2K Games Denies Rumors of Big XCOM Changes

2K Games Denies Rumors of Big XCOM Changes

image

One of 2K Marin's studio heads has quit, but 2K says not to worry about it.

The news that Martin Slater had resigned as head of the Australian branch of Bioshock 2 developer 2K Marin, stirred up rumors that the studio's next project, the sci-fi shooter XCOM, had undergone some significant in the last year. But now, 2K Games has moved to deny these rumors, saying that it's business as usual.

In a statement, 2K confirmed that Slater no longer worked for 2K Marin. However, it said that while it wasn't unheard for development teams to change and evolve over time, there was no truth to the suggestion that 2K Marin had changed the way it was working on XCOM. 2K said that the game was a joint production between the US and Australian branches of 2K Marin, overseen by creative director Jonathan Pelling, and that Slater's departure hadn't changed that.

Unfortunately, there's likely to have been quite a few people - mainly old time X-Com fans - who had been hoping the rumors were true, as the updated game is pretty significant departure from the original. Even for people new to XCOM, the trailer from last year's E3 was hardly awe-inspiring, and while the game is almost certainly more impressive now than it was then, it's really got its work cut out for it.

Source: Joystiq

Permalink

I still don't get why they're using the name XCOM.

The name means nothing to a lot of people (myself included), and those it does mean something to are expecting something entirely different.

It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

Chances are they named it that because it's gonna be a reboot of the series.

Even ignoring the obvious name-exploitation, I'm still not convinced that the new X-COM game will stand on its own merits.

And of course, since these sorts of titles are "Design-by-committee" changes in upper management won't really effect anything barring personal insanity leading to mismanagement ("Everyone stop doing what you're doing and attend a meeting where we discuss the texture of clams! Be ready in 10 minutes! GO!")

Quiet Stranger:

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

Chances are they named it that because it's gonna be a reboot of the series.

Like the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages?

I've said it before. Find me a single reboot that's a patch on the original.

My interest in this game is so directly inverse from my actual interest in XCOM that I think I may have finally found a situation where you literally take my feelings of one thing, multiple them by -1, and have the value for my feelings of the other thing perfectly.

Good, it is not changing. The game as I heard about it already sounded great, and I thought that the E3 trailer made the game look great as well. I was really looking forward to it in the original, planned state. Here's hoping it is good!

The_root_of_all_evil:

Quiet Stranger:

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

Chances are they named it that because it's gonna be a reboot of the series.

Like the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages?

I've said it before. Find me a single reboot that's a patch on the original.

You can't find a reboot that's just a patch on the original. The definition of a reboot is to disregard previous storylines in the continuity. So your example of the rebooted MI is essentially by definition a reboot. You're thinking of remakes.

AzrealMaximillion:
So your example of the rebooted MI is essentially by definition a reboot.

Huh?

The_root_of_all_evil:

Quiet Stranger:

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

Chances are they named it that because it's gonna be a reboot of the series.

Like the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages?

I've said it before. Find me a single reboot that's a patch on the original.

The Dark Knight trilogy?

At any rate I'm with him, why the fuck are they doing this?
The only reason I can think of is they either hate the game with a passion or they feel the same about its fans.

Reboots are just cashing in on nostalgia. I'd rather have a new game that takes does justice to original concepts. It's not like UFO was branded as a reboot of Rebelstar or Laser Squad.

moretimethansense:

The Dark Knight trilogy?

Loathe and detest Miller.

The_root_of_all_evil:

moretimethansense:

The Dark Knight trilogy?

Loathe and detest Miller.

Was talking about the Nolan films actually.

Well if it's not changing and it's still another generic FPS. Then i'm not changing my opinion either!

And that sums up my attitude to the new supposed "max payne" game as well!

The_root_of_all_evil:

Quiet Stranger:

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

Chances are they named it that because it's gonna be a reboot of the series.

Like the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages?

I've said it before. Find me a single reboot that's a patch on the original.

