XCOM WTF?

[Lazarus Long]

Yes, game design is a business, just like all art is a business. But it's also an art form, which means that it needs, and deserves, its critics and dissenters, who are entitled to point out when developers are behaving in a way that's disrespectful towards the intention of a game's originators.

Of course. Criticize away. Your anger is every bit as valid as my apathy. I imagine you and I will be ticking the same box when we vote with our wallets.

Anyway, this "they-bought-it-therefore-they-can-do-what-they-want" shtick is pretty shallow; I can buy John Waterhouse paintings and thumbtack my tax information to them, it doesn't mean I'd be any less of a dumbass for doing so.

See, maybe I'm just not a cynical as I thought I was, but I honestly think that 2K is just trying to give us what they think the majority of us want. I don't want it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't make it, or the people who do want it shouldn't have it.

 

[EzraPound]

In actual fact, whether it's a good game or not doesn't really make that much of a difference- calling this game 'XCOM' is a blatant insult to the original series. Does it have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the original series? Well, there's an alien invasion in there somewhere. Otherwise, no.

How stupid do the developers think we are? For people who never played the original XCOM, the name has no meaning. For people who have, this game will evoke not the slightest twinge of interest (at least, not because of the connection) and will intensely annoy a lot of them who have been hoping for a REAL revival of the franchise, now basically ruled out thanks to this atrocious mutilation of IP taking its place.

Really, this game would have to be the fucking second coming of the FPS genre to make it worth looking at. XCOM remains to this day one of the greatest strategy games EVER made and there's no way this generic-looking crap will live up to the standards of quality set by its predecessor. Yes, I know the series had gone rotten by Enforcer, but that's hardly an excuse for doing this, is it?

It's a shame, because I never played X-COM: UFO Defense very much--though would jump at the chance to do so with an overhaul, given how much I've enjoyed other latter-day remakes of classic PC strategy games like Pirates! for Xbox and Civilization: Revolution. As it stands, I guess I'll just have to go back to the original.

Yes, game design is a business, just like all art is a business. But it's also an art form, which means that it needs, and deserves, its critics and dissenters, who are entitled to point out when developers are behaving in a way that's disrespectful towards the intention of a game's originators.

Of course. Criticize away. Your anger is every bit as valid as my apathy. I imagine you and I will be ticking the same box when we vote with our wallets.

Anyway, this "they-bought-it-therefore-they-can-do-what-they-want" shtick is pretty shallow; I can buy John Waterhouse paintings and thumbtack my tax information to them, it doesn't mean I'd be any less of a dumbass for doing so.

See, maybe I'm just not a cynical as I thought I was, but I honestly think that 2K is just trying to give us what they think the majority of us want. I don't want it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't make it, or the people who do want it shouldn't have it.

But art is about giving people what they need, not what they want. Most people's prejudices are defined by the tropes they're exposed to--so yes, a Halo-style FPS would probably strike a larger number of people as interesting than a reinvigorated X-COM game. But it also could be done under virtually any moniker, and by discarding the profound gameplay of the original, 2K is missing the opportunity to challenge--and, if successful, expose--a much larger audience to a gameplay mold that's significant to the history of the medium. This doesn't preclude innovation, either--surely, there are as many possibilities to expand upon the X-COM legacy as there are to rejigger a generic FPS.

 

[Firehound]

I have a bad feeling. It'd be like if they made the next COD a turn based strategy game. One of the big effects that could happen is mind control in Xcom. I have a feeling we're going to have duty calls- with aliens.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Reading again I think that you are wrong to talk up the importance of single people. A problem with games writing is that the person who has the most media exposure is given godly significance.

Rare: The Stamper brothers were the founders of Rare and them leaving after Microsoft bought them had to have some effect although their FPS games were effected by the Free Radical split. There are other key figures at Rare.

id: Sandy Peterson is hugely under recognised figure compared to the relative media whores John Romero and American McGee.

Bullfrog: Demis Hassabis is a very smart fellow who created Evil Genius without Molyneux. Peter Molyneux has not recreated all of the Bullfrog magic at Lionhead. Maybe there are other people in the story of Bullfrog and Lionhead who are very talented... Wasn't there a game called StarTopia as well.

 

[rockingnic]

So you rather have less games to pick from than more? It's not like you have to buy them and I think it's a great idea for developers to do that. Fallout succeeded didn't?

The point is that, in many art forms, it's assumed that the artist, or group of artists, involved in the creation of a piece maintain some level of de facto authority over it relating to the fact that they made it. Games are very lucrative--so in the game industry, rather than, say, the Doom franchise being retired because half of its creators no longer worked at id, it is treated as a corporate property--one owned, and created, by id, not four or five guys (meaning not a single member of the original team would have to be involved as long as it was created by id, or whomever owned the IP). In effect, this robs the individual creators of rights, because it means that the games they design they have potentially no say over the future of, reduced as they are to amorphous corporate properties rather than works of art conceived, and partially controlled by, their creators.

