X-COM announced as a FPS......(in 2000!)

[japester]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last announced X-COM game was X-COM Alliance....and it was supposed to a FPS based on the Unreal engine.

Eerie, eh? LOL

You'd think 10 years would be long enough for the fans to adjust. 2K is simply continuing the plans Hasbro started 10 years ago.

X-COM Apocalypse was RTS, and abandoned the global view (so 2K isn't the first to try that, either). The funniest quote (and remember this is from 13 years ago):

The addition of a real-time combat option, the announcement of which had X-COM purists protesting in horror, does not make X-COM the Command & Conquer clone that everyone feared.

Yes, X-COM fans have a long and proud tradition of "protesting in horror". Again, eerie. LOL

X-COM Interceptor abandoned squad combat altogether (horror!) and was a space dogfight game.

And X-COM Enforcer was a "pure arcade action game".

I encourage folks to review these titles when they get the urge to gnash their teeth and pull their hair out at the shocking changes 2K is suggesting. Because the fact of the matter is....X-COM has been many things over the years. We all may have enjoyed the original 1993 TBS version the best, but X-COM has spent more time not being a TBS game. If the original developers could experiment with the sacred concept of X-COM, why can't 2K take a crack at it?

[Mr.Big_Daddy]

Yeah but XCOM:Alliance was cancelled, that doesn't bode well for this FPS. I'm not saying 2k Marin are a worse developer, but the developers of Alliance obviously found problems with the transition from TBS to FPS, so maybe 2k will.

[Aegeri]

X-Com apocalypse was an alright game, but it didn't have the same charm and isn't as well regarded as the first game. In saying this it has numerous defenders and fans, compared with the two action games that followed especially.

X-Com Enforcer and X-Com Interceptor are both completely dramatic failures.

What does that tell you Japester? Are you really selling your argument on "Look, here are three games that did things different than X-Com and ALL of them are failures!" as some sort of good point? I'm just not at all sure what you're trying to argue here except to prove the point those who think it should be a game in the vein of the first are right.

Because you know, history proves that?

I encourage folks to review these titles when they get the urge to gnash their teeth and pull their hair out at the shocking changes 2K is suggesting.

X-Com apocalypse is either bad, okay or somewhat good depending on certain viewpoints. I can understand people who like that game even if I don't. But it's still got turn based combat (or you can choose real time) and while other decisions irked some, it made some interesting changes in other ways (like how chumming up to different corporations would provide different assistance). I can view it as a noble, if failed, effort to continue the series and improve on the original.

X-Com enforcer and X-Com interceptor are in every single conceivable way possible utterly awful. That you think you're making some point here that shows making this game a non-strategy game is good is not supported by these games.

So in reviewing when X-Com has been translated into an action game twice (Enforcer and Interceptor) has bought about two of the worst games made (arguably not just in the series, but they are objectively bad games on their own merits). Your argument is "Look guys, they changed the game from a strategy game to action games in the past! Despite that those games were utterly terrible this totally makes turning it into an action game now a completely great decision!".

You're not going to go far with this line of argumentation.

Edit: And X-Com Alliance looked like (at the time) it was going to be absolutely terrible as well IMO. That it was canceled also utterly undermines your argument.

Edit2: As I love facts here's a line of argumentation that is best, the three "best" games that were all X-Com were all turn based strategy games or at least turn based/real time strategy games (I'm including Apocalypse - my own bias against Apocalypse does not change the game has many inherent strengths and merits of its own as a good strategy game).

The two worst games were both not strategy games. X-Com alliance, which decided that most of your squadmates should be female to appeal to a "male" demographic and other decisions, sounded awful in many other ways. That game was canceled. So strategy games are 3/3 and non-strategy games are 0/3. Good record that to be using as the basis for an argument that we should totally be happy about more non-strategy games in this franchise!

Conclusions can be drawn independently from that. So when another game is announced and it's not a strategy game and the worst games in the series have been the non-strategy games, the result is not excitement.

Edit3: For the record, you can buy all of the X-Com games - yes even the utterly terrible ones on steam for $15. At the same time, this gives you the first three games and while I don't like apocalypse it's definitely worth playing. It's not like steam will hold a gun to your head and make you defile your hard drive with enforcer or interceptor.

