Xcom Publisher: Strategy Games Are Not Contemporary

[Pegghead]

That still doesn't explain why their Xcom game isn't even set in the same universe as the old ones. Or is futuristic sci-fi 'not contemporary', because there are plenty of games that'd disagree?

I agree with you. Look at Fallout, okay it was reborn as a shooter (and two damn good games so far at that) but at least that was only one of a few core differences.

I'll admit to having never played Xcom before, but I've seen gameplay from older titles and trailers of the upcoming game and they might as well have just launched a new series if they're going to change it as much as they have.

 

[Dogstile]

Dear god, can we judge the new game on its own merits and not because they're not catering to your every need? They've changed it, I know its sad, but they've done so. What's annoying me the most isn't that they changed it, but now they'll likely get low review scores and a bad response from the public because a few people will be "ITS NOT WHAT I WANT, I WANT TURN BASED, WAAAA".

 

[Treblaine]

"I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same."

That is the worst analogy I have heard in... i can't think of a worse analogy. Either he knows even less about music than me or he is some kind of idiot.

I think these quotes are a lot more relevant:



Again, if they want to make a sci-fi shooter set in the 1950's with abstract shape-shifting aliens... THEN MAKE A NEW IP!

Really all that needs to be done is change the name as already XCOM has nothing to do with X-com.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

"To renew Xcom but in line with what this generation of gamers want..."

You don't re-release Ray Charles and target a 15 yr-old listener. There is no point. Instead, you make something new. If you bring back Ray Charles, you are targeting the *same* generation that used to listen to him. The new generation has no context or care.

 

[Tsaba]

That still doesn't explain why their Xcom game isn't even set in the same universe as the old ones. Or is futuristic sci-fi 'not contemporary', because there are plenty of games that'd disagree?

If it fails, which it might, then they can just say, it was a mistake and blah blah blah, and it won't hurt that world that gamers love and remember, just a game with a title is all it will be, because, the only heat they are going to take are from the people who are.... I don't want to say fan boys but I think your smart enough to see where I'm going here.

If it succeeds, then it will get sequels and 2k can do what ever they want with the series because they where right.

But, you know hey, it's not like we've seen them make a shooter into a strategy right?

Spoiler: right?

Spoiler: or vise versa

or try to at least.

 

[Treblaine]

You know, people would probably expect me to be hurling insults at this point. I'd just have to say one thing.


Hit the road, Jack.

I can't stand this Dev's implication that if we could have Ray Charles back today we wouldn't want him.

Sure he isn't "modern", but he is DAAAAAMN good, I'm getting the hairs on ends just listening to this.

If the times they are a-changing, then why am I still buying way more strategy games than shooters? I mean, I get the fact that people buy more shooters, but I don't think pulling an IP known for its excellent turn-based strategy into the shooter genre is how to tap that market.

I can answer this for ya.

1) Times are a-changing, it's okay to be stuck in the past. Don't eve get me started on these kids now-a-days and their 'music'. It's okay to still like RTS (even tho X-Com wasn't a real time strategy, it was turn based), but it's not a huge seller. Sure, you get a good portion of the PC crowd to buy Civ and Starcraft ect, but a lot of companies think bigger than that.

2) The IP was known for 2 good games (or was it 3?) then it went on a horrible downward spiral that 'fans' conveniently ignore. This new game still has time pieces, still has alien research, still has tactical elements. It's an FPS game at heart. Get over it!

As so called fans of the IP, I hope you all will still give this game a chance when it's actually finished and released NEXT YEAR. Plus, Susan Arendt said :

-'The demo we saw is closer to the spirit of the original games, while still staying active enough to woo new players that might be turned off by traditional turn-based strategy'-

You're not saying we shouldn't trust Susan, are you??

They're actually as selling as well as they always did. The golden years of PC gaming it would be rare for a PC game to sell over 1 million copies, today a game is considered a failure if it doesn't break the 1 million mark.

It's just the "growth" in the market has been in millions of people playing repetitive online FPS games or kiddy-simple party waggle games.

Since 2007 COD franchise has outsold 11x as well as Bioshock franchise in the same time by Activision releasing games quicker at lower quality, pandering to an online community to give them only more of the same.