I actually spoke to John Romero and he acknowledged this--that if a band of four individuals made an album and two were no longer with the group, they would have to struggle hard to be viewed as legit successors to their earlier incarnation. With games, by contrast, you just slap "DOOM" on the box and it could've been made by simians in boardroom suits, for all the public cares--instant hype.

So just because the originators are out of the picture doesn't mean they should stop making the game. Many bands do this all the time. Metallica went through 4 band members before they got where they are today and they still play to this day, under the name of Metallica do they not? And they still have millions of fans around the world. Dream Theater went through five members (I'm including Mike Portnoy because he is leaving some time after the next album is released). Mike Portnoy can be thought of one of the greatest drummers of all time and once he leaves, I believe Dream Theater will still be Dream Theater. Sure they will make different music, most likely, but their music will still be Dream Theater. Sure, the originators made the franchise but doesn't mean they should stop producing for their fans just because a couple guys think they own it.

You become a developer (hopefully) because you enjoy making the games that some people could enjoy as well. Just because you put that pixel there or you said that line doesn't mean you can say they should stop and that's that. If people buy the game and play it for good amount of time, it means people enjoy it on some level and that really what should matter, the fans. I rather have they release a crappy game off a series like, let's say Perfect Dark, oh wait they did, than not make it. Sure some people would by it, but some would enjoy it. You rather take away that enjoyment because some egotistical guy says "no, don't make it, you will ruin it although other people help make the franchise. It's called a franchise for a reason, meaning they exist so others can put their own spin on it while still retaining, somewhat, to the original.

Also, don't let nostalgia keeping from seeing that this game could improve and be better than what the original creators did with it.

 

[Trolldor]

Rebelstar: Tactical on the GBA took a lot of cues from Xcom because it had some Xcom hands helping.

Quite frankly I wasn't impressed.

This Xcom, however, looks quite promising.

 

[zehydra]

I totally agree, and I think this sort of thing is currently happening with Zelda series, that is, the talent that made Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past have long been gone, to be replaced by Majora's Mask, Windwaker, and Twilight Princess (which are very good games, but they took the Zelda series in a very different direction artistically and thematically speaking).

Btw, great use of the word "grok".

 

[Lazarus Long]

As it stands, I guess I'll just have to go back to the original.

Here you go. [http://ufo.ufo-extraterrestrials.com/] It's missing a few things, most significantly multiple bases, Blaster Launchers, and Psi, but otherwise it's an incredible update of Enemy Unknown.

But art is about giving people what they need, not what they want.

Games can be art. This doesn't mean that every game is obligated to blow our minds and make us re-evaluate the nature of existence. We have the whole spectrum available to us, from Bioshock, to Unreal Tournament, to Metal Gear Solid, to Shadow of the Colossus, to Burnout. This is not a bad thing.

It's a shame, because I never played X-COM: UFO Defense very much

by discarding the profound gameplay of the original,

Interesting. I hope you can forgive me if this makes me think there might be a chance you could be arguing just for its own sake, defending the sacred franchise that apparently you know mostly by reputation.

2K is missing the opportunity to challenge--and, if successful, expose--a much larger audience to a gameplay mold that's significant to the history of the medium.

I don't think there's any way to tell if people aren't as interested in turn-based, squad-level strategy any more, or if it just looks that way because there are so few professional titles in the genre these days outside the relatively niche handheld market.
I'm of the opinion that these things go in cycles, and once the audience tires of FPSs and MMOs, we could very well see the return of games like X-COM and Jagged Alliance.

 

[Darkauthor81]

I loved the old xcom games and frankly this game looks awesome too. It doesn't look like one of those games where they made some piece of crap and slapped a familiar name on it to make it sell.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think it's a waste of a classic IP but seeing as it's not my money or time wasted I really don't give a shit. It's not like 2K are going to break into my house and break my copy of the original X-Com.

 

[Jekken6]

It looks like a fun game in it's own right and even though I've never played the original X-Com games, I would still prefer it to be a strategy game.

But we haven't seen much of it, so, who knows, it may incorporate some of the original's strategy into a way that works for a FPS

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Looks like a fun game, and I think 2K Marin did a wonderful job on Bioshock 2. I think it has the "Dante's Inferno" conundrum, just change the name, and everyone will stop flipping shit.

