XCom Shooter is Alive and Kicking

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

trty00:

Namehere:

trty00:

As I already said, this new game does not negate the existence of previous titles, if this new iteration makes them that enraged, then they can completely ignore it and go play the previous titles.

Look, I'm trying my best not to sound like some artsy-fartsy dope, but all I can say is that video games are an artistic medium and they need to be given room to grow. Fan service is nice, but you can't really progress if that's all you want to focus on. If you want to be like Nintendo and just feed nostalgia, go right ahead, but don't expect me to consider your games truly interesting by any stretch.

BULLSHIT! Sorry, sorry, something stuck in my throat there...

Maybe when you design video games they're an 'artistic medium'. But there is a fundamental difference between a picture and a picture that is 'art'. These differences are well recognized by professionals called 'commercial artists' whose techniques are vastly different from their 'artsy' counter parts, even though their tools are similar.

X-Com was a pioneering video game series when it was first released, accordingly we like to think of it as art for some reason. Let us not forget that for pioneering that field it made a fair sum of money. And now its back and trying to make more. It created something we call: 'a market.' This is not a Picasso or a Rembrandt, this is a product.

If you wish to make artsy things, go wild. But this ain't one of them. And much as fans of Star Trek lamented every new step taken by Rick Berman, which time and sanity have revealed to have been poor steps to say the least, it is fair that someone should fear the safety of their beloved franchise when it branches off in some weird direction. For something more modern, take Star Gate. The original series was great to its fans. Atlantis went kind of down hill for some reason and then there was Universe, which lasted for all of half a season. There is now no more Star Gate. The money that might have been invested in movies for Atlantis and another one for the original series, was dumped into a failed expansion into the franchise, and now its all but mortally wounded. There are no future releases of any sort planed. End of story, quite literally.

In this instance I don't see X-Com taking a major risk. The fan base their seeking out is so removed from the current one any failures of the shooter to deliver won't be seen as a failure to deliver on the core game, so it shouldn't hurt the core game's development too badly. If it does work out great, another FPS.

To summarize; Art is art, its out there. But commercial art comes with commercial risk. And people fascinated by whatever aspect of X-Com have valid concerns, even if they are somewhat overstated most likely.

Yeah... no. Just because something is part of a brand or is a "commercial product" doesn't mean it can't try something new. As far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that I despise his films, Michael Bay has just as much artisitc clout as Stanley fucking Kubrick. Simple as.

This is clearly a spin-off title, and the developers, as autonomous human beings, have the right to take X-Com in whatever god-damn direction they want, backlash be damned.

Am I... a goat? There's a foul odor of old river water and stale troll, but I shall try this one more time.

The video game industry. The movie industry. The literary... industry. You will notice these are 'industrial' as in, form pressed, manufactured and mass produced quickly and economically competitively... at least in theory. This game is not being made by Notch. That could arguably be called art. Arguably. A game produced by a major publisher isn't art unless they've gone out of their way to make it art. Like the way Tolkien got published. The guys who published him were running a business. They had a reputation to maintain, but started making money off of less 'reputable' books. To keep their mystique they figured they'd publish some book by a medieval historian, which Tolkien was, not realizing it was more of that shlock that was giving them a bad name. Tolkien was art. Tolkien didn't meet deadlines, didn't rush his work, he finished it one day and handed it over and people published it without looking. That was also a brilliant stroke of luck for all involved. X-Com is past that. It's a commercial issue, running on deadlines, answering to publishers not developers. Developers answer to their publishers and funding sources, not their whims. That's the difference between 'commercial art' and 'art.' Most people who make 'art' don't get steady pay and don't have an office or any support mechanism financially speaking to answer to that directly applies to their art. Its where you get the rumors of so-called 'starving artists.' Something you aren't when you get a paid regularly for drawing Dante cells all day long. Producing a good image of Date for the DMC series as cell animation or however they do it now, is the definition of Commercial Art, and it's quite different from 'art'.

To compare Michael Bay to any form of art, to compare almost any Hollywood production to art is distasteful. One observes certain elements of film to find art, but Hollywood's at the bottom of that list. Under, believe it or not, yes wacky kung fu and samurai films and Bollywood. Cleopatra was shaping up to be serious art, it cost more then the events it aimed to chronicle and was meant to be a trilogy. It bankrupted the studio, so it was slashed down to a single long move, ala Lawrence of Arabia length, and released with all the fanfare imaginable. Saved the studio. Wasn't the 'art' the director and the original producer were aiming for, but it made enough money to keep the studio alive. That's business, and game production studios are no different then movie production studios in Hollywood, that's why the bottom line is cost value assessment, not quality. That's why micro transactions and on disk DLC, not quality 'expansions' and reasonable prices.

