"Building Sequels Badly"

[podtech115]

----------------
--------
---------
quick topic Here: I don't have much to say, but I found a quote of Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw. I hate Croshaw, but what he says here mirror my feelings:

I hate this prevailing feeling that sequels have some obligation to the fans, retch retch. Let me tell you something about fans. Fans do not know what they want. You indulge their every whim and they lose interest. You've got to give them scraps of affection to keep them keen, glance at them occasionally like you've just noticed them and say "Oh, are you still here?" It's exactly like picking up women.

"The fans seemed to like GlaDOS," Valve may have said. "Should we have a sequel with more GlaDOS?" "Yes please," the fans would say. "We have fond memories of GlaDOS in Portal 1, so therefore we will equally enjoy there being more GlaDOS in a sequel. Baa baa four legs good two legs bad, etc." And then Portal 2 came out and the fans will be the very people saying it's not as good as the first.

Not that I want to overuse this comparison but fans of Silent Hill 1 were quite vocally upset when Silent Hill 2 first came out and it was nothing to do with the characters in the original. Those fans were swiftly proven to be big, wrong twats, weren't they? And because no one listened to them, Silent Hill 2 was ☺☺☺☺ing amazing. And it's still regarded that way because there have been no direct sequels to Silent Hill 2's events. James Sunderland's story is over, and any additional ones would only hurt it. But I'll tell you this - Silent Hill 3's dialogue hints at James' fate very subtly at one point and in Silent Hill 4 one of the incidental characters is his dad, and these little scraps of acknowledgement gave me a giddy thrill like an uncharacteristic smile flashed from an aloof object of affection. And now Silent Hill has moved to the West and the series has been overexposing Pyramid Head and Nurse Bigtits fan service, everyone agrees the franchise has gone downhill.

So here's today's lesson, and it's simple one: fans are dumb. If you are a fan, all your ideas of what you want in a sequel are wrong so you should shut your stupid mouths and let the creators create. Why not click on the comments for this article and watch my point being proved?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...equels-Badly.3

How rude, but he has a point; and this what I was trying to say: did having Sectoids and Ethereals in Interceptor or Enforcer help the games in any way? Did it help the image of the Sectoids? No, it really did not. And would you really enjoy researching the same Sectoids and Plasma Rifles in each and every new games, over and over again? Even if there was a silly reason to keep having the Sectoids coming back for more research and killing, wouldn't it just "lessen the impact" to have them around?

Sure, we all want a Remake of the first game, and have it with all of the old aliens, but then -- like Croshaw said --the fans will "lose interest". In fact, that's why Square Enix don't want a remake of Final Fantasy 7; once it's made, they can never redo it again. No one will want another remake of Final Fantasy 7. So they are saving it up for a rainy day. The same thing goes for X-COM: after you got your perfect remake, will you want a 3rd remake? Or a 4th? Or 5th? No, but some of you will say you want the same game with some changes, but that is not a Sequel; that's a Expansion Pack or Mission Pack Sequel. I want a remake too, but if it going to be a bad remake (Like UFO: Aftarmath), then I want them to wait until the right time.

And there is this:

I think it's strange that more people don't see a sequel as an opportunity to extend the concept, to create a completely new story that could have even more of an impact than the last one.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...t-Hill-Origins

I agree. After the X-COM Remake (with Sectoids), I think it should move to new lands etc. etc. (like Apocalypse)

But I already said this, so if you disagree, then disagree with Ben Croshaw. Leave me out of this! I don't even know why I keep going to him anymore.

That's all I have to say. Buy!

[fastestlouigie]

Fans are dumb but most are clear what they don't want. That's one of the most engrossing games ever having its name plundered and tacked onto a first person shooter. I have absolutely no qualms about 2k setting the game within a stylised U.S. 50's backdrop, or the complete sea-change as to the types of foes that the player will face. It's the type of game where my objection lies. If 2k make a big (and I mean big) emphasis on the research and any other non-shooting elements of the game, I may try and improve my fps skills and give it a go but I'm not holding my breath. I bought an M.S. 360 Controller when I bought Fallout 3 a couple of years ago but barely got out of the nuclear shelter before giving up!

