New XCOM game

[Morgoth]

I guess they only mentioned 2K Marin because they're already known for Bioshock 2. That gives a better impression than naming a studio that made Tribes Vengeance and FFvsTTR. Still, I'd feel discriminated....

[Amentep]

I dunno, never played the first one and - if its a straight shooter probably won't play the new one. But can't say I'm offended by its existence.

[Hurlshort]

There are supposedly two Xcom games in the works, so I still expect a more strategic version eventually. The other one has been tied to Sid Meier in rumors, so that further improves the odds it will feature the classic formula.

 

I'm still interested in this title, the research element is interesting. It will not be a first day buy for me, but I'll see how it is received.

 

Xcom: Enforcer already tackled the FPS genre in the universe, too.

[Morgoth]

Xcom: Enforcer already tackled the FPS genre in the universe, too.

Two problems:

1) Enforcer wasn't a FPS, it was a Third-person action game. Those have different design aspects than FPS's.

2) Enforcer sucked, so we still need a proper action game.

[Slowtrain]

official PR

"About 2K Marin: With sister studios in Novato, California and Canberra, Australia, 2K Marin is a 2K development studio focused on creating new IP and expanding proven franchises for 2K Games."

 

 

It's like all these PR guys go to the same school to learn how to use the same words in the same order. Utter drivel as usual.

[Mamoulian War]

Can't anyone just finish Dune Nukem Forever?

 

 

i would gladly offer my firstborn for this...

[Monte Carlo]

I have a big bag of hate for this already.

 

And it's not a grognard reflex response, either. I have nothing against FPS per se. But...

 

1. XCOM is a squad-based game. That's the whole point. It's like making a video game out of chess where you're a Knight and can only zig-zag, until of course you level up to Bishop.

 

2. the XCOM game-world isn't exactly detailed or super-special, it's just earth under attack from aliens. Pretty basic. Pretty generic. Made awesome by the tactical TB squad-based combat and the exploration / tech research.

 

So, this is nothing but trading in on the name of a once-great but now dead franchise. It's cynical, but hey this is the gaming industry. As the man said, make a great FPS, amke it about alien invasions, make it great... and call it something else.

 

Remember the Command & Conquer FPS?

[Deraldin]

Remember the Command & Conquer FPS?

 

Hey! Renegade was a lot of fun, especially in multiplayer. Also it had some awesome music.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Can't anyone just finish Dune Nukem Forever?

 

Well 3d Realms could have if they had stuck to an engine.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Remember the Command & Conquer FPS?

 

Hey! Renegade was a lot of fun, especially in multiplayer. Also it had some awesome music.

I hope you don't mean

, because that looked fantastic.

[Zoraptor]

2k Australia/ Irrational Australia is definitely the lead, and had been working on an XCOM title since before Bioshock was released. The 2k Marin thing is because they've stuffed up their namings with 2k Boston returning to Irrational (a name not associated with Bioshock), and they've made the not unreasonable assumption that the Bioshock name appeals more to the typical 360er than Freedom Force or System Shock 2. It's all a bit silly as IG Aus worked on both Bioshocks and suspended their work on their own title (xcom) while they did so but well, marketing.

 

I would not hold my breath for a Firaxis based strategy xcom title.

[Hell Kitty]

But why not just make it a new franchise?

 

Why not?

 

Why make it a new franchise?

 

Why make a new IP when they've got an old one they could use? What's the downside to using the XCOM name?

 

wait, what?

 

I haven't even posted my response to this bit of news yet.

 

Tig seems to have gotten us confused. I have never been so offended in my life.

[Tigranes]

Hey, avatar of gruff guy with facial hair, avatar of gruff guy with facial hair.

 

Why make it a new franchise?

 

Because it is a new franchise. Sticking on the name is cynical and pointless.

[Hell Kitty]

Because it is a new franchise.

 

While you can have an opinion on what you would like the IP to be, even what you think it should be, you don't get to decide what it is. The owners do.

 

The franchise already features games in a variety of genres, and reinvention doesn't require new IP. Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is not Tim Burton's Batman, but they aren't completely separate IPs.

 

Sticking on the name is cynical and pointless.

 

Well, that's like your opinion, man, but I what I was really asking for was a reason it would be better for 2K to make it a new franchise, and so far you you haven't really given anything more meaningful than "because I say so".

 

There have been numerous attempts to recapture the magic of games like X-com and JA2, but so far none have come close to the originals. Games like Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2, however, show how successful something so different from the originals can be.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Hell Kitty

[Mamoulian War]

Remember the Command & Conquer FPS?

 

Yes... The multiplayer was awesome, the only problem was, it was realy ahead of its's time... 10+ vs 10+ matches (the only way how you could have fun with this game) at that time was rare even in counterstrike... Single player just sucked walrus balls...

[Mamoulian War]

Games like Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2, however, show how successful something so different from the originals can be.

 

Fallout 3 at least sticked to the RPG roots...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Games like Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2, however, show how successful something so different from the originals can be.

 

Well Fallout 3 was at least attempting to stay true to the originals, we can disagree about the success of that but Bethesda at least tried to follow the first two games, and Far cry 2 was a FPS like Far Cry 1 so that's not a huge change either.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

I actually think that Bethesda's tried to stay as close as they possibly could to the originals, they're just not good at designing combat systems (especially non-RT) so they focused on the exploration and the storyline (sadly they weren't good at storyline either).

As for Far Cry 2, I didn't play either one, but they're both FPS so I don't understand the comparison.

Edited April 15, 2010 by WorstUsernameEver

[Deraldin]

There have been numerous attempts to recapture the magic of games like X-com and JA2, but so far none have come close to the originals. Games like Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2, however, show how successful something so different from the originals can be.