You know what a real artist does when his or her project isn't going to vision? They scrap it and start again. It's not entirely about the money, there's something else driving an artist, something inside. An artist can spend his or her day painting soup can labels for a corporation and go home attempting to paint the perfect mare in a field landscape. But the art is in that painting at home, not the soup can. That's just how he or she earns his or her money, as sure as if they happened to paint houses all day and murals all night.

Not once did I say that they didn't have the right to take the IP in any direction they wanted. I said that the fans have just as much right to complain and worry over it. If you're entitled to defend them blindly, surely the fans are entitled to panic as blindly at their actions? I don't complain or endorse the actions of those developing this new game, I contest your assertion that everyone else has to just shut up about it because you'd like them to. It would also be nice if you'd learn the difference between commercial art and art.

I sincerely hope I haven't fed the troll.

Namehere:

trty00:

Namehere:

BULLSHIT! Sorry, sorry, something stuck in my throat there...

Maybe when you design video games they're an 'artistic medium'. But there is a fundamental difference between a picture and a picture that is 'art'. These differences are well recognized by professionals called 'commercial artists' whose techniques are vastly different from their 'artsy' counter parts, even though their tools are similar.

X-Com was a pioneering video game series when it was first released, accordingly we like to think of it as art for some reason. Let us not forget that for pioneering that field it made a fair sum of money. And now its back and trying to make more. It created something we call: 'a market.' This is not a Picasso or a Rembrandt, this is a product.

If you wish to make artsy things, go wild. But this ain't one of them. And much as fans of Star Trek lamented every new step taken by Rick Berman, which time and sanity have revealed to have been poor steps to say the least, it is fair that someone should fear the safety of their beloved franchise when it branches off in some weird direction. For something more modern, take Star Gate. The original series was great to its fans. Atlantis went kind of down hill for some reason and then there was Universe, which lasted for all of half a season. There is now no more Star Gate. The money that might have been invested in movies for Atlantis and another one for the original series, was dumped into a failed expansion into the franchise, and now its all but mortally wounded. There are no future releases of any sort planed. End of story, quite literally.

In this instance I don't see X-Com taking a major risk. The fan base their seeking out is so removed from the current one any failures of the shooter to deliver won't be seen as a failure to deliver on the core game, so it shouldn't hurt the core game's development too badly. If it does work out great, another FPS.

To summarize; Art is art, its out there. But commercial art comes with commercial risk. And people fascinated by whatever aspect of X-Com have valid concerns, even if they are somewhat overstated most likely.

Yeah... no. Just because something is part of a brand or is a "commercial product" doesn't mean it can't try something new. As far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that I despise his films, Michael Bay has just as much artisitc clout as Stanley fucking Kubrick. Simple as.

This is clearly a spin-off title, and the developers, as autonomous human beings, have the right to take X-Com in whatever god-damn direction they want, backlash be damned.

Am I... a goat? There's a foul odor of old river water and stale troll, but I shall try this one more time.

The video game industry. The movie industry. The literary... industry. You will notice these are 'industrial' as in, form pressed, manufactured and mass produced quickly and economically competitively... at least in theory. This game is not being made by Notch. That could arguably be called art. Arguably. A game produced by a major publisher isn't art unless they've gone out of their way to make it art. Like the way Tolkien got published. The guys who published him were running a business. They had a reputation to maintain, but started making money off of less 'reputable' books. To keep their mystique they figured they'd publish some book by a medieval historian, which Tolkien was, not realizing it was more of that shlock that was giving them a bad name. Tolkien was art. Tolkien didn't meet deadlines, didn't rush his work, he finished it one day and handed it over and people published it without looking. That was also a brilliant stroke of luck for all involved. X-Com is past that. It's a commercial issue, running on deadlines, answering to publishers not developers. Developers answer to their publishers and funding sources, not their whims. That's the difference between 'commercial art' and 'art.' Most people who make 'art' don't get steady pay and don't have an office or any support mechanism financially speaking to answer to that directly applies to their art. Its where you get the rumors of so-called 'starving artists.' Something you aren't when you get a paid regularly for drawing Dante cells all day long. Producing a good image of Date for the DMC series as cell animation or however they do it now, is the definition of Commercial Art, and it's quite different from 'art'.

