be. If you want to do things differently, don't say it's the same thing. Say it's something new. That way you'll avoid the raging fanboys who like to drown in nostalgia.

Edit:
@chimeracreator:
Of course the graphics suck, compared with todays standard. It's a nearly 20 year old game.
 

chimeracreator

New member
Jun 15, 2009
300
0
0
Product Placement said:
@chimeracreator:
Of course the graphics suck, compared with todays standard. It's a nearly 20 year old game.
I'm not saying that there wasn't a reason that the graphics were that way. I was just pointing out that like the interface, AI and learning curve all of these could be improved now.