[Nosmirc]

I will start by noting that I watch his reviews mainly for the lulz. Sometimes he'll have something reasonable to say, often not (ie I don't usually agree with him). But it tends to be funny.

In this case, in regards to the following:

So here's today's lesson, and it's simple one: fans are dumb. If you are a fan, all your ideas of what you want in a sequel are wrong so you should shut your stupid mouths and let the creators create.

that's a terrible way to think about it. That's much like saying "the government knows what it's doing, so you shouldn't vote". Although he is primarily talking about storylines, not gameplay. One that, I do give him credit that, if a story is finished, move on.

For gameplay, however, that mentality is stupid. In XCOM's case, he's basically saying we should just accept the direction that 2k is taking the game in. Why the hell should people do that? If an X-Com fan wants an X-Com game to actually feature X-Com gameplay, but instead gets a pretty generic looking trailer of cookie cutter 50's FPS, then those fans should raise a stink.

It tells the developer "hey, that's not what we're looking for." Which is really bloody important. If developers don't think a type of game is sought for, they're less likely to make it. And honestly, what games do fans of tactical games with a healthy stragetic overhead have? Most tactical games are showing up on bloody hand held systems, and are missing that stragetic overhead. I can't think of a single modern game that operates like X-Com did. And that's a damn shame.

And I will indeed let 2k, the owners of X-Com, know this.

I bought an M.S. 360 Controller when I bought Fallout 3 a couple of years ago but barely got out of the nuclear shelter before giving up!

Oooh, don't get me started on Fallout 3 lol. So much missed potential squandered on really bad writing and a really bad game engine.

[Brian Damage]

XCOM! Which now isn't set in the near future and isn't turn based, so it could have called itself Custard Pie Fights With Christopher Walken and that would have been equally relevant.

There's a more specific opinion for you.

[Aegeri]

It's also the most relevant and true opinion. The blobs would even be equivalent to custard in many ways (black custard at that).

[podtech115]

-------------
----------
------------

No! NO! Bad hands! Don't reply back! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!

I have absolutely no qualms about 2k setting the game within a stylised U.S. 50's backdrop, or the complete sea-change as to the types of foes that the player will face. It's the type of game where my objection lies. If 2k make a big (and I mean big) emphasis on the research and any other non-shooting elements of the game, I may try and improve my fps skills and give it a go but I'm not holding my breath.

I agree, 100%.

To Nosmirc:

I'm sorry, but.... what he says applys to you all very well. In fact, I can change some words, and it kind of sounds like he was talking about X-COM:

'"The fans seemed to like Sectoids," MicroProse/Dave Ellis may have said. "Should we have a sequel with more Sectoids?" "Yes please," the fans would say. "We have fond memories of Sectoids in X-COM 1, so therefore we will equally enjoy there being more Sectoids in a sequel. Baa baa four legs good two legs bad, etc." And then Interceptor/Aftermath/UFO: Extraterrestrials came out and the fans will be the very people saying it's not as good as the first.'

See?

Apocalypse wasn't the best, but didn't it seem like the games that came after were going quickly downhill? IN fact, they were going downhell.

It's like they didn't have any new ideas for aliens, so they kept reusing the Sectoids. IN FACT, can you name me one game after Apocalypse that did *not* use them? Let me help you out: there aren't any. The Sectoids and Ethereals were being overexposed in, let's see, Interceptor, Enforcer, Genesis, Alliance, and x-com Email. All thanks to the fans. Thank you fans!

Then 2K came, ditched the Sectoids, and put X-COM back on track. Giving us the X-COM 4 we *should* of had from the start: with new aliens. And lo, the fans complained.

Then I heard some of the fans ideas, and I apologize, but they were really, really, really, really, really, really bad:
"Maybe the Sectoids are controling the blobs and titans."
"Maybe this is a prequel. If that's so, then they better show the Sectoids behind all this in the last cutscene."