To compare Michael Bay to any form of art, to compare almost any Hollywood production to art is distasteful. One observes certain elements of film to find art, but Hollywood's at the bottom of that list. Under, believe it or not, yes wacky kung fu and samurai films and Bollywood. Cleopatra was shaping up to be serious art, it cost more then the events it aimed to chronicle and was meant to be a trilogy. It bankrupted the studio, so it was slashed down to a single long move, ala Lawrence of Arabia length, and released with all the fanfare imaginable. Saved the studio. Wasn't the 'art' the director and the original producer were aiming for, but it made enough money to keep the studio alive. That's business, and game production studios are no different then movie production studios in Hollywood, that's why the bottom line is cost value assessment, not quality. That's why micro transactions and on disk DLC, not quality 'expansions' and reasonable prices.

You know what a real artist does when his or her project isn't going to vision? They scrap it and start again. It's not entirely about the money, there's something else driving an artist, something inside. An artist can spend his or her day painting soup can labels for a corporation and go home attempting to paint the perfect mare in a field landscape. But the art is in that painting at home, not the soup can. That's just how he or she earns his or her money, as sure as if they happened to paint houses all day and murals all night.

Not once did I say that they didn't have the right to take the IP in any direction they wanted. I said that the fans have just as much right to complain and worry over it. If you're entitled to defend them blindly, surely the fans are entitled to panic as blindly at their actions? I don't complain or endorse the actions of those developing this new game, I contest your assertion that everyone else has to just shut up about it because you'd like them to. It would also be nice if you'd learn the difference between commercial art and art.

I sincerely hope I haven't fed the troll.

Kind of rude as fuck, but alright, I'll take it.

I'm well aware what you mean when you call something "commercial art," but that doesn't instantly not make a pop-star or a filmmaker that's not an auteur not an artist. You can't simply say one thing is art, and another isn't. Even if it's a Hollywood production, it's still art (and "Hollywood Production" is WAAAAAAY too fucking general by the way).

Anyway, what I'm saying is that getting mad at something that only has to affect you if you let it (which is the case here) strikes me as rather inane.

trty00:

Namehere:

trty00:

Yeah... no. Just because something is part of a brand or is a "commercial product" doesn't mean it can't try something new. As far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that I despise his films, Michael Bay has just as much artisitc clout as Stanley fucking Kubrick. Simple as.

This is clearly a spin-off title, and the developers, as autonomous human beings, have the right to take X-Com in whatever god-damn direction they want, backlash be damned.

Am I... a goat? There's a foul odor of old river water and stale troll, but I shall try this one more time.

The video game industry. The movie industry. The literary... industry. You will notice these are 'industrial' as in, form pressed, manufactured and mass produced quickly and economically competitively... at least in theory. This game is not being made by Notch. That could arguably be called art. Arguably. A game produced by a major publisher isn't art unless they've gone out of their way to make it art. Like the way Tolkien got published. The guys who published him were running a business. They had a reputation to maintain, but started making money off of less 'reputable' books. To keep their mystique they figured they'd publish some book by a medieval historian, which Tolkien was, not realizing it was more of that shlock that was giving them a bad name. Tolkien was art. Tolkien didn't meet deadlines, didn't rush his work, he finished it one day and handed it over and people published it without looking. That was also a brilliant stroke of luck for all involved. X-Com is past that. It's a commercial issue, running on deadlines, answering to publishers not developers. Developers answer to their publishers and funding sources, not their whims. That's the difference between 'commercial art' and 'art.' Most people who make 'art' don't get steady pay and don't have an office or any support mechanism financially speaking to answer to that directly applies to their art. Its where you get the rumors of so-called 'starving artists.' Something you aren't when you get a paid regularly for drawing Dante cells all day long. Producing a good image of Date for the DMC series as cell animation or however they do it now, is the definition of Commercial Art, and it's quite different from 'art'.