[Gimli]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last announced X-COM game was X-COM Alliance....and it was supposed to a FPS based on the Unreal engine.

Eerie, eh? LOL

You'd think 10 years would be long enough for the fans to adjust. 2K is simply continuing the plans Hasbro started 10 years ago.

X-COM Apocalypse was RTS, and abandoned the global view (so 2K isn't the first to try that, either). The funniest quote (and remember this is from 13 years ago):

Yes, X-COM fans have a long and proud tradition of "protesting in horror". Again, eerie. LOL

X-COM Interceptor abandoned squad combat altogether (horror!) and was a space dogfight game.

And X-COM Enforcer was a "pure arcade action game".

I encourage folks to review these titles when they get the urge to gnash their teeth and pull their hair out at the shocking changes 2K is suggesting. Because the fact of the matter is....X-COM has been many things over the years. We all may have enjoyed the original 1993 TBS version the best, but X-COM has spent more time not being a TBS game. If the original developers could experiment with the sacred concept of X-COM, why can't 2K take a crack at it?

I'm going to correct you because in some places you are wrong. You should have researched this better, there's plenty of material on the web. Or heck, if you (or anyone else) wants to know something, you can always ask me, I know most of what was available publicly. Just sayin', you know.

The last announced X-COM games were in fact X-COM: Alliance - a squad based FPS, and X-COM: Genesis - a strategy game. With the latter, the developers were going for a RTwP model, but were still testing if it would work. They had decided that if it didn't work out, they would go for a TB combat model.
Some were happy with the direction the developers took and some weren't.

Also, I should point out that Hasbro didn't plan anything. Much like 2K Games does marketing (and maybe publishing) and 2K Marin/2K Australia does the development, Hasbro did the publishing and marketing and internal development companies did the development. More on that later (if I don't forget).

As for Apocalypse. Apocalypse was not an RTS. In fact, none of Altar's UFO: After... games were either, not to my knowledge at least. I'll get back to this but for now you have to understand that X-COM was in every case (except maybe Enforcer, but Enforcer doesn't exist ) divided into two portions. The tactical battles and the "...scape" (Geoscape, Cityscape, and I forget what it was called in Interceptor). The "...scape" was again divided into two: the base management and the map for interception and stuff. So it was in fact 2 games in one (or 3 if you want to separate the map from base management). That was one of the reasons that X-COM was so respected in the first place. Combining two games into one is difficult. The Lead Designer of Interceptor said in an interview that one of the most important things in which Interceptor went wrong was that the two parts were developed separately and only combined very late into the development process.
Now to get back to the point. These two components were in fact different genres so it's not strictly correct to assign one of the genres to the whole game. Specifically, Apocalypse had a real-time Cityscape, management and RTwP/TB combat. When entering a tactical mission, the player is offered a choice between TB and RTwP. I say RTwP (real-time with pause) - this is an important distinction from how RTS works. RTwP is intended to have the game play out in real-time but with more control to make it more like TB. Playing Apocalypse in pure real-time would have been nigh impossible (especially on higher difficulties) and downright annoying. I think there was a reason for including both RTwP and TB, but I don't remember what it was or where I've read it. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work out well. There's more than one reason, but two very important were the fact that the game was shipped unfinished and, even more importantly, precisely the fact that it used both combat systems. The latter was a problem because the developers had to have good balance for each of the systems and at the same time, have each system be balanced toward each other. Naturally, this was not the case when the game shipped. I'm not going to go into detail about the combat systems, because that would be way too much text for this. Suffice it to say that there were problems and with some other things different from UFO and TFTD, the original feeling was lost. Apocalypse bent toward controlling an entire squad at once and much of the tension of the first two games was gone. For example, you were able to move the entire squad at once and by keeping them together achieve strength in guns. This would never have worked in the first two games, because the AI in them immediately threw grenades at you and even with the most powerful armor this could result in immediate death or heavy wounding (or nothing at all if you're lucky). In the first two games you learned to keep your soldiers far apart while having them cover each other. That created tension, because it sometimes meant that only one or two of your soldiers could see the alien and if they missed they were 99% dead when the aliens got their turn. There's more to it than that, but the point is that you had to keep them far apart a lot of the time to avoid grenades and explosives in general. I'm not saying that the combat in Apocalypse was bad, far from it. In fact, in some cases it made very good improvements on the first two games. On the other hand it also made some bad changes. All in all, it was good, but could have been better and it also lost the feel and pace of the first two games.
To anyone who ever intends to develop a game, let this be a lesson to you: never, ever have both RT and TB combat for the same thing. It's a major recipe for disaster. Think about it this way: you have to balance RT combat, TB combat and then balance both to each other. That's more than twice the amount of work you would have had had you gone for only one. A RTwP Apocalypse would have been a better choice than this. You'll have to ask those who played it, but I think the same thing happened to Arcanum.

