XCom Shooter is Alive and Kicking

Auron

New member
Mar 28, 2009
531
0
0
It's a spin-off, what's the problem? I'd see a problem if it was a mega reboot with "visceral combat" like fucking Syndicate that killed the franchise for the next few years at the very least, but it's not.

Then why even use the XCOM name in the first place?
Because the universe is interesting and they want to set it in it.
 

SonOfMethuselah

New member
Oct 9, 2012
360
0
0
It amused me the wealth of people that thought that Enemy Unknown was released instead of this game. We all knew what was going on: 2K was making sure that the turn-based title was released first to placate the fans of the series, and then planned on continuing to push the development of the FPS, in the hopes that the ire would die down.

OT: I think this game looks interesting. After how much I enjoyed Enemy Unknown, I'm more than happy to jump back in to an XCOM title, whatever form it takes. As long as the quality of the game is up to par, I'm down to give it a try.

But I've got the same question that I did when the Syndicate game came out last year, (and one that, if I recall correctly, Yahtzee voiced in his review of it): I don't understand that point in sticking the brand of a 90s game series on a modern release that has nothing to do with it. If you're shooting for brand recognition, then you're restricting your audience to those who remember the game when it originally came out, and of those people, very few are going to want to see a title that differs so drastically from what they loved about the brand originally. Yes, it's good for gaming to evolve as a medium, but you can't start the evolution by reviving a twenty-year-old brand and making it unrecognizable. And if you're aiming for a modern crowd, (which, given the fact that it's an FPS, I assume you are), then why stick the brand on it at all? A large chunk of the modern crowd either won't know, or will have never played the original series in the first place. It's just silly. I guess it's a strategy in place for the sole purpose of making money, but it's one of the stupidest money-making strategies I can think of. Video-game related, anyway.

That said, since they did Enemy Unknown, and the brand has some modern recognition, I guess it makes sense to go ahead with this one. There are probably those that thought the game looked cool, but weren't into the idea of a turn-based game that might give a first-person shooter a try. But you're still annoying people who remember the original brand. Again, I think this looks interesting, but as someone who had heard of, but never played, the original XCOM games, and who loved Enemy Unknown, it's not the XCOM name I'm interested in: it's the content of the game. You could name it virtually anything else and I'd still be interested.

Christ, you could call it Destroy all Humans: In First-Person Defense of the Humans, which would give it the exact same relation to the previous brand as it does touting the XCOM name, and I'd still say it looks interesting.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
13,772
2,779
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Originally I was really annoyed by this game but since we got a proper strategy xcom game I don't mind it now and might even get it if it looks good. The thing that bugged me most about it was that when it was announced, it seemed like they were just rebooting the xcom franchise as some shooter thing but since we got a real xcom game, I'm ok with it.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Draconalis said:
trty00 said:
Oh wait, I forgot, any game in a franchise that doesn't follow the exact same formula time and time again is instantly god-awful! How silly of me!
To be fair, fans of a given series are fans because they like what a series offers. If you change the things they like into things they might not like, how are the fans supposed to react?

Fans of this series were fans of an entirely different genre than a FPS, and with so many FPSs saturating the market, I wager seeing their TBS turned into another FPS wasn't pleasant news. Besides, people who like TBSs tend to play differently than people who like FPSs. That's not to say there is no cross over, but the genres require different play styles.

It's like turning Tetris into a space fighter game. The fans of Tetris wanted to enjoy a puzzle game, not a space fighter.

The game may not suck... but it's not what the fans want.
Though, this could also be an attempt to get more fans for the franchise, as well. Ive been watching a play-through of XCOM: EU, while it looks good, it also look to be a pretty slow paced game. Im sure fans of TBS games would and are enjoying it, but people that aren't fans probably wont care. As I see it, the XCOM prequel game is less for the fans of the series, and more for the possible future fans of the series (whether it works out like that are doubtful, but Im thinking thats what they had in mind...)

Personally, I think they should have kept it a FPS and not tried changing it to a TPS Squad shooter.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Fine...

We all got the sequel that we wanted, now the rest of the world can go back to "generic shooter" mode, for all I care. Maybe some people will even jump to this side after they get hooked up with the setting.
 

slysean

New member
Jul 16, 2012
35
0
0
To be fair I don't hate the idea of 1950's battle against aliens, as I have loved the design and style of the 50's since fallout. That being said i can't help but think that they really should drop the xcom label. We have already gotten xcom enemy unknown and as such I think that turning it into a shooter now seems rather odd after a turn based version less than a year ago. Like I said, sounds interesting, but might as well have called it "The alien scare!" or "Save us indian jones" or "oh look an alie..."
 

