XCOM Delayed For More Probing
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
That is assuming you take such things so seriously. For all the evil that was fallout 3, it created many new fans who took an interest in the universe, went back to see fallout one and two and loved them. For all that was wrong with fallout 3 it brought me the ever so lovable Fallout: New Vegas. Which I have probably played more of than any other game since well... Fallout 2. There's a good and a bad side to all things, including change. You can be unhappy about the changes, it's certainly not going to be the game you would have wanted, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a good game in there if you give it a chance. It remains to be seen at any rate. When you use phrases like "Ip stealing", "franchiside" and "shafting" however I'm all the more inclined to write you (and your opinion) off as a fringe fanatic who couldn't be reasoned with or won over no matter what.The_root_of_all_evil said:
What would I have preferred? X-com with an engine and controls at least as nice as jagged alliance 2's. I'm not that picky. Does that mean that I'm ready to sit on a park bench to shake my fist at the youth and fuss about how things were better in the old days? Not just yet.
Now that's unfair. Not for Transformers of course, but the new Syndicate game and this new XCOM are both not even out yet. Not liking the path they're going into is one thing, but let's be fair about their quality, although at least XCOM's apparent dump on the lore is not a good sign for that one, I'll give you that.The_root_of_all_evil said:
By the way, Syndicate has at least a spiritual successor that stays more in line with the previous games; Cartel. That might make you happy.
I don't think it is. Any game that has the balls to stand up on it's own doesn't need an unrelated franchise attached to it. Starting with that at your point means it's a shoddy game, even if it turns out in the end, like the Mission Impossible re-boot, to have some balls of it's own.Cowabungaa said:
Oh, I'm already looking forwards to Xenonaughts [http://www.xenonauts.com/]. Just not this wannabe Bioshock.
Huh, looks like they're not going through with their clear attempt to challenge Mass Effect 3's sales.
There's more to a relation with a previous game than gameplay mechanics; atmosphere, story, universe, etc etc. They already confirmed that they definitely want to keep the atmosphere and moral ambiguity of the original games in the new one, which I can only call a good thing despite not even having played the originals.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Honestly we barely know anything else about that Syndicate game except for those things. It's too early to complain so much. Gamers do that too much anyway, complain. The gaming community can be such a negative environment.
That actually doesn't mean a hill of beans. That's the bones I was talking about.Cowabungaa said:
I'm not complaining about the game. I'm complaining of the name. I've no problem with either game if they leave their respective IPs alone. That's the shoddyness, and that comes from conception.
While this is true, look at our counterparts. Hundreds of thousands of people ringing in on premium rate phone lines, hundreds of thousands paying huge amounts for faux celebrity advertisements.
The Internet is the dark mirror to Real Life. We're not allowed to be aggressive, frustrated or emotional there; so it builds up in here.
That's pretty Zen, I think.
The reason people are upset with the X-Com remake isn't only because it went from a strategy game to an fps. It's that they completely changed the entire look and took out everything recognizable about X-Com.Still Life said:
The original X-Com had, rocket launchers, destructible terrain and buildings, flying power armor, snakemen. It took place at the turn of the 21st century. It was not Mass Effect La Noir edition. If it looked like I would be be ale to zip around in flying power armor and kick a sectoid off the roof of a building I'd be more than willing to give this game a chance. But it doesn't look like thats the case.
As for Fallout 3 while it changed the gameplay mechanics, it still kept the setting, ahesteics, factions, history, and general themes of the original. At the very least Fallout 3 looks like a Fallout game. Bethesda at least tried to stay true to the series. How sucessfull they were is debatable but I think they did a pretty good job for the most part. If they tried making it an overhead shooter and with a heavy metal soundtrack then people would be rightfully pissed. But thankfully no one was dumb enough to try that.
Well, yeah. But the "crybabies" are crying foul (or "betrayal", as popular as that's become) because the developer/publisher doesn't really give a shit about X-COM except that it might sucker in old fans for some shameless milking.Bishop99999999 said:
Nobody likes being treated like an idiot to begin with. Yet X-COM fans are being treated as shills/marks in this case, which is worse.