This is a bad move. Sectoids can *always* come after. The Obelisk (I'm not calling it a titan) and blobs are the stars of the game. Let them have their time in the spotlight. Saying the Sectoids are behind it all, is just so bad. It's like saying Cthulhu was created and being control by the Romulans. Or the Colour Out of Space was a Ferengi weapon. To have something as powerful as the Obelisk being controled by a Sectoid makes no sense at all. If they had such power, then why go to Earth at all? It's super stupid! And it would ONLY ruin the story 2K is trying to tell here.

If the Sectoids were to come back someday, Then (like with the old X-COM games), they should only be used in extreme emergencys, when sales are low and they can't think of any good ideas.

XCOM! Which now isn't set in the near future and isn't turn based, so it could have called itself Custard Pie Fights With Christopher Walken and that would have been equally relevant.

There's a more specific opinion for you.

[sigh, team bad guy, Go!]

(There is so much ways to reply back to this, but if I say the wrong thing, I'll just get a reply in my face, saying I'm wrong. sigh. here we go.)

So? He's always like that. He'll complain on just about anything, if it isn't half-life 2.

Do you want to hear something totally unbelievable? Some people say they have difficulty telling whether I recommend a game or not. I know, what morons. Yes, I exaggerate every slightish negative feature regardless of overall quality, but how else would developers learn? It's like Chinese parenting, but less nightmarish. I'll usually give a bit of a general summary towards the end, but I guess people might have trouble concentrating that long when they're mesmerized by the sexy jiggle of the fat rolls on a passing close relative.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide.../2793-MindJack

But you don't call a sewage technician to redecorate your bathroom, and you didn't come to me to hear about how a game is good, not when every other review's done that already.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...-Arkham-Asylum

Also, he really hates TB games, so he's going to enjoy it more then FFXIII

[vitalis]

i dont care if its be sectoids, murmoids or blobs,i i play tbs, rts , rpg and al kind shooters, i dont care if xcom be shooter, but i do care there no interceptions, global reliations, my right to choose fully my actions,random misions, so i can play again again and again for next 10 year. i think xcom be like castrate of x-com, i dont acept if game degenerate not evolve.

[IllusionOfLife]

There's a balance that needs to be found. Game developers need to listen to the fans to hear their feedback to find out what is working and what isn't. It's important to respond to the things fans like and get rid of the things they don't, however, as the designer they have to decided what is best for their game as well. You can't just take every suggestion at face value and cater to exactly what the fans are saying because not only would your game be extremely fragmented and disconnected due to the countless different opinions, but it also would likely not play very well because the people making suggestions have never made a game before 9 times out of 10.

Casey Hudson (Project Director of Star Wars: KotOR and Mass Effect) and Ken Levine (yeah, you know who he is) have both said this in separate interviews.

Here Casey Hudson talks about the process of receiving and analyzing fan feedback, and in one of the Irrational Podcasts Ken Levine says something similar (I can't find that particular episode or else I'd link you directly to it).

Bottom line is, you have to listen to the fans, and you can't treat them like their opinions and concerns are invalid, but you also can't just mindlessly implement everything the fans want to see. As a game designer, its their job to figure out what is both best for the fans and best for the game, and no one person is going to have all the answers.

[Nosmirc]

Bang on there Illusion. Obviously if you did every little thing fans suggest, things would be messy and sucky. But still, they are the ones who will be BUYING the product, so some feedback is necessary.

Sadly, it seems the sort of feedback that I respond positively to is very much in the minority, and usually doesn't make it into games. Like Mass Effect 2. What the hell Bioware, of all the fan feedback to throw a bone to, it's at the fanficers so they can dream about Garrus and Tali? Really?

I'm sorry, but.... what he says applys to you all very well. In fact, I can change some words, and it kind of sounds like he was talking about X-COM

How so? He was clearly talking about storylines. Most of the X-Com fans beefs are with gameplay. In fact, you can't even bring story into it, as X-COm never really had much of a narrative before. We can't say we want more GlaDOS or James Sunderland, because X-Com doesn't HAVE such characters. We don't even have dialogue in the intro of the first game for crying out loud (which is what I really want to see a return to). Oh, sorry, the computer says Alert Alert, UFO Detected, followed by Waka waka waka.