Phlakes

+15 Dagger of Socks
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
0
So now that you got your new faithful strategy XCOM, can we maybe give this one a chance?

Yeah, I didn't think so.
 

Doom972

New member
Dec 25, 2008
2,312
0
0
trty00 said:
Doom972 said:
trty00 said:
Doom972 said:
trty00 said:
Good. I thought the game looked interesting, and I'm glad it's still on track.

Oh wait, I forgot, any game in a franchise that doesn't follow the exact same formula time and time again is instantly god-awful! How silly of me!
It has to have enough in common: either in gameplay, plot or game world. If you make something completely different, why not just give it a new name?

This game is completely different in gameplay, and apart from being about aliens invading earth, doesn't have much to do with the plot of previous X-COM games, and the game world is completely different due to the new time period and completely different aliens.

For many people, including myself, this game doesn't seem to have enough in common with previous X-COM games. If they wouldn't have named it XCOM, nobody would have a problem with it.
Or, you know, you could... just ignore it completely and not get upset over something so trivial. This game does not instantly negate the existence of the previous titles, so go play those.
It seems that people like to assume that because I take the time to provide my insight, I'm upset. I'm not. Just procrastinating and using this forum as an excuse to not do anything productive between gaming sessions.

It's just that people don't appreciate these efforts to get their money by using a brand name and not delivering what is expected of a product of that brand. Tolerating this sort of business practice encourages companies to use it. If it bothers you that much that people care about it, you can always follow your own advice and ignore it and read another post.
I already said this, but I think video games are more than just products to be shilled out. Video games are more to me than just some thing to keep the status quo happy and feed nostalgia. I think we should actively strive to be more than that.
I completely agree with that, and that's why I think they should've just started a new IP instead of making it an XCOM game, which only limits their creativity and creates an expectation of the game to be similar to other games in the series in certain respects.
 

Namehere

Forum Title
May 6, 2012
200
0
0
trty00 said:
Namehere said:
trty00 said:
Draconalis said:
trty00 said:
This might sound harsh, but... too bad. Seriously, how are we going to get anywhere if we spend all our time curtailing to EXACTLY what fans want?
How are we going to get anywhere when you have to rebuild your fan-base from scratch because you pissed off the existing fan-base?
As I already said, this new game does not negate the existence of previous titles, if this new iteration makes them that enraged, then they can completely ignore it and go play the previous titles.

Look, I'm trying my best not to sound like some artsy-fartsy dope, but all I can say is that video games are an artistic medium and they need to be given room to grow. Fan service is nice, but you can't really progress if that's all you want to focus on. If you want to be like Nintendo and just feed nostalgia, go right ahead, but don't expect me to consider your games truly interesting by any stretch.
BULLSHIT! Sorry, sorry, something stuck in my throat there...

Maybe when you design video games they're an 'artistic medium'. But there is a fundamental difference between a picture and a picture that is 'art'. These differences are well recognized by professionals called 'commercial artists' whose techniques are vastly different from their 'artsy' counter parts, even though their tools are similar.

X-Com was a pioneering video game series when it was first released, accordingly we like to think of it as art for some reason. Let us not forget that for pioneering that field it made a fair sum of money. And now its back and trying to make more. It created something we call: 'a market.' This is not a Picasso or a Rembrandt, this is a product.

If you wish to make artsy things, go wild. But this ain't one of them. And much as fans of Star Trek lamented every new step taken by Rick Berman, which time and sanity have revealed to have been poor steps to say the least, it is fair that someone should fear the safety of their beloved franchise when it branches off in some weird direction. For something more modern, take Star Gate. The original series was great to its fans. Atlantis went kind of down hill for some reason and then there was Universe, which lasted for all of half a season. There is now no more Star Gate. The money that might have been invested in movies for Atlantis and another one for the original series, was dumped into a failed expansion into the franchise, and now its all but mortally wounded. There are no future releases of any sort planed. End of story, quite literally.

In this instance I don't see X-Com taking a major risk. The fan base their seeking out is so removed from the current one any failures of the shooter to deliver won't be seen as a failure to deliver on the core game, so it shouldn't hurt the core game's development too badly. If it does work out great, another FPS.

