So, is the new XCOM gonna be FPS or not? And you guys keep bringing up the Syndicate reboot and its suckage, which I think was made just to compete with Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which was a prequel that stuck to its series' format pretty well.
No. It was cancelled because everyone and their mother thought the XCOm shooter was a bioshock reskin with NO original thought ANYWHERE.
So they are going to release the strategy XCOM and eventually axe the shooter.
Besides, the shooter didnt stick to the original format, it was a Mass Effect/Bioshock wannabe.
Without a shitton of mods and Broken Steel Fallout 3 was crap. Even with those it barely qualifies as a Fallout game. FONV was a much better attempt, and considering they were dealing with the POS Gamebryo engine and 11 months to make the game it was fan-fucking-tastic. That Bethesda couldn't get off their fucking asses and do proper QA certainly wasn't Obsidian's fault. Then there's the DLC, all of which blow anything that came out for FO3 out of the water.
"I guess what worries me about the whole affair is that the fan "outcry" has actually done something."
Really now, that was an impressive fan cry. Because in an interview they said they had been working on the turn-based game since 2008.
Though I do like to think that the outcry hurt the FPS one.
Just to be clear. When people say the XCOM reboot NOW they typically mean the TBS game that comes out next week, which while opinions on it may be mixed there are clear connections to the original game.
The FPS XCOM pissed a lot of people of because A) fans had been asking for a TBS update for years, then we get an reboot that is an FPS which is totally different from what we had be asking and hoping for and B)There was no connection to the original beyond 'aliens invade'.
Now yes, the idea of a Alien Invasion FPS set in the 50s might be neat. But if you are going to call it X-COM, especially when fans had been asking for a faithful reboot for almost a decade, then you need to have at least some connection to the original game.
@ Endplanets, while fan anger at the FPS might not have gotten the turn-based game started, fans had been asking for turn-based reboot a decade.
Would it be too pedantic to point out that the naked sectoidd were clones and we were specifically told they had no space junk? Almost all the other alien races had clothes, or were robots.
Your words make me sad as you make me recall that video games once were a true challenge and not restarting from 5 paces back as if nothing happened.
Possibly there's also a change of playerbase. Look at Football Manager forums, full of complains of people who just lost a game. First it was supergoalie, rumour that was properly shot down by an user making proper tests, now it's all about prescripting "I lost and reloaded but lose again! The game had decided I had to lose that match AAARRRG!" (of course they'll never reload a game they won to find they win again and won because the game had decided so with nothing to do with their tactical acumen). In short, what you see is a lot of sore losers who don't play the game for a challenge, they just want the game to let them win and pat themselves in the back about how great genius they are.
I feel like the games nowadays have dropped their challenging quite a lot compared to the old days of eighties and nineties. It's the continuing almost from the point one fell (or in the point one fell) without consequences, it's the gameplay simplification that goes beyond just making understanding the controls easier or but actually making the tasks themselves easier. It's COD telling you where to go and leading you by the hand. There it not only gives you so much of the work done (finding the best route) but it also cuts you the tactical options. I only remember one map and one spot in another where you could be choosing, and then in the one sport it was limited to go around one block that didn't really helped to get around an ambush and didn't offer too much in terms of new angle of attack of enemy positions beyond "now you're not in the way of their main attention".
Back now to the matter of X-COM, the demo did convince me to pre-order it, as it looks interesting enough to want to get this new take on the game. It does seem what I've been waiting for for many time.
The changes of gameplay make it to bring it something different enough to the tactical game that it makes it worth playing along the original X-COM, there's now accesses to rooftops that the soldiers can take without flying suits that allow some more meneouvers. Combat can be very interesting. I'm not sure about the in base works because the demo didn't allow to see that.
The soldier progression is something I don't know how to feel about. I suppose I need to see various level ups to see how it works. It may turn to be better or another way of progression with its own appeal and interest. The thought of it makes me think I'll prefer the old type of progression, but not necessarily a bad thing, just less appealing to me.
The one thing that's been kind of a disappointment is that in neither of the two missions I had to take the soldiers out of the Skyranger, they were out from the start. That was an interesting part of X-COM's combat and required care to perform. From the demo one would think at the start the soldiers are displayed in a safe zone, instead of having to find out if the Skyranger landed in one or not.
There's another point that may be a disappointment, though I expect it not to be. I think the most likely options are A) I missed it as I forgot to look for it during the demo play B) It's just not included in the demo as they wanted to show the battle and skipped it (maybe we'll find the Skyranger unload was also a part of the full game skipped in the demo?): equipping the soldiers and change equipment during the mission, with a pile of unassigned items in the Skyranger or point X. I'm afraid the unloading from Skyranger is not something removed for the demo as the Skyranger didn't seem walkable :(.
Sorry for double post. After 8 minutes with the page still on "waiting to send" tab animation and page stuck with the edit field there and post button grayed, I opened a new tab, loaded the last page and the post hadn't been posted. So I copied, closed tab, paste in new tab and send. Now there were the two posts, duh.
Okay, apparently people still don't seem to get this, so let me write this in caps this time.
XCOM: ENEMY UNKNOWN HAS BEEN IN PRODUCTION FOR FOUR YEARS NOW!
FOUR YEARS! That's at least ONE YEAR before the XCOM FPS has been announced!
The fan outcry had NOTHING to do with why it was created! Jake Solomon and his desire to create this game, plus all the devs at Firaxis who have been working on it for all this time, are pretty much the only reason why it exists in its current form (not counting, of course, the Gollops being the inspiration from which it all originated).
In short STOP DELUDING YOURSELVES ABOUT HOW THE FANS MANAGE TO MAGICALLY MAKE A GAME APPEAR OUT OF THIN AIR WITH THEIR BITCHING.
Or keep on deluding yourselves regardless, if you want. It's fun to watch just how completely out of touch with reality this place is becoming.
Yeah they shouldn't have attached the name to the project. Why can't they just transform it into a game based on the Dark Skies tv series.... practically what they were going for anyway.
Then again, is making the xcom-remake into a fps really a bold move in any way? If you look back the last couple of years and look at the ammount of fps-games vs isometric squad-based shooter games I think you would agree that making an xcom-remake that actually is true to the original is a much more bold move.
Well it makes sense that any alien race willing to straight-out attack us would have zero sense of shame.
Wow, guess that makes the aliens Jean-Stealers.
Wow, guess that makes the aliens Jean-Stealers.
Oh... oh that is terrible.
I don't know much about the old Syndicate, but, to be fair, the complaints I remember most old school fans having about Fallout 3 weren't exactly First Person based... Most of that crowd accepted New Vegas pretty well (while the mainstream had the opposite reaction to both).
The people who whined that Fallout 3 didn't have the same writing quality, world cohesiveness and internal consistency of its predecessors weren't wrong. They just forgot that most of the world doesn't care about that stuff.
I'm willing to bet Syndicate failed because it was a boring shooter, not because it deviated from the original. I'd guess the Xcom first person shooter was canned for similar reasons: Aesthetics aside, it seemed like a boring shooter.