So again, I don't see his argument really applicable here. We're not talking about Storylines, we're talking about gameplay and setting. (and yes, I consider storyline and setting to be distinctly different aspects)

can you name me one game after Apocalypse that did *not* use them? Let me help you out: there aren't any.

Please. How many did have them after it? ONE. Enforcer doesn't count. Hardly a conclusive argument to saying a sequel to X-Com should do away with anything that related to the franchise in the past.

Since Croshaw mentions Silent Hill, let's frame it like this. What if the next Silent Hill does not take place in a town/city called Silent Hill, but in New York? (because it's the IN thing to do, trash New York). Well, that would be balls to the wall stupid, because the town is what ties the games together.

Apocalypse wasn't the best, but didn't it seem like the games that came after were going quickly downhill? IN fact, they were going downhell.

PFAH! It was in decline for me halfway through Terror From the Deep, when the difficulty decides its time for a trip to the moon. Apoc never worked for me (figuratively I mean), given the step backwards in graphics (X-Com wasn't by any means the bestest looking game out there, but Apoc? What the hell went wrong there...), and the bullcrap enemiesthat you fight from the get go.

There's a reason why I specifically want a remake of the original. Because it was the one that best captured the feel of the game.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

PFAH! It was in decline for me halfway through Terror From the Deep, when the difficulty decides its time for a trip to the moon.

Isn't the rumor that TFTD was so difficult because superhuman difficulty in X-Com 1 didn't work, prompting everyone to say "good game, but it's a bit easy?"

Apoc never worked for me (figuratively I mean), given the step backwards in graphics (X-Com wasn't by any means the bestest looking game out there, but Apoc? What the hell went wrong there...), and the bullcrap enemiesthat you fight from the get go.

The problem with Apoc's graphics wasn't the actual graphics, it was the art direction. And the gameplay was pretty damn good. A remake of Apoc that did nothing but fixed bugs, readded cut content and changed the art assets would be fantastic.

Or, rather, less veins! Veins everywhere!

[Nosmirc]

Pretty sure that wasn't a rumor lol.

As for Apoc's art direction, eh, you know what I mean. We went from distinct character spites to what honestly looked like stickfigures. I might be able to look past that if there was a mod for it that removes the friggin' brain sucker weapon, or at least reduced it's frequency and delayed it's debut. I'd rather face a Muton with a Blaster Launcher then one of those dimenison aliens with a brain sucker...

[ShanDaMan]

The difficulty bug from X-COM:UD played a factor in comparing the 2 games' difficulty, but even without that the sequel is tougher.

TFTD was intentionally more difficult because of several design changes. The alien subs had so many more nooks and crannies for aliens to wait for you. The 2-part terror missions such as the "Love Boat" missions were pure punishment. The fact that some weapons couldn't be fired while on land or when underwater made for some unhappy aquanauts when they heard "click" instead of "boom".

[Wonderboy2402]

All I will say about people poking fun at fan frustration with games that are made into sequels/remakes... just wait till it happens with a game you love and they turn it into something monstrous. Some of us have had this done to us a few times already and are getting a bit tired of it.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Pretty sure that wasn't a rumor lol.

I know the superhuman difficulty was bugged, but I thought it was just a rumor that the devs made TFTD so incredibly difficult because of that. (Incidentally, beating TFTD on superhuman is fun in a masochistic sort of way.)

As for Apoc's art direction, eh, you know what I mean. We went from distinct character spites to what honestly looked like stickfigures. I might be able to look past that if there was a mod for it that removes the friggin' brain sucker weapon, or at least reduced it's frequency and delayed it's debut. I'd rather face a Muton with a Blaster Launcher then one of those dimenison aliens with a brain sucker...

I don't understand. The game is still sprite based? The only difference is that instead of walking bow legged, the sprites move like normal people.