 

Fallout 3 was hardly something completely different from the originals in the way that an FPS X-Com is likely to be. What made Fallout what it was? Arguably, it was the world setting, the lore, the characters. It was all the fluff behind the scenes that defined what Fallout was rather than the clunky isometric turn based combat. Whether Fallout 3 managed to capture those aspects is up to the individual, but there was nothing inherent in the switch to FPS combat that said it couldn't be a good Fallout game.

 

I can't really speak for Far Cry 2 so much as I haven't played either entry in the series. My knowledge is mostly limited to both of them being FPS games and FC2 being a giant sandbox with some neat healing animations. Was there any story or world connection between the two titles?

 

Trying to take X-Com and turn it into an FPS won't be nearly as easy nor as likely as the transition was for Fallout. X-Com doesn't have the benefit of all the fluff that Fallout had. X-Com was about the gameplay. What was the setting? It was more or less present day Earth. Absolutely nothing special about that. The only characters you ever met were panicked civilians or hostile aliens. X-Com was about the combination of the turn based squad combat and the overall management of your alien fighting organization covering research, recruitment, construction and more.

 

Is it impossible to take what made X-Com great and transplant it into an FPS? No. Is it likely? Again, I'd say no. The management aspect is likely to either be completely glossed over, eliminating half of what made the original worth playing, or be over-simplified with a linear progression that never changes (IE, you always get plasma rifles after mission 4). The combat sections are likely to be fast paced arcade shooting action. We don't know for sure what exactly it's going to be like at the moment so I'll refrain from going all doom and gloom just yet, but looking at the way the market has been going these past few years, it doesn't exactly leave me very hopeful.

[Hell Kitty]

there was nothing inherent in the switch to FPS combat that said it couldn't be a good Fallout game.

 

Dozens of angry fans disagree.

 

Was there any story or world connection between the two titles?

 

No. They're both FPS but one is level based sci-fi shenanigans and the other is open world in a realistic setting. They're similar in the same way that all FPS games are similar. Far Cry is closer to Crysis than it's own sequel.

 

X-Com was about the combination of the turn based squad combat and the overall management of your alien fighting organization covering research, recruitment, construction and more.

 

That's what the good X-Com games were about, but the franchise as a whole has included games of different genres.

[Mamoulian War]

When looking around for proper X-COM games, i found this opensource project... it even runs on Linux machines...

 

http://ufoai.sourceforge.net/?page=Home

 

maybe some of you would like it...

[Tigranes]

what I was really asking for was a reason it would be better for 2K to make it a new franchise

 

What you're wanting is a business reason, a reason that would go over in their board meeting. There isn't one, its almost guaranteed to attract more attention and sales. That's why everyone's into pillaging old franchises these days. Doesn't mean I'm going to say "oh that's fine, of course they got to earn as much money as they can".

[Amentep]

There have been numerous attempts to recapture the magic of games like X-com and JA2, but so far none have come close to the originals. Games like Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2, however, show how successful something so different from the originals can be.

 

Fallout 3 was hardly something completely different from the originals in the way that an FPS X-Com is likely to be. What made Fallout what it was? Arguably, it was the world setting, the lore, the characters. It was all the fluff behind the scenes that defined what Fallout was rather than the clunky isometric turn based combat. Whether Fallout 3 managed to capture those aspects is up to the individual, but there was nothing inherent in the switch to FPS combat that said it couldn't be a good Fallout game.

 

Except the legions of fans who decried that Fallout could only ever be Fallout provided it was turn-based and isometric.

 

Trying to take X-Com and turn it into an FPS won't be nearly as easy nor as likely as the transition was for Fallout. X-Com doesn't have the benefit of all the fluff that Fallout had. X-Com was about the gameplay. What was the setting? It was more or less present day Earth. Absolutely nothing special about that. The only characters you ever met were panicked civilians or hostile aliens. X-Com was about the combination of the turn based squad combat and the overall management of your alien fighting organization covering research, recruitment, construction and more.

 

In a FPS are you any more likely to meet characters who aren't panicked civilians?

 

And if they flesh out the setting to make it more interesting...is that a bad thing?

 

Is it impossible to take what made X-Com great and transplant it into an FPS? No. Is it likely? Again, I'd say no. The management aspect is likely to either be completely glossed over, eliminating half of what made the original worth playing, or be over-simplified with a linear progression that never changes (IE, you always get plasma rifles after mission 4). The combat sections are likely to be fast paced arcade shooting action. We don't know for sure what exactly it's going to be like at the moment so I'll refrain from going all doom and gloom just yet, but looking at the way the market has been going these past few years, it doesn't exactly leave me very hopeful.

 

The problem is - and this is just my opinion - that you're getting stuck on game mechanics as the sole definition of the game.

 

A fleshed out XCOM game that is a shooter and good is still a good game, yes? It may not be what you want, but objectively is a company making a good game a bad idea?

 

Either XCom is a game idea (humans vs aliens with particular specific designs) or its a game mechanic ("turn based squad combat and the overall management of your ... organization"), And if its only a game mechanic, I can't see why the games are all that popular given that a few years ago there were dozens of good, bad and ugly turn based squad combat games.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Amentep

[TwinkieGorilla]

Never played Xcom myself, but I don't see why they have to dig at the corpse of an old dead franchise if they're going to change the core gameplay.

 

Now that sounds familiar. Very, very familiar.

 

*scratches head*

[Hurlshort]

The concept of Xcom isn't really all that strong, it's a fairly generic concept, and the different games in the series have been very inconsistent when it came to setting and art. People played them for the TB combat and the strategic level.

 

If you played Fallout for the TB combat, where a rat took 4 turns to run towards you and then tried to bite your ankle while you unloaded pistol rounds into the ground, then I feel sorry for you.