To summarize; Art is art, its out there. But commercial art comes with commercial risk. And people fascinated by whatever aspect of X-Com have valid concerns, even if they are somewhat overstated most likely.
Yeah... no. Just because something is part of a brand or is a "commercial product" doesn't mean it can't try something new. As far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that I despise his films, Michael Bay has just as much artisitc clout as Stanley fucking Kubrick. Simple as.

This is clearly a spin-off title, and the developers, as autonomous human beings, have the right to take X-Com in whatever god-damn direction they want, backlash be damned.
Am I... a goat? There's a foul odor of old river water and stale troll, but I shall try this one more time.

The video game industry. The movie industry. The literary... industry. You will notice these are 'industrial' as in, form pressed, manufactured and mass produced quickly and economically competitively... at least in theory. This game is not being made by Notch. That could arguably be called art. Arguably. A game produced by a major publisher isn't art unless they've gone out of their way to make it art. Like the way Tolkien got published. The guys who published him were running a business. They had a reputation to maintain, but started making money off of less 'reputable' books. To keep their mystique they figured they'd publish some book by a medieval historian, which Tolkien was, not realizing it was more of that shlock that was giving them a bad name. Tolkien was art. Tolkien didn't meet deadlines, didn't rush his work, he finished it one day and handed it over and people published it without looking. That was also a brilliant stroke of luck for all involved. X-Com is past that. It's a commercial issue, running on deadlines, answering to publishers not developers. Developers answer to their publishers and funding sources, not their whims. That's the difference between 'commercial art' and 'art.' Most people who make 'art' don't get steady pay and don't have an office or any support mechanism financially speaking to answer to that directly applies to their art. Its where you get the rumors of so-called 'starving artists.' Something you aren't when you get a paid regularly for drawing Dante cells all day long. Producing a good image of Date for the DMC series as cell animation or however they do it now, is the definition of Commercial Art, and it's quite different from 'art'.

To compare Michael Bay to any form of art, to compare almost any Hollywood production to art is distasteful. One observes certain elements of film to find art, but Hollywood's at the bottom of that list. Under, believe it or not, yes wacky kung fu and samurai films and Bollywood. Cleopatra was shaping up to be serious art, it cost more then the events it aimed to chronicle and was meant to be a trilogy. It bankrupted the studio, so it was slashed down to a single long move, ala Lawrence of Arabia length, and released with all the fanfare imaginable. Saved the studio. Wasn't the 'art' the director and the original producer were aiming for, but it made enough money to keep the studio alive. That's business, and game production studios are no different then movie production studios in Hollywood, that's why the bottom line is cost value assessment, not quality. That's why micro transactions and on disk DLC, not quality 'expansions' and reasonable prices.

You know what a real artist does when his or her project isn't going to vision? They scrap it and start again. It's not entirely about the money, there's something else driving an artist, something inside. An artist can spend his or her day painting soup can labels for a corporation and go home attempting to paint the perfect mare in a field landscape. But the art is in that painting at home, not the soup can. That's just how he or she earns his or her money, as sure as if they happened to paint houses all day and murals all night.

Not once did I say that they didn't have the right to take the IP in any direction they wanted. I said that the fans have just as much right to complain and worry over it. If you're entitled to defend them blindly, surely the fans are entitled to panic as blindly at their actions? I don't complain or endorse the actions of those developing this new game, I contest your assertion that everyone else has to just shut up about it because you'd like them to. It would also be nice if you'd learn the difference between commercial art and art.

I sincerely hope I haven't fed the troll.
 

Namehere

Forum Title
May 6, 2012
200
0
0
trty00 said:
Namehere said:
trty00 said:
Namehere said:
trty00 said:
Draconalis said:
trty00 said:
This might sound harsh, but... too bad. Seriously, how are we going to get anywhere if we spend all our time curtailing to EXACTLY what fans want?
How are we going to get anywhere when you have to rebuild your fan-base from scratch because you pissed off the existing fan-base?
As I already said, this new game does not negate the existence of previous titles, if this new iteration makes them that enraged, then they can completely ignore it and go play the previous titles.

Look, I'm trying my best not to sound like some artsy-fartsy dope, but all I can say is that video games are an artistic medium and they need to be given room to grow. Fan service is nice, but you can't really progress if that's all you want to focus on. If you want to be like Nintendo and just feed nostalgia, go right ahead, but don't expect me to consider your games truly interesting by any stretch.
BULLSHIT! Sorry, sorry, something stuck in my throat there...

Maybe when you design video games they're an 'artistic medium'. But there is a fundamental difference between a picture and a picture that is 'art'. These differences are well recognized by professionals called 'commercial artists' whose techniques are vastly different from their 'artsy' counter parts, even though their tools are similar.