To compare Michael Bay to any form of art, to compare almost any Hollywood production to art is distasteful. One observes certain elements of film to find art, but Hollywood's at the bottom of that list. Under, believe it or not, yes wacky kung fu and samurai films and Bollywood. Cleopatra was shaping up to be serious art, it cost more then the events it aimed to chronicle and was meant to be a trilogy. It bankrupted the studio, so it was slashed down to a single long move, ala Lawrence of Arabia length, and released with all the fanfare imaginable. Saved the studio. Wasn't the 'art' the director and the original producer were aiming for, but it made enough money to keep the studio alive. That's business, and game production studios are no different then movie production studios in Hollywood, that's why the bottom line is cost value assessment, not quality. That's why micro transactions and on disk DLC, not quality 'expansions' and reasonable prices.

You know what a real artist does when his or her project isn't going to vision? They scrap it and start again. It's not entirely about the money, there's something else driving an artist, something inside. An artist can spend his or her day painting soup can labels for a corporation and go home attempting to paint the perfect mare in a field landscape. But the art is in that painting at home, not the soup can. That's just how he or she earns his or her money, as sure as if they happened to paint houses all day and murals all night.

Not once did I say that they didn't have the right to take the IP in any direction they wanted. I said that the fans have just as much right to complain and worry over it. If you're entitled to defend them blindly, surely the fans are entitled to panic as blindly at their actions? I don't complain or endorse the actions of those developing this new game, I contest your assertion that everyone else has to just shut up about it because you'd like them to. It would also be nice if you'd learn the difference between commercial art and art.

I sincerely hope I haven't fed the troll.

Kind of rude as fuck, but alright, I'll take it.

I'm well aware what you mean when you call something "commercial art," but that doesn't instantly not make a pop-star or a filmmaker that's not an auteur not an artist. You can't simply say one thing is art, and another isn't. Even if it's a Hollywood production, it's still art (and "Hollywood Production" is WAAAAAAY too fucking general by the way).

Anyway, what I'm saying is that getting mad at something that only has to affect you if you let it (which is the case here) strikes me as rather inane.

The most provocative thing I did was call bullshit on your dismissal of people's concerns, then went on to explain why. You still haven't answered my points that you're statement is bullshit either. You've simply changed it, from games are art, to you don't like all the noise. Mean while your posts are full of swearing, and angst and hyperbole. You aren't talking to me, you're raging at someone or something.

I've made articulate points that you could easily have taken issue with or dealt with. I'd have dealt with your points, but you haven't actually substantiated them with anything. You're opinions stand on ether. There's little for me to discuss or be swayed by there, and apparently you are unwilling or unable to articulate yourself past hyperbole and those opinions. This is not a discussion or debate. You riddle your posts with swearing and then accuse me of rudeness while not confronting any issues. I think we're done here.

Draconalis:

Bindal:

So, just because developers want to try something different with a franchise, they are not allowed to do it because of the fans of the main-installments? If it's a spin-off, who cares if they like the new style or not?
Besides, there are quite a few examples of games, where changing the genre wasn't a bad thing.
Resident Evil: Main-Installments went from the puzzle-solving fixed-angle survival horror to a TPS with "Resident Evil 4" - nobody complained after they played it. And some of the spin-offs (the two Chronicals, the two Outbreaks) also were - for not being exactly the same as previous installments in terms of genre - not shunned away from the fans either.
Or Castlevania:
Went from a linear (or mostly linear) 2D-Platformer to a MetroidVania game and never looked back ever since...
Metroid: The Prime-Trilogy went from 2D-MetroidVania to a more FPS-styled gameplay. Once again, people loved it.

And I treat this game the same: It is a spin-off for me, so let them try something different with it. It can be good and maybe makes people, who were not interested in the franchise now interested in it...

It's not being sold as a spin-off, it's being sold as a prequel.

Also, as to your examples... Revident Evil... from a third person shooter with puzzle elements to... a third person shooter with less puzzle elements, but the camera follows you now.

Metroid, a side scrolling shooter to a first person shooter

And I have never seen seen gameplay footage of the new Castlevania games so I have no idea what they look like... but I'd suspect, like your previous examples, it's more of a nature evolution of what the players already wanted made streamline.

Granted, it's much less of an issue since EU was announced and released, but if a series isn't providing what the fans came to the series for, then it's not going to do well, and in the case of this particular game... It has nothing to do with X-com gameplay or Lore, as many people have said before, they should have just called it something else.