Not a game, but I do like the new Battlestar Galactica series more than the old one. :)

But as far as XCOM goes, it's not an X-Com game by any means. It's a sad cash grab.

moretimethansense:

The_root_of_all_evil:

moretimethansense:

The Dark Knight trilogy?

Loathe and detest Miller.

Was talking about the Nolan films actually.

Begins was awful - ADHD directing, Dark Knight - I'm waiting for the fury to die down before I watch it.

They've just lost the idea of Batman, and turned him into ANOTHER everyman-fighting-for-his-way-in-an-unfair-world. Bruce Wayne is just a secret identity for Batman.

Woodsey:
I still don't get why they're using the name XCOM.

The name means nothing to a lot of people (myself included), and those it does mean something to are expecting something entirely different.

yup that's how i feel too; it's like a hybrid semi-version of game, since there's no construction/management of your base, you don't get to recruit as many troopers as you want, or choose what to research, or even choose where to go.

if you want a good fix check out UFO: Alien Invasion its a freegame very similar to XCOM and it has some good stuff on it's own.

The_root_of_all_evil:

moretimethansense:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Loathe and detest Miller.

Was talking about the Nolan films actually.

Begins was awful - ADHD directing, Dark Knight - I'm waiting for the fury to die down before I watch it.

They've just lost the idea of Batman, and turned him into ANOTHER everyman-fighting-for-his-way-in-an-unfair-world. Bruce Wayne is just a secret identity for Batman.

Well I'll agree that Brucie doesn't get the kind of love that he should and that begins wasn't amazing, Dark knight is much better, if only because of Heath Ledger, even if you hate the rest of the film it's hhard to dislike Ledgers Joker.

Changing from isometric to first-person perspective isn't necessarily a disaster; I liked Fallout 3, for instance, and despite the new engine's bugginess that re-do gained critical and commercial acclaim. It's not even that a change from turn-based to real-time is necessarily bad. The problem I see with XCOM is that it's both of the above and an entirely new setting. There is literally no continuity between the X-Com titles of old and the "reboot" other than the title.

The Battlestar Galactica reboot was a dramatic change from its progenetor, but at least it still kept elements of the setting (twelve colonies, rag-tag fugitive fleet, seeking Earth, etc) while changing the presentation (names, settings, the origin of the Cylons, etc) to better suit modern tastes.

XCOM, though, is as drastic a change as if they'd taken Galactica and set its reboot in 1940's Palestine.

Maybe this'll be a good game, but unless there's a bunch of stuff we haven't seen with a lot more ties to the originals it's not really an X-Com title. It's a pity that's not changing.

-- Steve

X-com never existed in my eyes. There was Ufo: Enemy Unknown and that was it. And this console-y shooter isn't even remotely connected to that.

It already went through big changes...from a RTS/RPG to an action shooter....kinda like ME2...

FO3 is horrabily balanced for anything that goes beyond the scope of the main 8-12 hour quest.

The_root_of_all_evil:

AzrealMaximillion:
So your example of the rebooted MI is essentially by definition a reboot.

Huh?

Go back and read my post. Hell, I'll just explain it to you. :P

Like the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages?

That essentially is a reboot...
Reboots by definition ignore previous storylines. So featuring nothing but the eploding messages is essentially a reboot. You seem to want them to bring back more from the previous MI movies. That would make it a remake, not a reboot.

I've said it before. Find me a single reboot that's a patch on the original.

Well there's the entire Legend of Zelda series technically.

AzrealMaximillion:
Go back and read my post.

Read it twice. Read the next part.

So my example of something was of that thing? Reboots have to contain a fragment of the original to justify the "re-" part of the title.

Sorry, just not getting what you're trying to say. If you're saying that a remake takes chunks of the original and a reboot ignores the original then I'd have to disagree. Look at Highlander the Film series versus Highlander the cartoon. It's not a remake because it requires the basis of the original and not a reboot as it references the original?

I say again, huh?

The_root_of_all_evil:

AzrealMaximillion:
Go back and read my post.

Read it twice. Read the next part.