 

[ChocoFace]

I blame Obama and his promises.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I think I have to go with the OP on this one. I have no interest in XCOM, past or present, but taking an established franchise and giving it to a new development team who has no plan to make a game in the same genre as said franchise seems like trying to inject a random game with a dose of Insta-Hype(tm). It's both lazy and dishonest. If it's a good game, it should be able to stand upon it's own IP. If not, I'm not going to buy it no matter what label you slap on the cover.

 

[Trogdor1138]

I could care less what people are employed by a company making any game.

Just give me a good game.

This XCOM looks great.

I am no fanboy, so names mean little to me. It's all about the game.

In a review of Let It Be. . . Naked, a revised Beatles album prepped by Paul McCartney after Lennon and Harrison died, an amateur record reviewer wrote:

Paul can re-write history all he wants on his own dime, but he shouldn?t do it under the name of his group

. . .Which is all I'm saying. If you're going to make a wholly new game that's great; do it, but don't purchase a venerated IP solely for the purpose of acquiring "cred" if a) none of the original personnel are involved, and b) you have no intention of thoroughly honouring its continuum.

I agree with your points in the original post and here. I have yet to even listen to the Naked version because I love the album how it is, it's a product of the time and I think things like that should be left alone (I guess I'll use the George Lucas example as well). Good call on the Beatles comparison.

While I'm more concerned whether something is Good or Bad, it does worry me that this type of "IP disregarding" is going on. I think in most cases series shouldn't be continued without their original creators but it happens anyway, usually for the sake of profit rather than needing to have a story told etc.

I've only played little bits of Xcom here and there and even I was puzzled at the initial details they revealed. I'm not sure why they even bothered. You gave really good examples in your post.

To answer your question, no, they don't get enough respect, most publishers are concerned with the actual IP than the people behind it. I get the feeling they try to hide the fact the original crew isn't behind a new installment, but as long as they do a good job it can work out well (Metroid Prime etc.)

 

[EzraPound]

I could care less what people are employed by a company making any game.

Just give me a good game.

This XCOM looks great.

I am no fanboy, so names mean little to me. It's all about the game.

In a review of Let It Be. . . Naked, a revised Beatles album prepped by Paul McCartney after Lennon and Harrison died, an amateur record reviewer wrote:

Paul can re-write history all he wants on his own dime, but he shouldn?t do it under the name of his group

. . .Which is all I'm saying. If you're going to make a wholly new game that's great; do it, but don't purchase a venerated IP solely for the purpose of acquiring "cred" if a) none of the original personnel are involved, and b) you have no intention of thoroughly honouring its continuum.

I agree with your points in the original post and here. I have yet to even listen to the Naked version because I love the album how it is, it's a product of the time and I think things like that should be left alone (I guess I'll use the George Lucas example as well). Good call on the Beatles comparison.

While I'm more concerned whether something is Good or Bad, it does worry me that this type of "IP disregarding" is going on. I think in most cases series shouldn't be continued without their original creators but it happens anyway, usually for the sake of profit rather than needing to have a story told etc.

I've only played little bits of Xcom here and there and even I was puzzled at the initial details they revealed. I'm not sure why they even bothered. You gave really good examples in your post.

To answer your question, no, they don't get enough respect, most publishers are concerned with the actual IP than the people behind it. I get the feeling they try to hide the fact the original crew isn't behind a new installment, but as long as they do a good job it can work out well (Metroid Prime etc.)

Yes, but I feel like Gunpei Yokoi's car accident, Metroid Prime being an FPS, and the addition of the word 'Prime' to the titles of the series' shooter denominations all conspired to help make it at least somewhat clear that said Metroid was not made by the series' original creators. Even so, Metroid Prime was less non sequitur: it was a platforming action game in which you shoot aliens and solve puzzles, re-envisioned as an FPS action game in which you--wait for it--shoot aliens and solve puzzles. Keep in mind that even Super Mario 64--which was handled internally by Nintendo EAD--was a significant departure from the earlier 2D games, revolving largely around item-collecting rather than geographic progression as it did.

Even Fallout 3, really, I had no problem with being an FPS RPG--what bothered me was how clearly the tone and content of the game was just grokked from Morrowind or Oblivion, rather than capturing the offbeat character of the original. The new XCOM, by contrast even to this, seems utterly bizarre: a first-person shooter with vague strategic elements that for the life of me doesn't appear to bear the slightest resemblance to the originals.

. . .So I'm all for change, I really am--just change that isn't entirely motivated by market concessions--and does justice, whilst expanding on the content of, a game's predecessors. The greatest sequels, to this end, are the ones that distill the essence of the games they're based on whilst totally recontextualizing them: think Grand Theft Auto III or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. But this--the new XCOM (no hypen!)--seems to make about as much sense as turning Civilization into a melee combat game à la God of War in which you travel through time methodically slaying famed world leaders.