As for gameplay, the brainsuckers didn't bug me much, actually. I just have every guy carry a megapol AP grenade that they drop at their feet if it looks like I can't shoot the 'sucker off. The guys will survive unless they're unarmored but the 'sucker won't. Granted I play primarily in real time mode, so I rarely have a brainsucker sneak up on me, which might contribute to this...

[Brian Damage]

I actually suspect the main problem with the combat-game sprites in X-Com:Apocalypse may have been bad palettisation. I seem to recall thinking last time I played that they looked to me as though they'd originally been rendered from models at 24/32 bit (in terms of colours), but were all squished down during asset processing to use one rather odd 256 colour palette in something like DeBabelizer, by someone who wasn't quite used to the software, resulting in splotchy and too-bright colours that were spread out all over the colour space with only a limited amount of jiggle-room for smooth gradients and little, if any, dithering (at least as far as I recall). Perhaps if they'd chosen the colour schemes of the original models better, or a more cohesive palette for the end result, the resulting sprites wouldn't have looked so odd.

[AlphaCent]

Don't know why but i really enjoyed the color palette of Apocalypse. Very vibrant. I kinda like low color palettes, probably has to do with growing up with Amiga.

For instance take this comparison

http://www.endevil.com/images/civ3.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen001.jpg

Despite CTP's choppy looks i find it way more appealing to play than civ 3. Actually i never managed to finish civ 3 because the colors annoyed me so much, i quit.

Same here

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/...s-tactical.jpg

http://warriorlabs.net/images/xcomufodef.jpg

UFO is so much vibrant, lush and overall appealing.

Crysis is actually the only modern game that captured this vibrant look, that's why i like it so much.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5...ysisownage.jpg

[Tanki]

UFO is so much vibrant, lush and overall appealing.

Crysis is actually the only modern game that captured this vibrant look, that's why i like it so much.

I agree with you I like the vibrant look when implemented right. It is the aesthetics that set the mood of a game not the graphics.

Since you like Crysis here is some pics and a video from MWLL which uses the CryENGINE.
http://gallery.mechlivinglegends.net...elsgate-03.jpg
http://gallery.mechlivinglegends.net...elsgate-01.jpg
http://gallery.mechlivinglegends.net...elsgate-02.jpg
http://gallery.mechlivinglegends.net...-1920x1080.jpg
http://forum.mechlivinglegends.net/i...ic,8346.0.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XXmMd7dteQ

[Brian Damage]

Don't know why but i really enjoyed the color palette of Apocalypse. Very vibrant. I kinda like low color palettes, probably has to do with growing up with Amiga.

Same here (on the Amiga end and liking UFO's colour scheme). I wasn't arguing that real should be brown, I just got a similar feeling from looking at Apocalypse that I do when I see, say, some digital artwork produced originally in RGB that's been converted to CMYK for print without any tweaking, and suffers for it.

[BandofGypsies]

That Mechwarrior mod looks fantastic.. might have to check that out...

On topic.. if we are talking colours & Apocalypse.. the greatest offence the game made was the main splash / load screen...
Looks like someone ingested a paint palette and threw it up all over the show...

Simply hideous.

[SolidGear3]

Three things..

1) I love Yahtzee (even though he said Kane & Lynch 2 was one of the worse games of 2010. I thought it was one of the best).

2. Strategy games are boring and dead (aside from PC games). XCOM is going to be awsome as it is, so get over it. My only beef is they better pump out a PS3 port at some point.

3. Fallout 3 is one of the finest games of the current gen. It got me into RPG's and I put over 200 hours across 5 different playthroughs since launch. Never spent even a fraction of that amount of time with a game and I've been a gamer since 1991. First game I received a platinum trophy for as well. Even better, I never had any technical issues with it on my PS3 either. No game has ever been as addicting as Fallout 3.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Strategy games are boring and dead (aside from PC games).

Starcraft. How many millions of copies did it sell in the first week? How many is it continuing to sell to this day? Consoles have never had good strategy games, but that's because it's really hard to wrangle your average strategy game with a controller.

Strategy games certainly aren't dead. And "boring" is a matter of taste.