So my example of something was of that thing? Reboots have to contain a fragment of the original to justify the "re-" part of the title.

Sorry, just not getting what you're trying to say. If you're saying that a remake takes chunks of the original and a reboot ignores the original then I'd have to disagree. Look at Highlander the Film series versus Highlander the cartoon. It's not a remake because it requires the basis of the original and not a reboot as it references the original?

I say again, huh?

Lemme use your Highlander example to explain this. That is a spin-off. It bases it's story off of a pre made world with previous events being accounted for.

A remake enhances the original. Pokemon Red/Blue to Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen is a prime example. Newer features, exact same story.

A reboot ignores the original's story but holds the same premise. 007 Casino Royale, Doom 3 and Batman Begins are all examples of reboots.

So again when you ask about, in your words :

the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages

, realize that you're asking about something that isn't supposed to have features from it's old series.

Woodsey:
I still don't get why they're using the name XCOM.

The name means nothing to a lot of people (myself included), and those it does mean something to are expecting something entirely different.

A very astute statement. And I say this as an old XCOM fan. I can only presume this title was born out of a desire to mine the old franchise bin and someone decided, after it had already metamorphosed or been distilled into what it now was to stick by their guns and persist in calling it XCOM.

AzrealMaximillion:

So again when you ask about, in your words :

the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages

, realize that you're asking about something that isn't supposed to have features from it's old series.

So, how come they have that, The Avengers has exactly the same characters, The Green Hornet etc.

See if it's got some features, go with some features. If it's got no features, go with NO features.

Or better yet...rename it something else. Don't keep raping ideas...even Shakespear knew to alter the titles. Spin-off,remake or reboot: if you dump the core premise - you've lost the name.

The_root_of_all_evil:

AzrealMaximillion:

So again when you ask about, in your words :

the rebooted Mission Impossible to feature nothing from the old series apart from the exploding messages

, realize that you're asking about something that isn't supposed to have features from it's old series.

So, how come they have that, The Avengers has exactly the same characters, The Green Hornet etc.

See if it's got some features, go with some features. If it's got no features, go with NO features.

Or better yet...rename it something else. Don't keep raping ideas...even Shakespear knew to alter the titles. Spin-off,remake or reboot: if you dump the core premise - you've lost the name.

You still don't get it. The Avengers movie is the first in that franchise in the film medium. The Green Hornet falls under the same category. That makes them not apply to this remake/spin-off/reboot debate we are having.

You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between a spin-off, reboot, and remake.

AzrealMaximillion:
You still don't get it.

It doesn't make sense, that's why.

The Avengers movie is the first in that franchise in the film medium. The Green Hornet falls under the same category. That makes them not apply to this remake/spin-off/reboot debate we are having.

But they're re-makes from the original media. Which have had media transitions before without losing their basic essence.

You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between a spin-off, reboot, and remake.

Because they're never clearly differentiated. And it's still really rare that one of either supplants the original. Especially when it directly counters the original, as in the prequels.

For instance: House MD to Sherlock Holmes: Which one of those is that? And if it's none, why does that relationship have more in common than XCOM to X-Com?

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

I don't know about that. The X-Com series isn't terribly popular and well-known...I highly doubt they're using the name for recognition purposes.

Speaking of which, is X-Com on GOG yet?

Onyx Oblivion:

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

I don't know about that. The X-Com series isn't terribly popular and well-known...I highly doubt they're using the name for recognition purposes.

Speaking of which, is X-Com on GOG yet?

Nope, the UFO spinoff is though. Steam still has the package for dirt cheap though, and this handsome chap thinks you should buy them.

The_root_of_all_evil:

AzrealMaximillion:
You still don't get it.

It doesn't make sense, that's why.

The Avengers movie is the first in that franchise in the film medium. The Green Hornet falls under the same category. That makes them not apply to this remake/spin-off/reboot debate we are having.

But they're re-makes from the original media. Which have had media transitions before without losing their basic essence.

You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between a spin-off, reboot, and remake.