Lastly, when talking about original developers, you have to know something about them. For starters, X-COM: UFO Defense was designed by Nick and Julian Gollop. They had their own development studio which, at the time, was called Mythos Games. Mythos developed the first X-COM and got Microprose to publish. They started working on Apocalypse at the time and gave Microprose permission to work on TFTD in the mean time. That's right, Mythos didn't develop TFTD, it was developed by Microprose's internal developers. After Apocalypse was done, the Gollops sold X-COM rights to Microprose (which later owed them some royalties they never saw) and Interceptor was again developed by Microprose. For Alliance and Genesis, Microprose had two internal studios, each developing one of them. Again, Mythos had nothing to do with it.

Mythos later started developing Dreamland Chronicles, which was essentially a spiritual successor to X-COM. It was to have TB combat and it had some very advanced features (destructible terrain and physics in a 3D engine in 2000-2001) but it was canceled mid-development. The reasons are not quite clear, but one story we've heard was that they had already spent $20 million on the game (which was a huge budget at the time). Anyway, the game was then given to Altar and after a lot of changes became what is known as UFO: Aftermath.

Yeah, I know, wall of text. I just wanted to clear up misconceptions.

[fastestlouigie]

Ah Gimli, I bow down to the seemingly bottomless depths of your fountain of knowledge with regards to all that is X-Com. That made for a very interesting read and it made me think back to the time I attended a LSN 'do in Bristol where Nick and Julian were present (I stayed with the bread knife at the hotel it was being held at;she thought we were all a bunch of losers......correct! ).
I wonder if Nick or Julian will be consulted by 2kMarin, would be a good idea I think.

[fastestlouigie]

My Bread-knife's just arrived back in the house and she reminded me that as well as her having to suffer the indignity of attending a saddo gaming event, it was her birthday that weekend as well! I'm such a romantic.....

[IllusionOfLife]

Hey jape, I get the point your trying to make, but I don't think it's a very good argument. I too think that XCOM has the potential to be really good as an FPS, or it could be terrible, we just don't know yet, but Aegeri's right, bringing up the other games makes a stronger argument for returning to X-COM's roots rather than taking it in a new direction.

I understand that your point was to address the "this isn't X-COM!" argument by saying that X-COM has been many things over the years. However, I think bringing up the sequels that it seems like most people hated will just strengthen their arguments. I'm really excited for the OXM article so that we can all finally have something to back up our arguments.

[japester]

Thanks for the background info, Gimli. I was keeping it simple for brevity's sake and was basing it off the articles written by Gamespot (which I linked to). I bought the latter games off Steam but haven't tried them them. I remember reading about them when they were first released, but that was long ago. The thing I was most curious about was how the rights have changed hands and which studios were involved at what time. Thanks for clearing that up.

At the end of the day, though, my point is that some of the major changes being implemented by 2K which people are howling about (FPS, loss of global view, etc) have already been planned or implemented in previous XCOM games. Even if those games weren't well-received, it doesn't change the fact that fans treating this as new and shocking are being a bit disingenuous. Acting like 2K has stepped in and suddenly sullied the sacred name of XCOM. XCOM has been passed around and tinkered with by several owners (if I'm reading you right) over the years. So experimentation with the concept is more the norm than the TBS format it started with. And fans should be accustomed to it, if they know their XCOM history (as you surely do). Otherwise, fans have been in a state of indignant horror and outrage for what....13 straight years now? That seems a bit much, don't you think?

[japester]

Hey jape, I get the point your trying to make, but I don't think it's a very good argument.

I definitely hear where you're coming from, Illusion.