[SolidGear3]

I know they're not dead on PC's. Just not as big as they were in the 90's. I could just never get into them.

[Nosmirc]

I know they're not dead on PC's. Just not as big as they were in the 90's. I could just never get into them.

Then don't say they're dead then. Really, they're not big right now because the gaming industry seems so intent on pumping out fps clones like it's going out of style (and I hope it is...could go for some more engaging gameplay, something your typical COD fps games fail to deliver constantly)

XCOM is going to be awsome as it is, so get over it. My only beef is they better pump out a PS3 port at some point.

This is why fans who are not happy with the direction of the game get so grumpy with newer fans. Tell me: does the name mean anything at all to you? Is it vital to the game being interesting to you? If not, then it shouldn't be a problem for it to have a different name, and the old fans getting a game that actually makes use of the content that came with the license, no?

And Podtech, it's comments like this that I was referring to when I spoke of new fans hijacking a series from old fans. We protest, asking for something that actually has something to do with the namesake, and a newer fan tells us to get over it.

And dangit, don't get me started on that convulted mess that is Fallout 3!

[BandofGypsies]

"Strategy games are boring and dead"

Why troll? You offer no depth to your arguement aside from a blanket statement with no examples..
This has already been discussed in other threads about the popularity of rpg / turn based games.. not exclusively in the US.. but asia.
Yes.. the world does consist of countries other than the U.S of A.

Would you prefer chess to be in real time??

[podtech115]

And Podtech, it's comments like this that I was referring to when I spoke of new fans hijacking a series from old fans. We protest, asking for something that actually has something to do with the namesake, and a newer fan tells us to get over it.

And dangit, don't get me started on that convulted mess that is Fallout 3!

"Be still, you Tleilaxu sneak!" It's your own fault! I'd try being reasonable with you guys, but all you want is a carbon copy X-COM, with the smallest changes. I should know, I tried everything to show you.... I would explain this, but I don't want to get in trouble.

Also, your not being fair:

Please. How many did have them after it? ONE. Enforcer doesn't count. Hardly a conclusive argument to saying a sequel to X-Com should do away with anything that related to the franchise in the past.

Why doesn't Enforcer count? it was an X-COM game with the X-COM name on it, and with all the X-COM aliens! It was an X-COM game! and what about x-com Email. And you can't delete Genesis and Alliance from history! they were part of the old X-COM name too! Starcraft: Ghost was canceled, but fans still talk about it to this day. See? Unfair.

You know what I keep reading in my books, and keep seeing everywhere? Change. To survive, all life must change, and.... never mind.

Since Croshaw mentions Silent Hill, let's frame it like this. What if the next Silent Hill does not take place in a town/city called Silent Hill, but in New York? (because it's the IN thing to do, trash New York). Well, that would be balls to the wall stupid, because the town is what ties the games together.

You know my crazy idea for the next XCOM?
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...Future-Of-XCOM

Well, I had another crazy idea I had in mind for the next Silent Hill:

"This Silent Hill game does not take place in Silent Hill. Instead, it takes place in a apartment. In that apartment, a portal to an evil world opens. And the evil world was created by a infamous serial killer, who thinks --you're going to love this -- that the apartment is his "mother". the only connection to Silent Hill is that the serial killer is from Silent Hill."

But your right: that would be balls to the wall stupid. no one would play it, and no one is going to think it was better then Origins or Homecoming .

[Brian Damage]

I'd chime in, but it's late and Nosmirc is pretty much on the money anyway.

Also, the DS, too, has quite a few TBS games, doesn't it? I wonder if it's the stylus, or are people with handhelds more ready to accept TBS games than your average big-screen console player? The latter, I'd wager - there were TBS games on the non-touchscreen GB Advance, too - Final Fantasy Tactics: Advance, and Advance Wars, for instance, not to mention the extremely X-Com like Rebelstar: Tactical Command. I wonder why? I mean, the "Turn-Based is an artifact of limited technology" meme has run its course and been discredited by now, surely?