1 - The old Resident Evil were NEVER "Third Person Shooters" or "Top Down Shooters", they were legit "Survival Horror" games (with the emphasis on the survival-part with the horror just waving by). You didn't even had the ammo to afford mowing down every single enemy you met (outside the two Outbreak Games and with some luck on your part, in Zero). Only 4 made it an actual TPS. And that is nothing to say about Gun Survivor (the first and second. 3 was Dino Crisis and 4 was more of a RE4-Prototype) or the two Chronicals.
2 - Just going from "side scroller" to "First Person" was a HUGE risk they took. Espeically after they skipped an entire console-generation and being a Nintendo-Exclusive. It still paid of.
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!

All three cases, the developers released a game in a franchise with a well-known gameplay-style and took a huge risk while doing so by CHANGING THE GENRE COMPLETELY. And with one exceptions (Gun Survivor 1 and 2), it paid off - people were at first against the idea (just as now) but once it was out, people loved it.
So, how about we stop saying anything about the game until it it out and until then, give it the benefit of being a risk taken?

Bindal:

Draconalis:

Bindal:

So, just because developers want to try something different with a franchise, they are not allowed to do it because of the fans of the main-installments? If it's a spin-off, who cares if they like the new style or not?
Besides, there are quite a few examples of games, where changing the genre wasn't a bad thing.
Resident Evil: Main-Installments went from the puzzle-solving fixed-angle survival horror to a TPS with "Resident Evil 4" - nobody complained after they played it. And some of the spin-offs (the two Chronicals, the two Outbreaks) also were - for not being exactly the same as previous installments in terms of genre - not shunned away from the fans either.
Or Castlevania:
Went from a linear (or mostly linear) 2D-Platformer to a MetroidVania game and never looked back ever since...
Metroid: The Prime-Trilogy went from 2D-MetroidVania to a more FPS-styled gameplay. Once again, people loved it.

And I treat this game the same: It is a spin-off for me, so let them try something different with it. It can be good and maybe makes people, who were not interested in the franchise now interested in it...

It's not being sold as a spin-off, it's being sold as a prequel.

Also, as to your examples... Revident Evil... from a third person shooter with puzzle elements to... a third person shooter with less puzzle elements, but the camera follows you now.

Metroid, a side scrolling shooter to a first person shooter

And I have never seen seen gameplay footage of the new Castlevania games so I have no idea what they look like... but I'd suspect, like your previous examples, it's more of a nature evolution of what the players already wanted made streamline.

Granted, it's much less of an issue since EU was announced and released, but if a series isn't providing what the fans came to the series for, then it's not going to do well, and in the case of this particular game... It has nothing to do with X-com gameplay or Lore, as many people have said before, they should have just called it something else.

1 - The old Resident Evil were NEVER "Third Person Shooters" or "Top Down Shooters", they were legit "Survival Horror" games (with the emphasis on the survival-part with the horror just waving by). You didn't even had the ammo to afford mowing down every single enemy you met (outside the two Outbreak Games and with some luck on your part, in Zero). Only 4 made it an actual TPS. And that is nothing to say about Gun Survivor (the first and second. 3 was Dino Crisis and 4 was more of a RE4-Prototype) or the two Chronicals.
2 - Just going from "side scroller" to "First Person" was a HUGE risk they took. Espeically after they skipped an entire console-generation and being a Nintendo-Exclusive. It still paid of.
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!

All three cases, the developers released a game in a franchise with a well-known gameplay-style and took a huge risk while doing so by CHANGING THE GENRE COMPLETELY. And with one exceptions (Gun Survivor 1 and 2), it paid off - people were at first against the idea (just as now) but once it was out, people loved it.
So, how about we stop saying anything about the game until it it out and until then, give it the benefit of being a risk taken?

Agree with your RE point, so no more to be said there, however;

Metroid, yeah it was a big risk, but this is Nintendo, they generally are very careful with their properties, and although this is going to sound a bit fanboi-ish, don't put out /bad/ games, recently they've got stuck in a creative rut, while there was backlash, some of us and maybe subconsciousness we knew that it would work out,(they likely would've scrapped it had it not lived up to their standards) but it also kept the same elements of a Metroid game, it was from a different perspective, but it felt like an organic progression rather than a sudden jump to a different genre.

Castlevania was also a completely organic progression, like Mario 64 was a progression from the 2D Marios. It was still the same genre but the perspective had changed, and we got flashier graphics, but it still felt like it was part of the series, just jacked up to a new generation/console, in much the same way XCOM:EU feels like the new gen version of the old games. Granted EU has some issues, but that's not what we're on about.