I'm also irritated that Warren Spector isn't involved in Deus Ex 3, but that's another tangent. . .

 

[EzraPound]

*snip

No, I'm just annoyed. This is not really any different to a Hollywood Studio buying the rights to a nove>film feature, and then the director/scriptwriter etc changing everything that made the book great and just keeping the character names.

I actually would enjoy an X-COM based FPS (if it was done well) because the creatures and ideas that were behind the original were interesting to say the least. This latest installment looks like a continuation of BioShock by another name - so an executive decision made by someone who doesn't understand why X-COM or BioShock were successful in the first place.

I disagree with you about Doom 3, I enjoyed it but it could've been better, but it is far and away superior to that god-awful film Resident Evil on Mars of the same name. And using Daikatana as an example is good reason why John Romero is where is today - making games for mobile phones.

And I always thought Origin went south because Chris Roberts decided he wanted to direct terrible movies rather than games.

I can't agree with you regarding Fallout 3, as I never played the original and when recently attempting to I got bored and annoyed.

If they removed all links to X-COM and renamed I would have no problem with it.

I don't know the story about Chris Roberts. What happened there? I should add that I wouldn't speculate about whether XCOM will resemble BioShock: it just really, really doesn't appear to resemble its source material.

I actually played Daikatana from beginning to end on N64--a good choice, since while the graphics were poor it excised the lackluster teammate AI--and it's not a bad shooter. Not bad, not great. I recall PC Gamer commenting at the time of Daikatana's release that if it had been released when it was supposed to--1996 or 1997--it likely would've warranted acclaim. The passage of time has obscured those distinctions, but keep in mind the late 1990s and early 2000s were a very competitive time for shooters--Deus Ex, Jedi Knight, Quake II, GoldenEye 007, Half-Life, System Shock 2, and Metroid Prime were all released in that period. This means that relative gems from that period--games that exceed the quality of many today-- such as Shadow Warrior or Blood, went largely overlooked.

 

[The Madman]

Don't get me started, you have no idea how frustrated I am with this.

The game itself looks entertaining enough, but it's not X-Com. It isn't. Not even remotely. It's at best an independent spinoff which, from what we know so far, has absolutely nothing to do with the original series save that aliens are somehow involved.

And now because of this an entire generation of gamers will grow up thinking of Xcom as 'that fps series' while any remote chance of getting a true sequel to the series is slaughtered.

Thanks to this project, there will never be an actual official continuation of the series.

Would it really have been that hard for them to name the game 'Y-Com' or something? You know, a spiritual successor? A homage? A nod towards the inspiration? I would have dug that, hell, I'd have fully stood behind it! Anything would have been better than completely destroying the franchise as fans of the game know it!

GAH!!!!!

 

[Xaositect]

The games industry wants to be like the movie industry.

Insane, mass appeal shit is the name of the game.

In the modern day games industry, I think the more surprising thing is why someone WOULDNT expect a classic title to be turned into a dumbed down shooter.

These days, more than anything else video games seem to be about pointing a recticle at an enemy and pulling a trigger. Most likely in an online deathmatch.

That and MMOs.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

In actual fact, whether it's a good game or not doesn't really make that much of a difference- calling this game 'XCOM' is a blatant insult to the original series. Does it have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the original series? Well, there's an alien invasion in there somewhere. Otherwise, no.

How stupid do the developers think we are? For people who never played the original XCOM, the name has no meaning. For people who have, this game will evoke not the slightest twinge of interest (at least, not because of the connection) and will intensely annoy a lot of them who have been hoping for a REAL revival of the franchise, now basically ruled out thanks to this atrocious mutilation of IP taking its place.

Really, this game would have to be the fucking second coming of the FPS genre to make it worth looking at. XCOM remains to this day one of the greatest strategy games EVER made and there's no way this generic-looking crap will live up to the standards of quality set by its predecessor. Yes, I know the series had gone rotten by Enforcer, but that's hardly an excuse for doing this, is it?

It's a shame, because I never played X-COM: UFO Defense very much--though would jump at the chance to do so with an overhaul, given how much I've enjoyed other latter-day remakes of classic PC strategy games like Pirates! for Xbox and Civilization: Revolution. As it stands, I guess I'll just have to go back to the original.

Actually there have been a number of spiritual sucessors to XCOM such as the UFO: After[blank] series (consisting of Aftermath, Aftershock and Afterlight) and the unrelated UFO: Extraterrestrials which looks almost exactly like a modern remake of the original XCOM. Here's a link for you:

http://ufo.ufo-extraterrestrials.com/