[Nosmirc]

I'll admit: I thought there was an actual connection between SH4 and the town of Silent Hill.

In that sense, it was balls to wall stupid to have it called Silent Hill. It could have been called 'The Room', and players wouldn't notice the difference.

Note: I didn't say noone would play it. Just that it's stupid to use the name XCOM for this game when no connection exists between it and the original series. Just like it's stupid for SH4 to have the Silent Hill name when it has no connection to Silent Hill. See what I'm getting at here?

Why doesn't Enforcer count? it was an X-COM game with the X-COM name on it, and with all the X-COM aliens! It was an X-COM game! and what about x-com Email. And you can't delete Genesis and Alliance from history! they were part of the old X-COM name too! Starcraft: Ghost was canceled, but fans still talk about it to this day. See? Unfair.

It was X-Com in name only. That's why. A cheap, last ditch attempt to cash in on the brand before Hasbro Interactive collasped on itself.

As for Genesis and Alliance, we don't know how those games would have played out. Why should I consider them in your vicious little attacks on the content that makes up X-Com?

"Be still, you Tleilaxu sneak!" It's your own fault! I'd try being reasonable with you guys, but all you want is a carbon copy X-COM, with the smallest changes. I should know, I tried everything to show you.... I would explain this, but I don't want to get in trouble.

Yes, it's our fault for wanting gameplay that resembles what made us like the series in the first place :roll:

But you surely see what I'm saying now? We have, in that post, a newcomer to the X-Com fandom, telling the old guard to "get over it" when they voice their opinion that the game is going in an undesirable direction. Tell me you see that.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

I mean, the "Turn-Based is an artifact of limited technology" meme has run its course and been discredited by now, surely?

I wish. We've still got people saying that anything but first person perspective is obsolete.

[Ksarith]

Its not an Xcom game and never will be. Why do we need new threads about nothing? This forum is pointless and should be closed to new posts.

[Nosmirc]

But then where would we complain about the lack of an X-Com game?

[podtech115]

Never mind. sorry. I was going to say something here. but....

I had a big reply and all, but I was in such a good mood, I didn't want my good mood to go away, when someone contradicted my reply, and try to rebut me on everything. So I remove the post I made here.

---
---
---
---
EDIT:

I'm going to edit this back in. I don't want to add another post. Nosmirc below doesn't know about this edit.

-------------------
You don't think there's anything bad about Dave Ellis adding out-of-place references in X-COM? Well, Here's the last proof that references are bad. after this, I will say nothing about it ever again:

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow contains a Portal reference. That is literally all you need to know. It's attempting to jump on a bandwagon so late that the band has completed three sellout world tours and sold their wagon to a scrap dealer. It's not even a clever reference. A note found on a dead character ends with the words "the cake is a lie." There's no contextual sense; it's just thrown in there like a random zombie wearing Groucho Marx glasses, the sort of thing you might do if you don't know what comedy is but once looked it up in an old dictionary you found in a toilet.

So, basically, my first instinct was completely correct on this one. If a game has a Portal reference, whatever purpose it serves, it tells you everything you need to know about the absolute wankers who had creative control of the thing. If Portal had the comedic value of a perfectly timed fart, then Portal references at this stage are a fart that has been going on for six or seven minutes, and now the stench in the room is causing bouts of spontaneous vomiting, and a strange, blood-flecked liquid is dripping from the perpetrator's ☺☺☺☺.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...ords-of-Shadow

Wow.... just.... wow.... and that's after one small reference in a 15 hour game. Just think how much he would hated Interceptor
or Matt.

----------------

Nosmirc, if you see this, I know this isn't going to change your mind about Ellis, but the facts are against you. Again, Sorry for bringing him up.
----
----
----
----
----

EDIT: now I'm Editing this back in.

Yes, it's our fault for wanting gameplay that resembles what made us like the series in the first place :roll:

Here I go: There is not enough TB fans for this game to be TB. And before you say "Where is the proof?!" here:
http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales...n-shadow-wars/
http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales...ivilization-v/

And I'm very sorry, but I think your demands are unreasonable. Why? Because:

1) It took 3 years for X-COM: Apocalypse to be made. 3 years. and it was still 2D.