I just find it humorous that "true fans" still have so much fresh outrage and indignation, considering the loooong and tumultuous history of the franchise. They must keep their rage in Tupperware for it to stay so fresh after so many uses and so many years.

[fastestlouigie]

All over a "glorified game of chess but with Humans and Aliens", who'd have thought that such a thoughtful, considered bunch of nerds could be so passionate? I think this reflects well on us and reinforces most fans' view that we want an official X-Com to do the name proud. Let's hope that the developers truly are fans of the originals and they have the creative freedom to incorporate as many elements of these into their new offering.

[Sectus]

As someone who was active in the X-Com community during the time X-Com Alliance was announced... most fans were actually looking forward to it. It was supposed to be a squad based shooter (even giving you mini displays for each squad member so you can always see what they see). I can't remember if there was any info about there being any equivalent to geoscape, but I'm assuming there was. I think most fans were just excited to see the classic type of gameplay imagined as a shooter.

To be fair, times were different back then. Fans still expected to get a isometric tactical X-Com at some point, and shooters didn't completely saturate the market (they were still super popular, but not even close to how it is today). Heck, there were even *other* turnbased tactical games at the time. That genre is nearly dead now.

X-Com: Apocalypse is a classic X-Com game. Geoscape was turned into the Cityscape, and despite what a few crazy fans back then (and still) claim it didn't limit the scope. The Cityscape is much more complex and indepth than the Geoscape in the first games. And the tactical gameplay was still there, just with the option between turnbased and realtime (and realtime wasn't drastically different... it was still the same style of tactics. I hate seeing the word "RTS" when talking about Apocalypse, because RTS implies games like C&C or Warcraft, which doesn't compare in any way whatsoever).

I can't remember what most fans thought about X-Com: Interceptor, but it was definitely one of the least liked X-Com games. But even so, it retained most aspects of X-Com game. It was still a hybrid game (with the geoscape portion being nearly identical to the older games). I played it and enjoyed it. I think its only problems were the ugly presentation, and the odd choice of space sim combat (which I didn't have a big problem with since I was a huge fan of X-Wing). It's far from my favourite X-Com game though.

X-Com: Enforcer is the only X-Com title which all fans can easily agree was an absolute disgrace. It isn't even good at what it's trying to be. It's a very mindless arcadey shooter, and not enjoyable at all. It retains zero gameplay elements from the previous games. It still tried to be in the same universe, but that just felt like an insult with the classic aliens running around dying as soon as you walk into them. And the X-Com scientist in the game was just random comic relief, and not even succeeding at that.

It was also released after Microprose being shut down, and Genesis and Alliance being cancelled, so fans weren't exactly in a happy mood.

I understand how fans would react in a similar way now. The new X-Com was announced as a pure shooter, mentioning no links to the original series in either gameplay, style or story. In a way, it reflects the announcement of Enforcer. Of it being a completely different action oriented game and by a new publisher.

But well, fortunately there's no chance in heck it'll be as bad as Enforcer. And hopefully the rumours about it retaining some classic X-Com gameplay elements are true.

[nu_clear_day]

At the end of the day, though, my point is that some of the major changes being implemented by 2K which people are howling about (FPS, loss of global view, etc) have already been planned or implemented in previous XCOM games. Even if those games weren't well-received, it doesn't change the fact that fans treating this as new and shocking are being a bit disingenuous. Acting like 2K has stepped in and suddenly sullied the sacred name of XCOM. XCOM has been passed around and tinkered with by several owners (if I'm reading you right) over the years. So experimentation with the concept is more the norm than the TBS format it started with. And fans should be accustomed to it, if they know their XCOM history (as you surely do). Otherwise, fans have been in a state of indignant horror and outrage for what....13 straight years now? That seems a bit much, don't you think?

Well, it's actually because of those titles that I have less patience with this concept than I otherwise would. Because my good-will and optimism have already been stretched pretty far a couple of times for this very same reason. To their credit, I have a feeling that if anyone's going to be able to do this "right" it's probably 2K - I want to believe they're at least not going to make "mindless alien shooter #4,245." But my knee-jerk reaction is still that they're kicking a dead horse, here.