An XCOM shooter on the other hand, unless they have strategic elements in there, lots of them, this is going to feel like a complete departure from the rest of the series, and feels rather...pointless, the XCOM universe isn't particularly interesting, and is a gameplay game, always has been. I mean why not make a new property, if it's only going to be tangentially related to the franchise?

Saying all that though, I'm still going to keep up with and try it(or a demo at least), that's just my thoughts at this stage of the game.

The Xcom IP was purchased and repackage solely because Fallout 3 made a lot of money and it's easier to re-title a game than doing actual marketing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what we've been promised this game will be released as a Mass Effect 2 clone with the aesthetic or Madmen and some minor thematic elements involving aliens.

Bindal:
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!

False! I've never played a Castlevania game or watched someone play a Castlevania game. The most I've ever been exposed to a Castlevania game are screenshots in old magazines... so "no" I don't know anything about "Symphony of Night" or "that ps1 game". Don't presume to know what I've played.

Ehh why not.

Can't be much worse than %75 of the crap getting spewed out the meatgrinder today.

Lunar Templar:
lol ...

kinda turning 'DmC will suck cause its different' all up in here.

gee I donno, how about playing it first first for a change. I was wrong about DmC being bad cause it's different (crow goes good with BBQ sauce btw) so ya know -.- same thing here.

for the record, no, don't care, not an X-com fan

Let me put it this way:

- The game has been in development hell for around 7 years, and rebranded as XCOM because "the name was cool so we took it." There is no way its making its money back, even partly. No way to make all that wasted time and effort worth something.

- When asked about mechanics, the developers have outright stated they took random "cool" mechanics from a ride range of games, and tried to push them all together without any thought of how they will work together. A copy-paste that led to them being called thieves and copying what other games have done better.

- With all this in light, the XCOM shooter doesn't have an original bone in its body. Even the "original" aliens are so lazy they just make the enemies geometric shapes. Something we haven't seen since the days of Mort the Chicken.

- Since its being recasted into a budget shooter, the XCOM shooter is already dead before it even released.

A sensible businessman would cut his losses at this point. There is a reason no one wants to play the XCOM shooter. There is a reason it got so much hate, not just from XCOM fans.

Bindal:

Draconalis:

Bindal:

So, just because developers want to try something different with a franchise, they are not allowed to do it because of the fans of the main-installments? If it's a spin-off, who cares if they like the new style or not?
Besides, there are quite a few examples of games, where changing the genre wasn't a bad thing.
Resident Evil: Main-Installments went from the puzzle-solving fixed-angle survival horror to a TPS with "Resident Evil 4" - nobody complained after they played it. And some of the spin-offs (the two Chronicals, the two Outbreaks) also were - for not being exactly the same as previous installments in terms of genre - not shunned away from the fans either.
Or Castlevania:
Went from a linear (or mostly linear) 2D-Platformer to a MetroidVania game and never looked back ever since...
Metroid: The Prime-Trilogy went from 2D-MetroidVania to a more FPS-styled gameplay. Once again, people loved it.

And I treat this game the same: It is a spin-off for me, so let them try something different with it. It can be good and maybe makes people, who were not interested in the franchise now interested in it...

It's not being sold as a spin-off, it's being sold as a prequel.

Also, as to your examples... Revident Evil... from a third person shooter with puzzle elements to... a third person shooter with less puzzle elements, but the camera follows you now.

Metroid, a side scrolling shooter to a first person shooter

And I have never seen seen gameplay footage of the new Castlevania games so I have no idea what they look like... but I'd suspect, like your previous examples, it's more of a nature evolution of what the players already wanted made streamline.

Granted, it's much less of an issue since EU was announced and released, but if a series isn't providing what the fans came to the series for, then it's not going to do well, and in the case of this particular game... It has nothing to do with X-com gameplay or Lore, as many people have said before, they should have just called it something else.

1 - The old Resident Evil were NEVER "Third Person Shooters" or "Top Down Shooters", they were legit "Survival Horror" games (with the emphasis on the survival-part with the horror just waving by). You didn't even had the ammo to afford mowing down every single enemy you met (outside the two Outbreak Games and with some luck on your part, in Zero). Only 4 made it an actual TPS. And that is nothing to say about Gun Survivor (the first and second. 3 was Dino Crisis and 4 was more of a RE4-Prototype) or the two Chronicals.
2 - Just going from "side scroller" to "First Person" was a HUGE risk they took. Espeically after they skipped an entire console-generation and being a Nintendo-Exclusive. It still paid of.
3 - that "new Castlevania" you DEFENETLY saw Material, probably played yourself. Because that "new" game came out for the PS1. You know, "Symphony of the Night"? The first MetroidVania-game in the series? Every other Castlevania before that was a plain Platformer. You went from A to B and had not much to explore or collect besides some power-ups. Cue SoN, we got a Metroid!