If you follow JUST the money then you will find yourself going down a dark road where innovation and brilliance are the antithesis of success.

And yes, we should not trust Susan. None of us know her and she has a blatantly obvious conflict of interest to say whatever she thinks will help keep her game in a good light.

 

[bombadilillo]

Yeah, go on guys, chance those dreams you have of being the next COD/Halo. Not going to happen. Stick with your strengths. This is Jordan playing baseball all over again.

 

[jedizero]

And thus, the gamers raeged, and 2k saw it was good.

 

[imperialwar]

Allow me to customise my soldiers outfits, name them as i please and play a flight sim to shoot down the aliens and i might be half happy playing x-com as a shooter. As well as design my base and be able to move around it between missions, so i can visit the labs, inspect the alien containment facility and man the guns when the aliens attack the my bases. As well as do some training to up my shooting accuracy, time units etc. Once i land at a crash site / terror site / alien base turn it back into a TBS.
You have a year until release gentlemen, make it so !

 

[captain underpants]

So, according to this doofus, because shooters are popular, any new game has to be a shooter in order to be popular. I think he needs a few more lessons in basic logic.

 

[Worgen]

so instead of going with a game that would really stand out in todays market you decided to go with a shooter in today's already flooded shooter market, brilliant

 

[Booze Zombie]

This argument is so flawed, I feel that by the time I make this statement, 50 other people will have already demolished it.

Fuck it, let's try anyway: Since shooters are already estashlished, go for a genre not already dominated by a few dedicated and well-recognised names. For instance, the strategy genre hasn't really had many games recently and the last time I saw a squad-based game was an age ago.

Hint, hint, nudge, nudge. You dunder head.

 

[RA92]

Dear god, can we judge the new game on its own merits and not because they're not catering to your every need? They've changed it, I know its sad, but they've done so. What's annoying me the most isn't that they changed it, but now they'll likely get low review scores and a bad response from the public because a few people will be "ITS NOT WHAT I WANT, I WANT TURN BASED, WAAAA".

When you use an existing IP, you get the advantage of brand-awareness. But with that you also have to deal with the expectations of the old fans. It's entirely disingenuous to expect people to judge a game on its own merits when it is intentionally dipping back to an older game by design. You can't have it both ways.

And people here have been up in their arms mostly because of the dude's idiotic remarks about strategy games being obsolete.

-'The demo we saw is closer to the spirit of the original games, while still staying active enough to woo new players that might be turned off by traditional turn-based strategy'-

You're not saying we shouldn't trust Susan, are you??

With all due respect, Susan also mentioned later in the article that she never played any of the previous X-Com games, so she's not the best to judge that.

But if you feel inclined to defend that statement, pray tell me, how is this in any way close to the spirit of the original game? The setting? The time frame? The antagonists? The protagonists? The gameplay?

There's nothing tactical about this game as far as I'm concerned - hell, they're ripping off Mass Effect's gameplay elements. As much as I love ME, there's nothing tactical about that game.

Also, funny how an international consortium is now solely an American institution.

 

[Warforger]

I can't really say that games like league of legends, Civilization or Starcraft II are hurting in the pocket book. I wonder if Hartman has never considered that the reason that this generation isn't buying a lot of strategy games might be because so few of them are offered? Meanwhile, he has inexplicably decided to wade into a genre that calling "crowded" would be generous.

It's not that new ones aren't coming out it's that they're not selling, only a select few titles sell and they're usually ongoing franchise from the 90's and early 2000's like Dawn of War, Starcraft or civilization. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Although I love turn based strategy games, I used to play table top warhammer 40k and it was the more strategic experience I had.

 

[JakobBloch]

You have the rights to a master piece of yesteryear? Fine. You want to make a reboot of the IP, but as an FPS? Fine. It seems you are even keeping in the feel with a tactical squad. That is nice (Would have like the squad to be somewhat larger and perhaps with a more dynamic make up). You want to set it up as sort of a prequel? Fine.

All these things I can work with an accept.

What I can't stomach is the lying. "The story has no connection to the old games." This you later recanted. Not by saying: "Hey we decided to actually tie the game into the old games." but by saying that was how it was all along. I suppose people asking why the game was called X-com if it had nothing to do with the old games got you backed into a corner somehow. This is a minor offence.