X-Com was a pioneering video game series when it was first released, accordingly we like to think of it as art for some reason. Let us not forget that for pioneering that field it made a fair sum of money. And now its back and trying to make more. It created something we call: 'a market.' This is not a Picasso or a Rembrandt, this is a product.

If you wish to make artsy things, go wild. But this ain't one of them. And much as fans of Star Trek lamented every new step taken by Rick Berman, which time and sanity have revealed to have been poor steps to say the least, it is fair that someone should fear the safety of their beloved franchise when it branches off in some weird direction. For something more modern, take Star Gate. The original series was great to its fans. Atlantis went kind of down hill for some reason and then there was Universe, which lasted for all of half a season. There is now no more Star Gate. The money that might have been invested in movies for Atlantis and another one for the original series, was dumped into a failed expansion into the franchise, and now its all but mortally wounded. There are no future releases of any sort planed. End of story, quite literally.

In this instance I don't see X-Com taking a major risk. The fan base their seeking out is so removed from the current one any failures of the shooter to deliver won't be seen as a failure to deliver on the core game, so it shouldn't hurt the core game's development too badly. If it does work out great, another FPS.

To summarize; Art is art, its out there. But commercial art comes with commercial risk. And people fascinated by whatever aspect of X-Com have valid concerns, even if they are somewhat overstated most likely.
Yeah... no. Just because something is part of a brand or is a "commercial product" doesn't mean it can't try something new. As far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that I despise his films, Michael Bay has just as much artisitc clout as Stanley fucking Kubrick. Simple as.

This is clearly a spin-off title, and the developers, as autonomous human beings, have the right to take X-Com in whatever god-damn direction they want, backlash be damned.
Am I... a goat? There's a foul odor of old river water and stale troll, but I shall try this one more time.

The video game industry. The movie industry. The literary... industry. You will notice these are 'industrial' as in, form pressed, manufactured and mass produced quickly and economically competitively... at least in theory. This game is not being made by Notch. That could arguably be called art. Arguably. A game produced by a major publisher isn't art unless they've gone out of their way to make it art. Like the way Tolkien got published. The guys who published him were running a business. They had a reputation to maintain, but started making money off of less 'reputable' books. To keep their mystique they figured they'd publish some book by a medieval historian, which Tolkien was, not realizing it was more of that shlock that was giving them a bad name. Tolkien was art. Tolkien didn't meet deadlines, didn't rush his work, he finished it one day and handed it over and people published it without looking. That was also a brilliant stroke of luck for all involved. X-Com is past that. It's a commercial issue, running on deadlines, answering to publishers not developers. Developers answer to their publishers and funding sources, not their whims. That's the difference between 'commercial art' and 'art.' Most people who make 'art' don't get steady pay and don't have an office or any support mechanism financially speaking to answer to that directly applies to their art. Its where you get the rumors of so-called 'starving artists.' Something you aren't when you get a paid regularly for drawing Dante cells all day long. Producing a good image of Date for the DMC series as cell animation or however they do it now, is the definition of Commercial Art, and it's quite different from 'art'.

To compare Michael Bay to any form of art, to compare almost any Hollywood production to art is distasteful. One observes certain elements of film to find art, but Hollywood's at the bottom of that list. Under, believe it or not, yes wacky kung fu and samurai films and Bollywood. Cleopatra was shaping up to be serious art, it cost more then the events it aimed to chronicle and was meant to be a trilogy. It bankrupted the studio, so it was slashed down to a single long move, ala Lawrence of Arabia length, and released with all the fanfare imaginable. Saved the studio. Wasn't the 'art' the director and the original producer were aiming for, but it made enough money to keep the studio alive. That's business, and game production studios are no different then movie production studios in Hollywood, that's why the bottom line is cost value assessment, not quality. That's why micro transactions and on disk DLC, not quality 'expansions' and reasonable prices.

You know what a real artist does when his or her project isn't going to vision? They scrap it and start again. It's not entirely about the money, there's something else driving an artist, something inside. An artist can spend his or her day painting soup can labels for a corporation and go home attempting to paint the perfect mare in a field landscape. But the art is in that painting at home, not the soup can. That's just how he or she earns his or her money, as sure as if they happened to paint houses all day and murals all night.