Because they're never clearly differentiated. And it's still really rare that one of either supplants the original. Especially when it directly counters the original, as in the prequels.

For instance: House MD to Sherlock Holmes: Which one of those is that? And if it's none, why does that relationship have more in common than XCOM to X-Com?

House MD to Sherlock Holmes doesn't fall into this argument either. Yes there are references but really House MD isn't a spin-offf due to there not being any previous connections to any Sherlock Holmes events in the House MD show. It's not a reboot or remake for the exact same reason. The mannerisms and connections to other characters doesn't make it a spin-off,remake or reboot. Those are inspirations.

Now with X-COM to XCOM. XCOM is a reboot. It's about aliens coming to invade Earth and an FBI agent sent to find and exterminate them. But it's not a continuation of the X-COM story and not even a continuation of the X-COM spinoff stories. Its it's own story done in a completely diferrent way. The Aliens look different, the story is set in the 1950s, and the X-COM Unit isn't an already established anti-alien defense force it was in the original X-COM series.

The original series took place in 1998 and as I said earlier has the X-COM unit in place by the time you start playing it.

Two completely different stories, same premise. That's a reboot.

The original X-COM was based off two things. The book Alien Liason and the TV series UFO.
Is X-COM veiwed as being a spinoff, reboot, or remake or those? No.

The difference between a reboot, a remake and a spin-off is not by any means hard to define.
Hell, the tell you that when they introduced the title.

Reboot=Discards previous continuity to start series anew with fresh ideas.
Examle: X-COM>XCOM, Burton Batman> Nolan Batman
Remake=A piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium
Chrono Trigger SNES version> Chrono Trigger DS, John Wayne True Grit> Jeff Bridges True Grit
Spin-off=Changes veiwpoint from a pre-conceived story's character to another or shows a different time in the protagonists life as a whole story.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer>Angel, Disney Hercules> Young Hercules TV show

I don't know how much more easy the differences are to spot.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Onyx Oblivion:

The_root_of_all_evil:
It's not X-Com. Never was. They're just using the licence for recogition purposes to sell their tawdry little product that couldn't sell on its own merits.

I don't know about that. The X-Com series isn't terribly popular and well-known...I highly doubt they're using the name for recognition purposes.

Speaking of which, is X-Com on GOG yet?

Nope, the UFO spinoff is though. Steam still has the package for dirt cheap though, and this handsome chap thinks you should buy them.

$15. Not bad. I've got a few on PS1 RPGs to get for my PS3/PSP first. But once that's over and done...Well...I think it's time for some REAL turn-based strategy. None of this grind heavy JRPG stuff. Which is good, but outside of the Fire Emblem series, not particularly strategic.

AzrealMaximillion:

The original X-COM was based off two things. The book Alien Liason and the TV series UFO.

I rather believe it was heavily influenced by Rebelstar Raiders and Laser Squad as well.

Is X-COM veiwed as being a spinoff, reboot, or remake or those? No.

Uh...of Rebel/Laser? Yes.

Reboot=Discards previous continuity to start series anew with fresh ideas.
Examle: X-COM>XCOM, Burton Batman> Nolan Batman

Keeping the basic mythology, names, setup? Sounds more like a remake.

Remake=A piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium
Chrono Trigger SNES version> Chrono Trigger DS, John Wayne True Grit> Jeff Bridges True Grit

Where House MD has been stated to be a remake of Sherlock Holmes, or at least heavily influenced by him.

Spin-off=Changes veiwpoint from a pre-conceived story's character to another or shows a different time in the protagonists life as a whole story.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer>Angel, Disney Hercules> Young Hercules TV show

That one makes more sense. They've been doing that since Happy Days.

I don't know how much more easy the differences are to spot.

Because the definitions are malleable. XCOM reboot denies all of X-Com. Batman reboots (all 6/7 of them) keep the same premise, stock characters, names etc. Highlander reboots are spinoffs. The Avengers reboot is actually a remake.

What it seems to mean is that we're attaching this known name to this unknown (sludgepile) script/project and running with it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here