OT: Oh, a game I have no faith in was delayed. What a shock. I wonder if someone else in their management feels the same way?
Gotta add about the syndicate game
...it's not re-writing the fluff - it's a different way of playing sure but if they get the setting and the feel right it's got a good chance of working and fitting nicely in the fluff and ethos of the game....
Xcom has taken a large dump over eveything but the 4 letters that make up it's name and sticking 2 finger up to the ol' fans....and will then produce something that will be a crap rip off of at least 3/4 games and probably flal on it's face. It already has a negative backlash so maybe they'll decide to can the whole mess and rebrand it a little and release genric shooter 323 as Alien Assault Squad or some such rubbish name and watch it sink
...it's not re-writing the fluff - it's a different way of playing sure but if they get the setting and the feel right it's got a good chance of working and fitting nicely in the fluff and ethos of the game....
Xcom has taken a large dump over eveything but the 4 letters that make up it's name and sticking 2 finger up to the ol' fans....and will then produce something that will be a crap rip off of at least 3/4 games and probably flal on it's face. It already has a negative backlash so maybe they'll decide to can the whole mess and rebrand it a little and release genric shooter 323 as Alien Assault Squad or some such rubbish name and watch it sink
EA beat you to the punch by about 10 years.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Unless the extremely corny idiocy that was Red Alert 2 was just some massive, shared-hallucination.
I think they've already stamped that one into the dirt.sniddy said:
Syndicate actually integrated the strategic 'view' into its background. Your agents are not developed personalities with families and household pets, they're people abducted off the street, brainwiped and turned into biomechanical killing machines (as shown in the intro) and you're an evil corporate overlord who manipulates them via the chips implanted in their heads and judicious use of combat drugs.
Visually, syndicate was a cyberpunk game in the very 80s sense which was a little affected even by the time, but was also glorious: you distinguished your squad by the colour of their hair dye. Missions always took place at night so everything would be lit by neon lights (although the second game had a more argon colour palette), even the buildings all looked like prefabricated industrial park modules.
Everything we've seen about the reboot just looks like a slightly more gritty version of Human Revolution or Mass Effect without any of the non-linearity or even the consistent colour palette. That's not to say there's nothing interesting or that they've carried nothing over, but I'm not convinced about the gameplay or the characters (as I said, the first game didn't have characters) and the aesthetic (and for all his craziness, Peter Molyneux knows how to create a consistent aesthetic) seems to be completely absent.
We'll have to wait until we know more about it, but right now the consistency is looking a little token.
Exactly. Respect +1.CD-R said:
The entire problem is that they took out EVERYTHING about X-Com that made it X-Com.
How would folk feel if a studio purchased the rights to Zelda, set it in a 1950's inspired setting (because its sooooo popular cause of things like Bioshock and Fallout 3) and made it an over shoulder shooter (guns are cool and sell games)
Can you hear the cries of bloody murder? I can, that is the cries of us old school X-Com fans, its just that there are not so many of us anymore. However you can still hear us venting here and there.
We were betrayed to try and cash in on the modern FPS craze.
That's not entirely a bad thing. If I bought X-Com and they stocked the levels with Sectoids and Floaters I'd be a little disapointed. What made X-Com so sucessful was that the enemy was Unknown. Think back to the first time you encounted one of those Jellyfish creature from TFTD or a Cryslis(sp?) in the original. You didn't know what they were capable of and that made you feel at unease with how to deal with them. The creatures in the new game and their wierd design should bring that feeling back (I hope).CD-R said:
You aim too low. Take Silent Storm's engine, polish out the bugs, add aliens, and you are almost there.Ghengis John said:
What pisses me off the most with this remake is the addition of a protagonist. In X-Com you could have your entire squad wiped out by aliens then pick up the pieces and make a new squad. Sure it put you at a disadvantage but it didn't necessarily mean a game over. It was the lack of defined character that made the story telling so emergent. That pixelly sprite that was the sole survivor of his first mission and grew into super soldier? Much like Minecraft the story is the story you make.