2) Let's say, it tooks 6 month to makes a element of X-COM to just work. You can't keep all the elements, so you need to throw away 3 elements. What element are you willing to throw away? From all the fans here, you made it clear that you want nothing to be thrown away.

3) When I tryed showing you all my new ideas for XCOM, everyone just insulted me, without even thinking it over. My ideas was opened enough You could of had TB in them.

So here's The Cold Truth:

A small, unprofitable fanbase wants a updated, 3D, carbon copy game from over 16 years ago, without any changes to help attract new fans, or even let the writers have the freedom to be creative in the setting.

If the game makes no money, the fanbase will not care; blaming everyone else, but themselves: blaming the Publishers for not advertising better; or blaming the Developers for not making the game better; Or even blaming bigger games (Call of Duty) for taking all the fans.

And everyone loses in the end: the fanbase will never have another full game made; the Developers would have lost so much money on a unprofitable game; and new fans will never hear about the game in the first place and goes back to Halo.
--------

I'm not insulting anyone here, I'm just showing you how they think.

And it's not just game Developers who thinks like this, but everyone; to movies-makers, TV shows, even books. Or to put it in a ZP way:

Because otherwise you're only making it to please the fans, and why would you want to do anything for fans? I mean, I'm a Silent Hill fan, and I've just spent a whole review whining like a broken motor. Fans are clingy, complaining dip☺☺☺☺s who will never, ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices, the happier you'll be for it.

(Incidentally, why not buy a Zero Punctuation t-shirt?)

(I really can't see why anyone could like him)


anyways, the Opposite Of The Cold Truth (or The Other Cold Truth) is this:

The Directer (or who ever) is the one who takes all the blame for the project. Which means:

1) if he makes a bad movie, he is a bad Directer that no one likes.

2) if he makes a bad movie that only the old fans would like, then he is still a bad Directer to most everyone. even some old fans would hate him for the Transcript. And The Directer will not be able make anymore big movies (because no one likes him). The Directer will not be able to make any more Big Movies, and lives under a bridge eating rats, mumbling to himself 'at least the fans stil like me'


3) If he does whatever he wants to the movie to make it good, then mostly everyone will love The Directer, and The Directer will make lots of money, be able to make more movies, and the Work/Adaptation will become more popular.

The 3rd one is what happened to Peter Jackson and Lord of the Rings. Yes, Peter Jackson did a mostly great job taking the book to the movies, but you can't say he didn't make any changes, to make it more mainstream-friendly. Tom Bombadil!

AND BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK OF ANOTHER MOVIE: Keep in mind that *ALL* Hollywood adaptations are like this in one way or another. Even Watchmen! So don't give me any Bull&%#@

mY point is this: this game *needs* to be a FPS and new, so newer fans can get into it. if you want new fans to know about the old games, then this is the only way.

Now for replys:

Making something 360 players would like to play: Why would fans of a niche game want that? Serious question. Why? Their needs are being met by mainstream gaming, because they are mainstream players. It's not in X-Com fans interests to have 360 players interests met.

There you go, then there is no reason why 2K should hear you out. If this game can't make more new fans then there is no reason to remake it.

This on top of the fact that I see no reason why 360 players wouldn't play an X-Com remake. Contrary to the stereotype, 360 players aren't mouth breathing retards who shout obscenities and play Halo all day

Try telling that to Zero Punctuation. He hates JRPG, TB, and RTS, and sees no reason what-so-ever why he should play them. If ZP doesn't want to play it, then there is no reason why any other "mouth breathing retards" should ether [sic].

Hell, just look at you guys! I tried showing you my ideas for XCOM 2, and all of you go "nononono!" I didn't even tell you about the gameplay AND YOU HATED IT! if you can't even just *look* at my ideas, then what stupid hope is there for Xbox fans?

[Nosmirc]

Eh, just a message board, no need to drive yourself wacky. I myself am very much tempered to such things after many years of internet bickering discussion