Major Changes Rumored for XCom Shooter

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

scotth266:

At any rate, these arguments are just becoming more circular. I still don't think anyone will satisfy my annoyance with the XCOM fanbase demanding that this game not sully their franchise, and the game's downward spiral that seems to be taking place because of that. It looked great, and thanks to their close-mindedness it looks like it's been consigned to development hell.

And i doubt that you can satisfy XCOM fans who think you're trying to justify a mediocre "Betrayal!" - Spoony 2010 - of a game that could have easily and safely been a new IP but instead tried to coast on the XCOM label and failed miserably. It didn't look good at all and it strayed way too far from the series. So what if it's been consigned to developer hell. You could go to the shooter section of steam, pick a random game, and probably get the same or better experience.

scotth266:

Product Placement:

Before it became an acceptable form? First person RPGs have been around for 20+ years.

That doesn't really address my point - that there were likely a bunch of failures before there were successes, and that failures do not mean that something can't succeed.

You asked how many shooter style RPG games (which apparently are called RPS (Role play shooters)) failed before they became an accepted form. I'm assuming that you mean that fans of yore fought against these types of games being made in the past. I'm saying that's incorrect because game making was still in its infancy back then. Most of these games were made in garages, with a shoestring budget. The gaming industry was non existent. The question you asked simply wasn't applicable with today's situation.

I've also witnessed Fallout 3 brought up time and again as an counterpoint against those that don't like this Xcom game. "Oh, fanboys whined about Fallout 3 too". "If we'd listen to the fanboys, there wouldn't have been Fallout 3". "Everyone shut up as soon as they saw how good Fallout 3 was".

I payed close attention to the development of Fallout 3. I was psyched about that game. All of my friends that played the old games were psyched. The forums I attended were psyched. I heard surprisingly little negative feedback from people discussing Fallout 3 and if there were any, it wasn't nowhere near as prominent as the negative feedback the 60's Xcom game's been getting.

And really, how could we've complained? You could tell from the first sneak peaks, the news updates, the concept arts, the teaser trailers and pretty much every single info released about the game that they were staying true to the franchise. The concept and setting was the same, so was the atmosphere and art style. They did a great job integrating the turned based Pip-boy targeting system, from the older games, into the new one. They even got the bloomin' voice actor that narrated the older games to be the narrator in this one.

scotth266:
New IPs are a risk, and having a licensed name gives you a lot of selling power - even if people are skeptical about it. Not to mention that these devs by that point had already put a lot of effort into making an XCOM game - if they had just renamed it, when it came out people would have just said "but it's just XCOM".

Ooooh, I must admit that I really don't think that many people would have made the connection, if they'd never mention that this was based on Xcom.

Making a new IP always carries an inherent risk but you said it yourself that the game looked good. It's also made by the creators of Bioshock; which was a brand new IP that 2K took risk with and turned out to be a huge success. If they'd market this as a new IP and had simply put "From the makers of Bioshock" into a single ad, that would have been more than enough to turn few heads.

Besides I'm sure after aaaall that publicity, it's gotten to the point where just about everyone knows whether or not they're going to pick up that game, regardless what they'll do with it now.

When I look at the two Xcom titles being developed today, I can look straight at Xcom - Enemy unknown and say "Now there's an Xcom game". I can also guaranty that I will buy it. I'm sorry but the other one just doesn't look like an Xcom game.

Ultratwinkie:

psicat:
Well hell! I was actually looking forward to the XCom FPS. Now not only do they push forward the damn strategy one first, they change the only one that looked unique.

Unique? It was a bioshock rip off.

Research by cameras?

Models seemingly ripped from Bioshock?

Cheap 50s aesthetic?

BASIC SHAPES AS YOUR MAIN ENEMY?

The FPS was shit, and generic. They butchered Bioshock 2, and they had the audacity to try to slap XCOM onto Bioshock 2.5.

The only unique one was the strategy game in the sea of generic COD shooters with faux strategy.

I had the same exact feelings off all the media I saw for the FPS. Visually, the game looked like a fan-made BioShock mod and I wasn't impressed. If nothing else, I am genuinely happy that 2K or however decided to move forward with XCOM: Enemy Unknown. We really need more methodical strategy titles with the AAA polish, especially in the console space.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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
Register for a free account here