New XCOM game

[Monte Carlo]

Still got a big ol' bag of hate for it.

 

Unless... yeah, a multi-player co-op / online game where your team researches / explores and you go on mass squad raid missions... that might work. Basically a very big L4D with a nifty research overlay.

 

But you know you are going to get a generic FPS with some alleged 'old-skool' credibility.

[Slowtrain]

IIRC, Farcry 2 began life as an unrelated fps and got the Farcry name slapped on it and some point in development.

 

XCOM: Interceptor (anybody remember that one?) began life as a non-XCOM space combat game and at some point in development got an XCOM tag slapped on it.

 

Obviously, that's the way it works in the game biz.

 

Nonetheless, I do believe it is somewhat sleazy to take a previosuly existing Name that has built up a sort of mythos or following and then slap it on to some unrelated IP just to make a few bucks.

 

 

But it works. Look at this thread. All this attention to a game that would probably not even get mentioned here if it wasn't called XCOM.

[Deraldin]

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

You and Hell Kitty both used this argument. Which fans would these be? The Codex? Here? How much of that was based on hate for anything that Bethesda did rather than how well the game actually managed to convey the feeling of Fallout?

 

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.

 

A good shooter with the X-Com name is still a good game. It is not what I would want, but I'm not debating whether it would still be a good game. I don't see it being an X-Com game. I am aware that this is the same argument that some of those Fallout fans used.

 

Yes, for the purpose of this argument, I am defining the game mechanics of X-Com as the sole definition of the game. What else was there in X-Com? There was nothing special about the setting, it was present day earth with aliens. You never saw anything outside the bases or generic mission locations. Anything that they add to this, isn't X-Com.

 

Which of those good squad combat games from a few years ago allowed you to build your own base? Which ones allowed you to research new technologies? Which ones had anything even close to the geoscape from X-Com? X-Com was popular because it combined both the management and the TBS aspects into a coherent game that arguably hasn't been duplicated or improved upon yet.

[Amentep]

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

You and Hell Kitty both used this argument. Which fans would these be? The Codex? Here? How much of that was based on hate for anything that Bethesda did rather than how well the game actually managed to convey the feeling of Fallout?

 

They were here, Bethesda's forums, at the Codex and at NMA as near as I could tell. Probably other places. These are the same people who created all the chaos on the old Interplay boards when the action/RPG Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was announced.

 

The same people who basically would complain at any Fallout game that didn't use the same engine FO1 & 2 did and any developer who didn't hire Tim Cain to make it.

 

Yes, for the purpose of this argument, I am defining the game mechanics of X-Com as the sole definition of the game. What else was there in X-Com? There was nothing special about the setting, it was present day earth with aliens. You never saw anything outside the bases or generic mission locations. Anything that they add to this, isn't X-Com.

 

Which of those good squad combat games from a few years ago allowed you to build your own base? Which ones allowed you to research new technologies? Which ones had anything even close to the geoscape from X-Com? X-Com was popular because it combined both the management and the TBS aspects into a coherent game that arguably hasn't been duplicated or improved upon yet.

 

I've never played X-Com; I just find it interesting that love of the game is so dependent solely on a specific style of gameplay (even to the point that expanding the universe outside of bases and generic mission locations is seen as violating the gameworld).

Edited April 15, 2010 by Amentep

[Deraldin]

I've never played X-Com; I just find it interesting that love of the game is so dependent solely on a specific style of gameplay (even to the point that expanding the universe outside of bases and generic mission locations is seen as violating the gameworld).

It's not violating the game world by expanding it, it's that nothing there was nothing to the game world to begin with so no matter what you do with it, you're starting from scratch anyway. There really isn't anything to carry over other than the gameplay.

[Monte Carlo]

Deraldin hits the nail on the head repeatedly --- the USP of X-com being the game mechanics is crucial. For chrissakes, you go to major world cities to fight battles and they all look the same.

 

Seriously, X-COM barely has a setting. The mechanics are completely meshed into what X-COM is. It's like making spaghetti bolognese with a strange fruity sauce and rice and insisting it's still spaghetti bolognese because that's what you wrote on the packet.

[Slowtrain]

The point though is to "leverage the IP" (good PR talk there), nothing else.

 

They own the IP, they don't think a TB squad combat game will sell, so they make an FPS, which do sell. If the XCOM IP was originally built on an FPS gameplay style, but FPS's weren;t selling and TB combat games were, the exact reverse would happen.

 

I hate as much as anyone the fact that next-gen gaming has basically killed entire game genres, but at this point the best we can hope for is that it will be a good FPS. And maybe it will. Especially if the Bioshock 2 developers aren't actually the ones making it.

[213374U]

Yes, for the purpose of this argument, I am defining the game mechanics of X-Com as the sole definition of the game. What else was there in X-Com? There was nothing special about the setting, it was present day earth with aliens. You never saw anything outside the bases or generic mission locations. Anything that they add to this, isn't X-Com.

Possibly because technical limitations didn't allow for much more. I'm going to be even sillier than usual, and say that since TFTD played mostly underwater, it wasn't X-Com, either.