Saying that strategy games are not contemporary is not only stupid. It is a lie and a betrayal of your OWN fan base (bit strong language there but I am on a roll here). By saying this you are essentially admitting that it IS in fact a cash-grab as you have successful strategy games on the market yourselves. If you had just admitted that: "We changed it into an FPS because we believe that then more people would buy it." I would probably have been ok with it. I would still have plenty of suggestions about how I think you could have done it better. Being an insufferable wee wee about it, is just stupid and makes you loose all semblance of integrity.

The whole metaphor with Ray Charles and Kenya West is also stupid. Both musicians are products of their time and as such their respective styles was born of the time. Had Ray Charles been born the same time as Kenya West his music might very well be more like Kenya Wests music. Ray Charles was however not born the same time as Kenya West and so his music was very different from Kenya Wests. So if you took his music from back then, updated it to the times and said it is the musik of Ray Charles, it would in fact not be the musik of Ray Charles. It might have his name, it might use the same words, it might even have a piano in it, but it would not be the music of Ray Charles.

So in closing. Stop being an idiot. Own up to your decisions (or own up to the decisions being made for you) and don't hide behind silly statements about the state of the industry (a subject I could get into but I won't) that just make you sounds - lets say disingenuous.

Jakob Bloch-Nielsen

 

[Neverhoodian]

Yes, because 2K clearly hasn't sold any critically acclaimed, best selling turn-based strategy games in the past few years.

Spoiler

OH WAIT

 

[Treblaine]

You're not saying we shouldn't trust Susan, are you??

They're actually as selling as well as they always did. The golden years of PC gaming it would be rare for a PC game to sell over 1 million copies, today a game is considered a failure if it doesn't break the 1 million mark.

It's just the "growth" in the market has been in millions of people playing repetitive online FPS games or kiddy-simple party waggle games.

Since 2007 COD franchise has outsold 11x as well as Bioshock franchise in the same time by Activision releasing games quicker at lower quality, pandering to an online community to give them only more of the same.

If you follow JUST the money then you will find yourself going down a dark road where innovation and brilliance are the antithesis of success.

And yes, we should not trust Susan. None of us know her and she has a blatantly obvious conflict of interest to say whatever she thinks will help keep her game in a good light.

First off Susan [Senior Editor of the Escapist) is a MAJOR contributor to this website. Not sure how you don't recognize the name. Plus her article on X-Com at E3 is linked in the OP.

Second, this game is anything but another CoD. They are implementing features from the original, so can't they get at least a little credit for not doing the same old thing? Besides, it's almost a year away from being finished!

Sorry, I'm not on first name terms with the entire staff of The Escapist, stupid me (/sarc)

I assumed you meant the PR person as its reasonable considering what you claims she said. In fact you grossly MISREPRESENTED what she said with the context you put it in:

"The demo we saw is closer to the spirit of the original games, while still staying active enough to woo new players that might be turned off by traditional turn-based strategy"

Closer is not close enough. She also says as much that it completely lacks the turn-based strategy that would scare away people who are COMPLETELY NEW TO THE FRANCHISE! What is the point in using a recognisable name like Xcom if you are throwing away so much of what makes Xcom Xcom, just to appeal to people who have never played Xcom not shown any interest in them?

"They are implementing features from the original"

Nope. They are implementing old features that they took from other squad-based FPS games and claiming it has anything more to do with Xcom than literally any other game that has been made.

Almost a year away? March? That's 9 months and what with QA testing, localising and censorship/ratings process the game is nigh on set-in-stone. It is too late, the best that can be done in the next few months is a lot of polishing and tweaking, the MAJOR discrepancies of this being a game that has nothing to do with Xcom CANNOT be fixed in this time.

By this point in development the Fallout 3 devs had convinced us they were relevant in their new take on the Fallout apocalypse. Not so here. They have shown NOTHING - other than the title - to suggest this is an Xcom game.

There is reboot, and then there is this. This is like rebooting Batman by turning him into Jack Bauer. It's wouldn't be Batman any more. This isn't Xcom, no matter what anyone calls it or says "I guess it's kinda like this... hmm".