All three cases, the developers released a game in a franchise with a well-known gameplay-style and took a huge risk while doing so by CHANGING THE GENRE COMPLETELY. And with one exceptions (Gun Survivor 1 and 2), it paid off - people were at first against the idea (just as now) but once it was out, people loved it.
So, how about we stop saying anything about the game until it it out and until then, give it the benefit of being a risk taken?

- The game has been in development hell for around 7 years, and rebranded as XCOM because "the name was cool so we took it." There is no way its making its money back, even partly. No way to make all that wasted time and effort worth something.

- When asked about mechanics, the developers have outright stated they took random "cool" mechanics from a ride range of games, and tried to push them all together without any thought of how they will work together. A copy-paste that led to them being called thieves and copying what other games have done better.

- With all this in light, the XCOM shooter doesn't have an original bone in its body. Even the "original" aliens are so lazy they just make the enemies geometric shapes. Something we haven't seen since the days of Mort the Chicken.

- Since its being recasted into a budget shooter, the XCOM shooter is already dead before it even released.

See the problem? It wasn't MEANT to be an XCOM game. It wasn't MEANT to be tied into anything.

With the large development gap with a scattered development focus, we can safely see how this will fail. Just like Duke Nukem did.

The scrapping and turning it into a budget shooter should have shown that pretty well. Too many design changes makes any attempt at game development pointless. It will just end in an unintelligible mess like it always does.

Ultratwinkie:
See the problem? It wasn't MEANT to be an XCOM game. It wasn't MEANT to be tied into anything.

With the large development gap with a scattered development focus, we can safely see how this will fail. Just like Duke Nukem did.

The scrapping and turning it into a budget shooter should have shown that pretty well. Too many design changes makes any attempt at game development pointless. It will just end in an unintelligible mess like it always does.

Just because the game wasn't originally a game of the series and got a bit modified to suit it (and how heavily modified to suit it even more!) makes it instantly failing?
Oh, well, sorry Super Mario 2, you apparently were NOT a good game after all, which added a ton of characters to the franchise that everyone now considers part of it.
Sorry, Star Fox Adventures - apparently, you're now far worse than Assault.

Also, large developement-time isn't an idication for a bad game, either. Alan Wake to AGES to get done. Was still a great game. Black Mesa (A mod) also took almost a decade. Did it suck? Not really, at worst it only didn't live up to the original due the changes being all a step back.

Enemy Unknown was also quite some time in developement (apparently, they started shorty before they started this XCOM) did it hurt the game? Not the slightest!

Bindal:

Ultratwinkie:
See the problem? It wasn't MEANT to be an XCOM game. It wasn't MEANT to be tied into anything.

With the large development gap with a scattered development focus, we can safely see how this will fail. Just like Duke Nukem did.

The scrapping and turning it into a budget shooter should have shown that pretty well. Too many design changes makes any attempt at game development pointless. It will just end in an unintelligible mess like it always does.

Just because the game wasn't originally a game of the series and got a bit modified to suit it (and how heavily modified to suit it even more!) makes it instantly failing?
Oh, well, sorry Super Mario 2, you apparently were NOT a good game after all, which added a ton of characters to the franchise that everyone now considers part of it.
Sorry, Star Fox Adventures - apparently, you're now far worse than Assault.

Also, large developement-time isn't an idication for a bad game, either. Alan Wake to AGES to get done. Was still a great game. Black Mesa (A mod) also took almost a decade. Did it suck? Not really, at worst it only didn't live up to the original due the changes being all a step back.

Enemy Unknown was also quite some time in developement (apparently, they started shorty before they started this XCOM) did it hurt the game? Not the slightest!

uh huh, and did any of those games had off and on development? Left dormant for years at a time? And mods don't count either, especially when they are just graphical updates of a regular game.

No, because no businessman would ever leave assets to rot like that.

The turn based XCOM didn't have that big of a gap. The earliest development was 2008, 4 year development cycle.

On top of this, the company doesn't have much to say for itself in terms of games. This is a perfect storm of video game failure.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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