 

X-Com was about the iso, turn-based, squad tactics as much as it was about sci-fi, molecular control, and the horror atmosphere inspired by playing night missions against the remains of ancient alien civilizations that use people to make yummy shakes in their vats. If they can make a squad-based shooter that incorporates aspects from outside the actual mission gameplay (research, UFOpedia, base and budget management, randomized environments, etc), it could be nerdgasm. If not, well, I suppose we'll at least recognize the Chrysalids.

 

Oh, wait. It's going to be cross-platform... nevermind then.

[Deraldin]

Yes, for the purpose of this argument, I am defining the game mechanics of X-Com as the sole definition of the game. What else was there in X-Com? There was nothing special about the setting, it was present day earth with aliens. You never saw anything outside the bases or generic mission locations. Anything that they add to this, isn't X-Com.

Possibly because technical limitations didn't allow for much more. I'm going to be even sillier than usual, and say that since TFTD played mostly underwater, it wasn't X-Com, either.

 

X-Com was about the iso, turn-based, squad tactics as much as it was about sci-fi, molecular control, and the horror atmosphere inspired by playing night missions against the remains of ancient alien civilizations that use people to make yummy shakes in their vats. If they can make a squad-based shooter that incorporates aspects from outside the actual mission gameplay (research, UFOpedia, base and budget management, randomized environments, etc), it could be nerdgasm. If not, well, I suppose we'll at least recognize the Chrysalids.

 

Oh, wait. It's going to be cross-platform... nevermind then.

 

Why would TFTD not count as X-Com? I haven't played any of the sequels to the original so I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the only major difference between the first and second game was that TFTD had missions underwater instead of on land. It's the same game just with a different skin.

[Slowtrain]

TFTD is a lot harder and fixes some of the balance issues that made the first game too easy. There's a lot more stuff to think about tactically.

 

But, it's pretty much the same game at its foundation.

[Oner]

Okay, just found this on TVTropes:

gundam unlinkable piece of trash

 

**** it, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/X-COM

At the A-Team Firing line.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Oner

[213374U]

Why would TFTD not count as X-Com? I haven't played any of the sequels to the original so I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the only major difference between the first and second game was that TFTD had missions underwater instead of on land. It's the same game just with a different skin.

As I said, I was just being silly and taking your idea that "anything they add to this, it isn't X-Com" literally. TFTD had some weird **** that didn't fit very well with the canon established in the first game, too.

[Gorth]

Why would TFTD not count as X-Com? I haven't played any of the sequels to the original so I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the only major difference between the first and second game was that TFTD had missions underwater instead of on land. It's the same game just with a different skin.

As I said, I was just being silly and taking your idea that "anything they add to this, it isn't X-Com" literally. TFTD had some weird **** that didn't fit very well with the canon established in the first game, too.

Wasn't that sort of the point though, that people cared about the gameplay mechanics, not the cannon?

[Tigranes]

They were here, Bethesda's forums, at the Codex and at NMA as near as I could tell. Probably other places. These are the same people who created all the chaos on the old Interplay boards when the action/RPG Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was announced.

 

The same people who basically would complain at any Fallout game that didn't use the same engine FO1 & 2 did and any developer who didn't hire Tim Cain to make it.

 

As someone who actually did some research on this, this is simply a popular misconception. Without getting into too much detail, in the end, it was only a very small minority, even within the most extremist communities like Codex & NMA, that actually said any FO3 that is not TB, Iso & Tim Cain = failure. In the end Bethesda had a genuine go at making a Fallout true to the franchise; and the major reasons for which they received fan criticisms of 'not being a real Fallout' was lore inconsistencies, dialogue style and perceived failures of the VATS system. Not that it wasn't isometric, yadda, yadda.

 

And why was that? In the end, when people played Fallout 3, they remembered something that not everyone mgiht have recognised after years of arguing and nostalgia: what made Fallout 'Fallout' was, primarily, its quirky setting. And if some old fans didn't enjoy FO3, it's because they kept getting moments of 'WTF' in the setting.

 

Now, with XCOM, sure there's the setting, but it seems to me that the core of XCOM, the main point of it, is its unique gameplay that is a mix of research, TB combat, squad building, etc. I'm sure that some forms of it will return in the new game, but that's why I think this one has even less of a shot at being a real sequel than FO3.

[213374U]

Why would TFTD not count as X-Com? I haven't played any of the sequels to the original so I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the only major difference between the first and second game was that TFTD had missions underwater instead of on land. It's the same game just with a different skin.

As I said, I was just being silly and taking your idea that "anything they add to this, it isn't X-Com" literally. TFTD had some weird **** that didn't fit very well with the canon established in the first game, too.

Wasn't that sort of the point though, that people cared about the gameplay mechanics, not the cannon?

What people care about and what things aren't always one and the same...

 

Seriously though, if what defines X-Com for people is mechanics alone, then JA = XCOM.

 

edit:

that's why I think this one has even less of a shot at being a real sequel than FO3.