Not once did I say that they didn't have the right to take the IP in any direction they wanted. I said that the fans have just as much right to complain and worry over it. If you're entitled to defend them blindly, surely the fans are entitled to panic as blindly at their actions? I don't complain or endorse the actions of those developing this new game, I contest your assertion that everyone else has to just shut up about it because you'd like them to. It would also be nice if you'd learn the difference between commercial art and art.

I sincerely hope I haven't fed the troll.
Kind of rude as fuck, but alright, I'll take it.

I'm well aware what you mean when you call something "commercial art," but that doesn't instantly not make a pop-star or a filmmaker that's not an auteur not an artist. You can't simply say one thing is art, and another isn't. Even if it's a Hollywood production, it's still art (and "Hollywood Production" is WAAAAAAY too fucking general by the way).

Anyway, what I'm saying is that getting mad at something that only has to affect you if you let it (which is the case here) strikes me as rather inane.
The most provocative thing I did was call bullshit on your dismissal of people's concerns, then went on to explain why. You still haven't answered my points that you're statement is bullshit either. You've simply changed it, from games are art, to you don't like all the noise. Mean while your posts are full of swearing, and angst and hyperbole. You aren't talking to me, you're raging at someone or something.

I've made articulate points that you could easily have taken issue with or dealt with. I'd have dealt with your points, but you haven't actually substantiated them with anything. You're opinions stand on ether. There's little for me to discuss or be swayed by there, and apparently you are unwilling or unable to articulate yourself past hyperbole and those opinions. This is not a discussion or debate. You riddle your posts with swearing and then accuse me of rudeness while not confronting any issues. I think we're done here.
 

Bindal

New member
May 14, 2012
1,320
0
0
Draconalis said:
Bindal said:
So, just because developers want to try something different with a franchise, they are not allowed to do it because of the fans of the main-installments? If it's a spin-off, who cares if they like the new style or not?
Besides, there are quite a few examples of games, where changing the genre wasn't a bad thing.
Resident Evil: Main-Installments went from the puzzle-solving fixed-angle survival horror to a TPS with "Resident Evil 4" - nobody complained after they played it. And some of the spin-offs (the two Chronicals, the two Outbreaks) also were - for not being exactly the same as previous installments in terms of genre - not shunned away from the fans either.
Or Castlevania:
Went from a linear (or mostly linear) 2D-Platformer to a MetroidVania game and never looked back ever since...
Metroid: The Prime-Trilogy went from 2D-MetroidVania to a more FPS-styled gameplay. Once again, people loved it.

And I treat this game the same: It is a spin-off for me, so let them try something different with it. It can be good and maybe makes people, who were not interested in the franchise now interested in it...
It's not being sold as a spin-off, it's being sold as a prequel.

Also, as to your examples... Revident Evil... from a third person shooter with puzzle elements to... a third person shooter with less puzzle elements, but the camera follows you now.

Metroid, a side scrolling shooter to a first person shooter

And I have never seen seen gameplay footage of the new Castlevania games so I have no idea what they look like... but I'd suspect, like your previous examples, it's more of a nature evolution of what the players already wanted made streamline.


Granted, it's much less of an issue since EU was announced and released, but if a series isn't providing what the fans came to the series for, then it's not going to do well, and in the case of this particular game... It has nothing to do with X-com gameplay or Lore, as many people have said before, they should have just called it something else.
1 - The old Resident Evil were NEVER "Third Person Shooters" or "Top Down Shooters", they were legit "Survival Horror" games (with the emphasis on the survival-part with the horror just waving by). You didn't even had the ammo to afford mowing down every single enemy you met (outside the two Outbreak Games and with some luck on your part, in Zero). Only 4 made it an actual TPS. And that is nothing to say about Gun Survivor (the first and second. 3 was Dino Crisis and 4 was more of a RE4-Prototype) or the two Chronicals.
2 - Just going from "side scroller" to "First Person" was a HUGE risk they took. Espeically after they skipped an entire console-generation and being a Nintendo-Exclusive. It still paid of.
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!

All three cases, the developers released a game in a franchise with a well-known gameplay-style and took a huge risk while doing so by CHANGING THE GENRE COMPLETELY. And with one exceptions (Gun Survivor 1 and 2), it paid off - people were at first against the idea (just as now) but once it was out, people loved it.
So, how about we stop saying anything about the game until it it out and until then, give it the benefit of being a risk taken?
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Bindal said:
Draconalis said:
Bindal said:
So, just because developers want to try something different with a franchise, they are not allowed to do it because of the fans of the main-installments? If it's a spin-off, who cares if they like the new style or not?
Besides, there are quite a few examples of games, where changing the genre wasn't a bad thing.
Resident Evil: Main-Installments went from the puzzle-solving fixed-angle survival horror to a TPS with "Resident Evil 4" - nobody complained after they played it. And some of the spin-offs (the two Chronicals, the two Outbreaks) also were - for not being exactly the same as previous installments in terms of genre - not shunned away from the fans either.
Or Castlevania:
Went from a linear (or mostly linear) 2D-Platformer to a MetroidVania game and never looked back ever since...
Metroid: The Prime-Trilogy went from 2D-MetroidVania to a more FPS-styled gameplay. Once again, people loved it.

