Yeah that was my comment/rant lolOriginally Posted by Nosmirc
First thought: How the heck did he...then I read the comments and saw someone point it out
Yeah that was my comment/rant lolFirst thought: How the heck did he...then I read the comments and saw someone point it out
Brian - Responding to a couple comments from you over the past couple days, but first, to clear some stuff up: I'm not PR, I'm the head of our community team, interactive marketing, and customer service - so let's try and keep the jabs to a minimum. I'm around here a lot, although not responding to everything, and I'm also traveling and working on a lot of other projects, so sometimes it takes a while for me to get back to the forums. Nothing nefarious - just life.
Moving on, I don't anticipate everyone will love what we have going - but rehashing the same comments here isn't going to help anything. If anything I think you are doing yourself and other fans (both who like and don't like what they've seen so far) by saying the same thing repeatedly. I've heard you - and as the head of this department and the person who personally goes to the team and talks with them, I'm that higher up you are looking for (yes, really!) So your fears in that regard are, luckily, not needed.
I dunno, Liz, that does sound a lot like public relations.
Anyway, that's good to hear, though I was talking about your immediate superiors when I spoke of "taking notice". The main shareholders, or whatever, even. I hope they're taking a look at things like the Youtube ratings...
I know you like to say "We know not everyone will love what we're doing", Liz, but the fact of the matter is, it's a bit worse than that: Most people hate what you're doing, how you're doing it, and even, in some cases, the way the Dev team seems to perceive the X-Com series. The fans who hate what you're doing are in the majority. Sorry, but you're failing to please the fanbase, though I must say I suspect you were never aiming to.
Incidentally, we'd be more reassured that you were listening to us if you would actually tell us if and how you're adressing our complaints. It's all well and good to say you're listening, but without an actual response it feels kinda like one of those situations where the other person is just nodding and saying "Uh-huh" without actually paying attention. I'm going to refresh the main forum, now, and see what you have to say. And rehashing the same comments is as much for the benefit of new readers as it is an attempt to let you guys know what's what - you'd be surprised how many people skip to the end of threads, or only read the first page (of a thread OR a forum). And as those new readers may come to the same conclusions as those who have already posted, and post them in an attempt to preempt anyone who might have the same idea, or simply because they haven't read the thread, they may end up making the same comments anyway.
As for saying something new... well, I've been working on a little something. I hope you'll read it when I finish it.
[EDIT]: Also, to put my mind at ease about at least one thing: Tell me truthfully: Calling this game "XCOM" wasn't your idea, was it? Please.
Last edited by Brian Damage; 06-21-2011 at 01:03 PM.
Ah, Brian Damage, I'd just like to say that I really appreciate your posts and I'm in broad agreement with your views. May you keep up the good work on this site. The developers might find it uncomfortable viewing or they may just ignore it but these things need to be said all the same. Good on you.
We don't find it uncomfortable and we don't ignore anyone, so don't worry about that. And we're working on behind the scenes and developer interviews that will help explain what this game is - I'm not going to tell you guys everything it's not (because it's not a lot of things) and this game won't be exactly what some want (and some won't like it at all) - that's nothing new in video games. The key is making the best game possible and putting it out there for those who want to so they can enjoy.
And Brian, I'm actually on site at another dev today, so you aren't going to see a lot out of me for a while - I'm not back in the office full time until next week. Don't read anything in to the silences - it just means I'm busy. I won't let the forums miss when the interviews I'm talking about come out - but they aren't ready yet.
I think we'd prefer direct communication to interviews promoting the game, Liz. Then perhaps some of the massive list of questions we've come up with over the last week would actually be answered, and the complaints raised in threads like this and the trailer thread might get adressed.