So... consider it a spinoff. Problem solved! Edited April 16, 2010 by 213374U

[Gorth]

Seriously though, if what defines X-Com for people is mechanics alone, then JA = XCOM.

See? that wasn't so hard

[Niten_Ryu]

Seriously, X-COM barely has a setting.

 

Yeah.

 

I think Gollop bothers wanted to add some gameplay elements like base building, experience system and reaserch to their familar turn based game mechanics. They could have just as easily continued their Laser Squad (I played it originally with c64 in late 80's) brand and never even make X-Com. Maybe there were some copyright issues. Gollop brothers did Laser Squad remake(ish) in early 2000 but I didn't play that.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Niten_Ryu

[Tigranes]

So... consider it a spinoff. Problem solved!

 

Oh, true.

[Gorgon]

I just replayed Xcom because I got it on steam for a pittance.

 

It's not particularly fantastic. Every single encounter you spend twice as many turns looking for that last Alien that got away as you do beating the opposition. I guess I could stomach it because of nostalgia, I dunno. but games have come a loooong way since then.

[Slowtrain]

I just replayed Xcom because I got it on steam for a pittance.

 

It's not particularly fantastic. Every single encounter you spend twice as many turns looking for that last Alien that got away as you do beating the opposition. I guess I could stomach it because of nostalgia, I dunno. but games have come a loooong way since then.

 

 

The thing is that with games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance 2, while they are certainly dated, no one has made a game that replaces them. I mean, I don't keep going back to XCOM and Jag 2 BECAUSE I like playing outdated games, rather I keep going back because there is nothing comparable in the last 5 years to replace them. If I want THAT gameplay done THAT well, I have to play THOSE games. There is no other choice.

 

No one needs to go back and play Doom or Quake or even Half Life because the shooter has kept evolving and there are plenty of current games that offer the same gameplay as Doom/Quake/HL but in a nice modern wrapper.

 

I think, personally, that I nice modern update of XCOM would actually sell pretty well. The game has a lot of cred and a lot of fans. But in this day and age, no developer or publisher takes any sort of risks with games. So we get the same game over and over again. And games like XCOM are redone and become games just like every other nextgen game.

[Hell Kitty]

The thing is that with games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance 2, while they are certainly dated, no one has made a game that replaces them.

 

There have been numerous attempts, though.

[Slowtrain]

The thing is that with games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance 2, while they are certainly dated, no one has made a game that replaces them.

 

There have been numerous attempts, though.

 

 

True. Although since Silent Storm I can't think of any. There was a period there where tactical combat games were fairly common, but they were mostly linear, mission-based affairs with little strategic element.

 

Which isn't to say there haven't been any since SS either, only that I can't think of them. And SS still didn't have that blend of strategy and tactics that make Jag 2 and XCOM so interesting.

[Hell Kitty]

The thing is that with games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance 2, while they are certainly dated, no one has made a game that replaces them.

 

There have been numerous attempts, though.

 

True. Although since Silent Storm I can't think of any. There was a period there where tactical combat games were fairly common, but they were mostly linear, mission-based affairs with little strategic element.

 

Which isn't to say there haven't been any since SS either, only that I can't think of them. And SS still didn't have that blend of strategy and tactics that make Jag 2 and XCOM so interesting.

 

Man, I love Silent Storm, but then I mostly loved JA2 for the turn-based combat anyway.

 

There have been numerous spiritual successors to both XCOM and JA2 over the years, several UFO games inspired by XCOM and stuff like Brigade E5 and Hired Guns for JA2, though as you mention they typically don't feature all aspects of the original games. I've probably played the demos for them all, but they never grabbed me the way the originals did. Of course I was never a huge fan of XCOM, haven't played it since the late nineties.

[Slowtrain]

There have been numerous spiritual successors to both XCOM and JA2 over the years, several UFO games inspired by XCOM and stuff like Brigade E5 and Hired Guns for JA2, though as you mention they typically don't feature all aspects of the original games. I've probably played the demos for them all, but they never grabbed me the way the originals did. Of course I was never a huge fan of XCOM, haven't played it since the late nineties.

 

 

I played around with one of those UFO/XCOM inspired games. The UI was so clunky that I never got into it. There was also a little TB alien combat game called Incubation which also had an expansion. That was fairly nifty. There were those green-plastic army-men combat games. I think they were TB, but they might have been more of an RTS.

 

Now that I'm thinking of it, I think a lot of those squad TB games I thought were around about 8 years ago were actually RTS's.

 

It's a genre that's really never had a lot of titles, unless you add crpgs with TB combat into the mix. Then the number goes up by a fair bit.

[Kissamies]

I played some of those those After(whatever) UFO games that had that "stopwatch" real time system. It was kind of nifty at first, but got tedious in the long run. IIRC, you have to do a lot of missions in those games. I think I preferred Apocalypse's choice of turns or real time. I used both in that game. Turns when I want to be a control freak and RT for the milk runs. Then there was UFO Extraterrestials which was a bit lackluster. No proper atmosphere, I think.

 

So yes, I wouldn't mind a new "big title" TB tactical X-Com game.