It just feels counter-intuitive to re-attempt something ("X-Com was a good game, but it needs more action,") that has already failed a couple of times already. It almost reminds me of how every time I've stayed at a hotel and that magnetic key thing doesn't work, without fail someone has to come by and try to show me how to do it right (because obviously I've failed to grasp the concept of placing a strip of plastic into it's slot and then quickly removing it...)

I want to be a fountain of never-ending goodwill and optimism, but this fountain's starting to run dry. (And of course "just give it a chance" was probably what a lot of people were saying when Enforcer was coming out, as well... )

I just find it humorous that "true fans" still have so much fresh outrage and indignation, considering the loooong and tumultuous history of the franchise. They must keep their rage in Tupperware for it to stay so fresh after so many uses and so many years.

I keep mine in the freezer - the only downside is that all that frost-burn lends it a certain bitter taste.

(I should mention that the very fact that it never looks like us fans will get the remake we actually want to play doesn't help any of this. For example, if you're a big Halo fan who hates RTS games, Halo Wars probably doesn't bug you as much, because at least you still have contemporary versions of your favorite series - it's not like Halo was dead for fifteen years before being resurrected as exactly the sort of game you're least interested in playing.)

Honestly, this probably will be something I end up buying. None of this is going to alter the quality of the original games. I'm weak like that. But the fact still remains that no matter how good a mood I'm in about this I'm still going to have mixed feelings.

[Quanta]

I definitely hear where you're coming from, Illusion.

I just find it humorous that "true fans" still have so much fresh outrage and indignation, considering the loooong and tumultuous history of the franchise. They must keep their rage in Tupperware for it to stay so fresh after so many uses and so many years.

My guess is that, after the failures of Interceptor and Enforcer, fans have been waiting for someone to return the franchise to its turn-based strategy roots. Thing is, strategy games translate poorly to console, which I suspect is one of the reasons they went the FPS route. Like PC gamers needed another reason to hate console gamers more.

[japester]

All over a "glorified game of chess but with Humans and Aliens", who'd have thought that such a thoughtful, considered bunch of nerds could be so passionate? I think this reflects well on us and reinforces most fans' view that we want an official X-Com to do the name proud. Let's hope that the developers truly are fans of the originals and they have the creative freedom to incorporate as many elements of these into their new offering.

Hear! Hear!

I keep mine in the freezer - the only downside is that all that frost-burn lends it a certain bitter taste.

Okay, you got a "LOL" out of me for that one. Very creative.

The nice thing about 2K having the IP now is that I truly believe they are fans of the original and will try to incorporate the spirit of the game (if not the specific mechanics) that we all love. Plus, this is a high profile title. Based on what Gimli described, XCOM became the red-headed stepchild of Microprose, being kicked around for a quick cash in. But 2K has deep pockets and a thoughtful approach to game design. If anyone can do it justice, I'm thinking they will.

[Gorkel]

also 2 other xcom games were planned

xcom genesis (a remake of enemy unknown)

and dreamland chronicles (the next progression in the franchise and planned by the xcom devs after hasbros collapse)

both of these were tactical strategy games in the same vein as the original trilogy. Xcom alliance was in many ways jsut a terrible idea from the begining. Xcom enforcer cannot be considered an xcom game since it had nothing to do with xocm except the logo (a cheap cash in by hasbro)

in my opinino xcom apoc was best, i like the 2 originals aswell but i also liked the added depth brought on by apoc, it was even more bold and pushed the game into heavy micro managment that some loved and some didnt like. I would have loved a combination of the 2 originals underwater and surface missions.

[Aegeri]

My guess is that, after the failures of Interceptor and Enforcer, fans have been waiting for someone to return the franchise to its turn-based strategy roots. Thing is, strategy games translate poorly to console, which I suspect is one of the reasons they went the FPS route. Like PC gamers needed another reason to hate console gamers more.

This would only be true if turn based games weren't far more common on consoles and sell very well on consoles. In fact turn based strategy games do very well on a console, especially because RTS games on consoles fail spectacularly as major control issues get in the way. I am firmly convinced you could make a deep, satisfying X-Com game work on the PS3/360 if you actually tried to do so.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Console gamers are not retards.

Edit: At the same time, I don't think you'd need to compromise the PC version either while doing this.

As someone who was active in the X-Com community during the time X-Com Alliance was announced... most fans were actually looking forward to it.