Also, I think the thing you're missing Liz, is that this game is not what the overwhelming majority want. It's nothing new for fans to complain, but it is unusual for a game to get this high a proportion of anger and "What are they DOING?" commentary, and that should tell you guys everything, really. The responses it gets are mostly from angry fans pointing out all the things you're getting wrong. Some of them even express the opinion that you're effectively comitting some sort of games development sin, and for personal reasons, I must admit I'm not far off agreeing with them. The comments expressing interest in "XCOM" are few and far between. And the Youtube views alone? Your official vid has 145,000 views. Mass Effect 3's? 265,000, almost double, and it has nearly 100% likes. And the latter is the game you've set yourselves up to compete with, intentionally or not. But I think I'm going to pop off to bed now... I think you may be going into lockdown mode again anyway.
Incidentally, you're rehashing your comments. And you still didn't answer my question.
The funny thing is that in real life I don't talk like this at all. I have a really broad Aussie accent with a hint of Pom (from watching too many Britcoms as a kid) and my speech is full of grammatical curveballs, obscure slang and swearwords.Ah, Brian Damage, I'd just like to say that I really appreciate your posts and I'm in broad agreement with your views. May you keep up the good work on this site. The developers might find it uncomfortable viewing or they may just ignore it but these things need to be said all the same. Good on you.
Also I eat wombats for dinner, play two-up nightly, ride a kangaroo to work and brush my hair with the bullbar from an early 90's Toyota Hilux.
I think the biggest question on my mind is "Why first-person shooter and not the turn-based isometric strategy of the first 3 games?" I don't think that's really been answered by anybody yet (or maybe it has, and I just haven't seen it). Also, "What does the future have in store? Will we see a new turn-based strategy installment after this game hits store shelves?"
I look forward to the interviews though; I'm hoping it'll provide insight into why things are the way they are.
That's a tad unrealistic though. You're not going to get all of the team leads together in the same room unless it's the morning meeting or something; they have ☺☺☺☺ to do the rest of the time. Behind-the-scenes interviews are the best you can hope for since it allows the dev to set aside 15-20 minutes or something to that effect to answer the questions that Liz has prepared for them so they can get back to work.
I think the first one was answered at one point, in a magazine if I recall correctly, and the answer basically boiled down to "Shooters are all we know".
I don't think I'm the best one to answer it - that would be something for Jono or Jordan or another team member, and it's a question we'll get to. I think the important thing to understand is we're not aiming to remake anything - this is something new. Although I'll ask Jordan and Jono that specifically for you because it's a basic question we should address.
As for direct communication, you guys should consider me that. As you can imagine, the devs are making the game and that's their first priority, but they are down the hall from me and going over and sitting with them at lunch is something I realistically do, and that's when I get the information (or when need be, we call meetings, or I stalk thm in the bushes. You know, whatever you guys need!)
We're going to have both interviews and videos that are more massive as well as some much more in-depth community stuff. Imagine what I've done in the past with BioShock and BioShock 2, or really any 2K title since 2006 - but this time, instead of just me, there's an entire team. It's not going to be all high-budget marketing stuff - I know that different folks want to get answers in different ways and I'm working on a community hub and plan that I think will work way better for hardcore people like you. It's just not ready yet (I know, I know, I'm trying!)
As a quick PSA in this thread: You can dislike this game, and you can express your opinions, but rehashing the same statements, and/or being aggressive or disrespectful towards me or the team will earn you infractions and bans. I'm a very lenient person and I will never censor you guys, but I draw a line when I feel like anyone is being insulting or degrading the work the devs do. I also know a troll when I see on, so no matter how slick you are, if that's your game, I promise you I'm also someone who frequents the internet and I know what's going on. So let's cut all that out of our posts from here on out and I think things will work out better.
I'm a gamer: I respect you guys. I wouldn't still be leading this team if I didn't. I'm not going to beat around the bush and I'm never going to blow smoke or lie. I like the game we're making and I believe in our studio. You guys don't have to agree with me on that, or with anything. You just have to respect us and be decent and try and make conversations productive and awesome. If you aren't down with those ground rules, this probably isn't the place for you.