And I treat this game the same: It is a spin-off for me, so let them try something different with it. It can be good and maybe makes people, who were not interested in the franchise now interested in it...
It's not being sold as a spin-off, it's being sold as a prequel.

Also, as to your examples... Revident Evil... from a third person shooter with puzzle elements to... a third person shooter with less puzzle elements, but the camera follows you now.

Metroid, a side scrolling shooter to a first person shooter

And I have never seen seen gameplay footage of the new Castlevania games so I have no idea what they look like... but I'd suspect, like your previous examples, it's more of a nature evolution of what the players already wanted made streamline.


Granted, it's much less of an issue since EU was announced and released, but if a series isn't providing what the fans came to the series for, then it's not going to do well, and in the case of this particular game... It has nothing to do with X-com gameplay or Lore, as many people have said before, they should have just called it something else.
1 - The old Resident Evil were NEVER "Third Person Shooters" or "Top Down Shooters", they were legit "Survival Horror" games (with the emphasis on the survival-part with the horror just waving by). You didn't even had the ammo to afford mowing down every single enemy you met (outside the two Outbreak Games and with some luck on your part, in Zero). Only 4 made it an actual TPS. And that is nothing to say about Gun Survivor (the first and second. 3 was Dino Crisis and 4 was more of a RE4-Prototype) or the two Chronicals.
2 - Just going from "side scroller" to "First Person" was a HUGE risk they took. Espeically after they skipped an entire console-generation and being a Nintendo-Exclusive. It still paid of.
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!

All three cases, the developers released a game in a franchise with a well-known gameplay-style and took a huge risk while doing so by CHANGING THE GENRE COMPLETELY. And with one exceptions (Gun Survivor 1 and 2), it paid off - people were at first against the idea (just as now) but once it was out, people loved it.
So, how about we stop saying anything about the game until it it out and until then, give it the benefit of being a risk taken?
Agree with your RE point, so no more to be said there, however;

Metroid, yeah it was a big risk, but this is Nintendo, they generally are very careful with their properties, and although this is going to sound a bit fanboi-ish, don't put out /bad/ games, recently they've got stuck in a creative rut, while there was backlash, some of us and maybe subconsciousness we knew that it would work out,(they likely would've scrapped it had it not lived up to their standards) but it also kept the same elements of a Metroid game, it was from a different perspective, but it felt like an organic progression rather than a sudden jump to a different genre.

Castlevania was also a completely organic progression, like Mario 64 was a progression from the 2D Marios. It was still the same genre but the perspective had changed, and we got flashier graphics, but it still felt like it was part of the series, just jacked up to a new generation/console, in much the same way XCOM:EU feels like the new gen version of the old games. Granted EU has some issues, but that's not what we're on about.

An XCOM shooter on the other hand, unless they have strategic elements in there, lots of them, this is going to feel like a complete departure from the rest of the series, and feels rather...pointless, the XCOM universe isn't particularly interesting, and is a gameplay game, always has been. I mean why not make a new property, if it's only going to be tangentially related to the franchise?


Saying all that though, I'm still going to keep up with and try it(or a demo at least), that's just my thoughts at this stage of the game.
 

MopBox

New member
Sep 7, 2012
127
0
0
The Xcom IP was purchased and repackage solely because Fallout 3 made a lot of money and it's easier to re-title a game than doing actual marketing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what we've been promised this game will be released as a Mass Effect 2 clone with the aesthetic or Madmen and some minor thematic elements involving aliens.
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
Bindal said:
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!
False! I've never played a Castlevania game or watched someone play a Castlevania game. The most I've ever been exposed to a Castlevania game are screenshots in old magazines... so "no" I don't know anything about "Symphony of Night" or "that ps1 game". Don't presume to know what I've played.
 

Jaeke

New member
Feb 25, 2010
1,431
0
0
Ehh why not.

Can't be much worse than %75 of the crap getting spewed out the meatgrinder today.