There were many aspects about X-Com Alliance I didn't like the sound of, but I didn't actively hate the game or feel disappointed about it. This is because we were getting X-Com genesis as well, which was to be a turn based with possibly real time with pause as well update to the original game. That meant I was like, well if Alliance sucks it won't matter because I'll be getting Genesis anyway. Then everything got canceled and we got nothing.

Why do I dislike the new game? Because it's just another FPS to throw onto a pile of "Just another FPS" games. We're not getting any genuine update to the franchise unless rumors about Firaxis doing a new TB update are true - in which case I wouldn't mind the decision to make an X-Com FPS at all. In fact if they make a new 50s themed turn based game I would think that was pretty awesome as well. You could add depth to the world with the FPS game and then have genuine depth to the gameplay with the actual strategy game. Why you wouldn't announce you were doing that either simultaneously or the strategy game first is beyond me though.

[AlphaCent]

I just can't side with the fanatic X-com fan...even though X-com is my number one game series ever (except enforcer). Having replayed it numerous times.

I enjoyed all four of them very much. All of them had the basic of what an X-com should have. Strategic planning, tactical combat, base management, research, story/plot, attention to detail,...

Also i don't agree with the newbs that try to apologize the "new" approach.

The first side wants a stagnant x-com, the other want's to destroy it altogether.


What we will be getting with the new Xcom is a watered down and lacking version.
It will remove some of the core elements and smooth out the remaining ones.
I'm willing to bet on it.


Personally the third Xcom is my favorite, albeit unpolished it has more detail than the first two. Interceptor brings the action to a new front.
I liked all of them because they all were "true" to the X-com concept. Alliance seemed promising and i was looking forward to it.

[nu_clear_day]

I think my.. "issue" (with this whole trend, actually,) is that to at least some degree each time a series gets "re-imagined" in this way is that you're starting almost from scratch each time.

It's not a new concept that often it takes a couple of iterations on a concept before a game really comes into it's own. There's often things learned from the first game, a certain lack of polish, whatever, that don't you don't really see until the second or third game in a series. That's what makes sequels so popular.

The first X-Com, for example, was a great game - but there are some key mechanics that were missing. (For example, it can quickly become quite tedious having to re-equip your squad every single mission and having to write down other important information because you can't access their stats screen when selecting gear.)

X-Com: Apocalypse was almost, but not quite there. It had a lot going for it, but you're still dealing with a sprite-based game that's trying to represent a 3D world, and that can get rather problematic at times, as well.

And by that same token, of course, sometimes a series can get too bogged down with itself after so many iterations that it starts to lose a sense of itself.

Anyway, that's the "problem" I see with this "reboot." We're talking about taking a series where there was plenty of stuff to build on, and starting from scratch all over again. This might be quite a good game. It's too early to tell if it'll be something I'll buy, but by that same token it's also too early for me to dismiss it out of hand. I have trust that 2K is going to make something that isn't just a "mindless shooter."

It might be quite good, but I'd also be willing to bet that it won't be until "XCom 2" that it really starts to see it's full potential. (All while there's this hypothetical "true sequel" of the original X-Com game mechanics just floating around in the ether waiting to be realized. True, no one "needs" to be making that game, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't something I had trouble disassociating myself from.)

[hydro123456]

I definitely hear where you're coming from, Illusion.

I just find it humorous that "true fans" still have so much fresh outrage and indignation, considering the loooong and tumultuous history of the franchise. They must keep their rage in Tupperware for it to stay so fresh after so many uses and so many years.

I think it's a combination of factors that makes this one sting so much. Part of it is that we haven't had a real X-com game for so long. I remember being excited about Alliance, but at the time Apocalypse had came out fairly recently so I wasn't really pining for a new X-com TBS game as much as I am now. Also I think it's just a huge let down, we heard about this 2 years ago and it's finally announced and isn't at all what we want. On top of that you have the fact that every time they try to change it up it fails miserably, which makes it seem so stupid to do it again.

[shorn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last announced X-COM game was X-COM Alliance....and it was supposed to a FPS based on the Unreal engine.

Oh you should have seen the modems light up on that news! the flame wars were abundant back then and spanned the prepubescent internet as well as the older more established dial up BBS's. Even now i can remember the delight when we heard Alliance was canceled...how we danced in the internet dens that day!