Liz is in charge of the community stuff as well as viral marketing and customer service (as she said earlier), she is not directly involved in the development of this game or in the title, so no, it was not her idea to name it XCOM. In fact, I doubt seriously that one day someone at 2K looked at a game already in development and said "hey guys, let's call this XCOM." I believe them when they say their intent was to create a game inspired by the classic series but with a new twist, and we can argue all day whether they're succeeding in that aspect, but the conspiracy theories that keep cropping up are a bit ridiculous. I understand being frustrated, but let's at least keep using rational arguments rather than inventing nonsensical motives of the dev team.
The fact is, they have changed the game dramatically in response to fan criticism; again, we can argue whether or not it's actually an improvement, but the fact of the matter is they're not just sitting in a room twirling their mustaches and laughing at our misfortune. Besides, as you've pointed out, the only draw to the name XCOM is for people who are already fans of the franchise and they're the one's that are most up in arms over the whole issue, if the ultimate goal of using the name XCOM was to garner a larger audience their efforts would clearly not be working.
The game may or may not be a good game, and it may or may not be a good X-COM game, in the end, we won't know for sure until the game has hit store shelves, but if it's not a good game, it will be the result of bad direction, a bad concept, bad execution, or any number of thins, but it will not be a matter of some evil corporate conspiracy. The idea that they are deliberately making a bad game just to troll the fan base is completely ridiculous, and is not a valid point of discussion.
I think a lot of the older fans are really looking for a glimmer of light in this area.
Is a return to the classic premise something 2k is willing to pursue at a later date? Or even willing to outsource it? Most of us whom are still chaffed about the direction of the game really are looking for that sign that the game we really really want is even a potential venture in the future.
Lack of news in that area is why...um....people get the need for indefinate time outs >.>.
How can you say that? Brian Damage was a good X-COM fan, a good friend. I disagree with him from time to time, but I would never want him to get ban for life. :,( (sorry, back to topic)Lack of news in that area is why...um....people get the need for indefinate time outs >.>.
The fact is, they have changed the game dramatically in response to fan criticism....
umm, no they didn't. they didn't show us Base Building, Research, Manufacturing....
I honestly don't think that is ridiculous at all. Due to how immensely similar the first trailer was to bioshock, actually hell I'll just state it was bioshock and so there isn't much question in my mind the game didn't start out as an X-Com game. It may have evolved into that due to wanting to differentiate the IP from what Bioshock was doing with Infinite, but I find it immensely hard to believe it ever started as an X-Com game. Why use the IP though in the first place instead of making a new one is still the million dollar question for me. As a new IP, I felt this wouldn't have been anywhere near as badly received or would at least provoke "Curious" reactions.In fact, I doubt seriously that one day someone at 2K looked at a game already in development and said "hey guys, let's call this XCOM." I believe them when they say their intent was to create a game inspired by the classic series but with a new twist, and we can argue all day whether they're succeeding in that aspect, but the conspiracy theories that keep cropping up are a bit ridiculous.
It's been a debate on here for months and months now, but I still haven't heard a satisfying answer. Why use X-Com? They made a game that had nothing to do with it and only after immensely negative backlash changed it into what it is now (a vast improvement, but that is in comparison with the first trailer so I'm not exactly optimistic yet). I still cannot see why a new IP would have been a bad idea, avoided all the negative publicity and angry fans plus let them genuinely establish something new.
Guys, I'm going to draw your attention to this rule (once again...)
Steer clear of moderation talk: Don't discuss mod/admin activity that occurs on the forums. That includes (but is not limited to) bringing up your own or someone else's warnings, infractions, and bans. If you are asked by a 2K Games staff member or moderator to stop doing something, please listen. Feel free to contact a 2K Community Manager if you have questions or concerns, but back-talking in the middle of a thread only serves as a distraction from the discussion at hand.
This includes discussing anyones ban, or "time out" as it has been called. If you have questions, please contact the admins. However, discussing them in threads is not okay nor does it keep the conversation on topic.
Thanks.
What Came First, the XCOM or the Game?
Maybe not precisely in the way as you put it, but the game was being worked on before they applied the XCOM brand to it.
In particular:
If that's NOT the case, Pelling needs to pick his words better lol."We've been working on this game on and off for around five years now", Jonathan Pelling, creative director at the studio, tells us. "Before BioShock 2, before BioShock."
"It gave us a chance to implement a lot of ideas in the first-person shooter space we've wanted to introduce for some time now. Make this game a new kind of FPS, something that's never been tried in the genre before."
"So when the chance came to use the XCOM license, it was a great opportunity to take some of those game ideas and blend everything together, taking everything we thought was important from the old X-Com to make something new for those who had never played that game before."
I think we're close enough that we can simply say 'debate on it for a year now'
But yeah, the fact that it's trying to use the X-Com brand is the biggest hurdle for me to get interested in it, because everytime I see XCOM, it reminds me of what I'm NOT getting. Which makes me a sad panda.
Sans the name, give the troops some proper uniforms, remove Carter from the field, and let them DIE dammit, then this game starts entering the realm of "interest peeked".
Ahahaha. I was reading through the comments on that article, and came across this comment.
"It looks fantastic? It is ironic that you mention Fallout since this game looks like a ☺☺☺☺ty Fallout without the tongue in cheek humor. (ie 50s utopian ideal) Plus, this is just what the world needs, another FPS. The only way it could be more cliche, and ☺☺☺☺ X-Com over more, is if they added zombies."
I literally laughed out loud. That man is a prophet.
Technically speaking, the humans who had been "possessed" by the blobs in the first trailer were already zombies (or at least some equivalent). The infiltrator doesn't feel especially zombie like to me, at least in the genre sense of the word anyway. But I did know there was more than just a "conspiracy theory" to the basis of my opinion the game came first and X-Com after.Or rather that the "X-Com" came after all the litany of fan complaints due to the first trailer
I was not aware of that article until now, thanks for showing me that.
So as it turns out, the game, in some form, existed before the XCOM license was applied, but my point still stands that it wasn't just hastily slapped on something completely unrelated in an attempt to either enrage the fanbase (typically not a solid sales method) or to attract a built in audience (because we've all seen how that clearly has not worked out). Again, you can argue all day whether or not it's a step in the right direction or not, but the simple fact that they responded to fan outcry by changing the game as much as they have over the course of the past year shows that they are indeed trying (and arguably failing) to create a game that lives up to the legacy of its title.
That was my point. There are some things that I think look promising about this game, and there are many things that I'm iffy on at best (and this is coming from someone with very limited experience of the original games), and those points can be discussed, however, it's foolish to assume that they're deliberately trying to make a game to enrage the fans because the presentation at this years E3 shows that they understand there's a problem and they are attempting to remedy it (again, whether or not its working is another matter entirely).
I dunno, man. Reading between the lines, it really seems like they put an XCOM sticker on this game to attract fans. Which backfired spectacularly, I suppose. I don't buy into the 2k's trolling everyone theory, but I could definitely buy the cash-in theory.
The main problem with applying the XCOM name to a game that isn't designed from the ground up for it is that you end up with a game that lacks focus. X-COM is an intensive experience that's greater than the sum of its parts due to how all those parts synergize so well. The tactical segment has a direct and noticible impact on the strategic segment, and vice versa. A fixed storyline simply can't have that to anywhere near the same extent. The problem is that as you get more "cinematic" you lose out on what made X-Com great. Worse, as you get more "cinematic" you start to lose what separates you from all the other cinematic shooters out there. Remember, trying to compete with Mass Effect 3 and MW3 here. That's like trying to compete with Stalin in a "send people to Siberia" contest.
Trying to pick and choose parts to include just isn't going to work. In ten years, people will still be playing X-Com on their neural processing implants with holographic 4D vision and dosbox version 9001. In ten years, I bet they won't even remember XCOM, unless it's "you mean that shooter that took away all the good parts of X-Com?" This is because the game blended deep strategic gameplay and deep tactical gameplay, producing something that has the best aspects of both a strategic and tactical game.
Frankly, I still don't understand why they're making this game a shooter. This is the studio that published Civilization. There's no way they can possibly think that turn based strategy games don't sell.
Posting Permissions
2K Elizabeth