In addition to what Codex said, there's also the distinction that BioShock 3 would be a numbered entry. XCOM is not. If they had called it X-COM 5 or worse, X-COM 2, this would be a very different situation, but as a spinoff/reboot/whatever you want to call it, I think it's ok for 2K to take a little artistic license.Originally Posted by Mr.Plum
Last edited by IllusionOfLife; 06-10-2010 at 10:38 AM.
Your arguments are not stupid and neither are you "incensing" anyone for liking the game. Do not confuse my attacking of your arguments for my attacking of you personally or the fact you like the game.Aegeri, I'm sorry my arguments came across as stupid. I was attempting to be peaceful and not incense your side of the argument by actually liking the idea of a game
Your core arguments were:
1) That "XCOM" means it should not be treated as being the same as the original games (EG it's a reboot so don't judge it as part of the original series).
This would be a fair argument if the fact 2k didn't sabotage you when the announcement claimed it was the return of "X-Com". And regardless of a hyphen, there is only one X-Com they can mean by that and that's the original series. So 2k killed your argument, blame them but your argument doesn't affect how 2k games introduced it.
2) If the game is successful it will make 2k do a strategy game.
No, everything that's successful gets a sequel that is more of the same. Sometimes successful things don't get sequels and spin off into weird and stupid directions, leading to their deaths. Like Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Complete failure, yet an RPG sequel (many years later, when Ineptplay couldn't maintain the company other than by selling IPs that is)? Complete success. Really is there a better example of the proof in the pudding than that?
Neither of these arguments are "stupid", the problem is neither argument is logically or factually supported. Argument 1 is destroyed by 2k games to begin with, who announced the game as the "Return of X-Com". Argument 2 is just nonsensical because if the game is a success we'll get another FPS. That's the way basically everything works. To show how the argument doesn't work, let's say that because Modern Warfare 2 is a success, that means we'll get a Modern Warfare RTS.
Are Activision going to make a Modern Warfare 3 or an RTS? One of these is immensely likely over the other.
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 10:46 AM.
I was just tying to make a point, I just happened to use Bioshock 3 as an example. It could have worked for any popular franchise.
Yes, but if you had used any other popular franchise my point would have still been valid. A numbered entry implies that it's directly tied to those that come before and after it, so it needs to match up. However, a spinoff or a reboot, is not bound by those same constraints. Batman Begins did not have to tie into Batman & Robin because it was starting fresh, and as such they were allowed to do things differently. Star Wars: The Clone Wars (the movie) was tied to the numbered Episodes of Star Wars by cannon, but nobody gave two blinks about the fact that it was crap because it wasn't a numbered entry, it was a spinoff. By comparison, Episodes I, II, and to a lesser extent III are still controversial because they were numbered entries that didn't honor the original trilogy.
That's the point I'm trying to make, XCOM is not being billed as a continuation of the franchise, it's a reintroduction that's being presented in a different manner than the originals. My point is that, in theory, this is ok because it's a reboot, where it would not be ok if it was a numbered entry.
Called it. Trying to get my comp to download the trailer. Not holding my breath.
In short: this new ''XCOM'' game is ''X(hyphen)COM'' 's ''Batman Begins.
Well done.
You can has a cookie. :P
All I was trying to say was that it was inevitable that some fans of the original X-COM would be disappointed of the change in genre. I was just trying to explain to Codex that it was an understandable reaction.
Well, in theory. I'm not saying that it will be as good a reboot as Batman Begins (I'm sure that if I did the X-COM fanboys would parachute in and cut me off at the pass). It could just as easily be X-COM's Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I'm just saying that as a reboot, it's allowed to do things differently.In short: this new ''XCOM'' game is ''X(hyphen)COM'' 's ''Batman Begins.
Last edited by IllusionOfLife; 06-10-2010 at 11:13 AM.
I am so tempted to tear that argument to pieces, it could be logically savaged from so many different directions it's almost tantalizing. Let's try something new though. Can you spot at least, I dunno ten different flaws with that argument about this game being a reboot in the same vein as Batman Begins is?
Edit: Let's start by removing Batman from Batman Begins and go from there.
*Noms on the cookie.*
I was using an analogy, as we've already been over, they're imperfect creatures. My point was simply that as a reboot 2K is allowed more license to do things differently than if it were a numbered entry. I didn't even say that it would be a good reboot (thus my comparison to Star Wars: The Clone Wars), I'm just saying that by the fact that this isn't a numbered entry 2K has every right to change things up.
Two small problems:
1. I got a 'Ghostbusters' feeling from the Trailer. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.
2. The 'tesla gun' look too 'home-made' and goofy.
But aside all that, I love that thing at the end: very powerful; very X-COM....
And I like the logo at the very end as well.
The problem is your analogy is so awful it ceases to be relevant.
Let me put a core comparison to this game as a reboot and Batman Begins/The Dark Knight as "reboots".
Let's remove the iconic Batman villains from Batman.
Do you still have Batman? Like this is a core point here, this is where we can draw a direct analogy. Do you think if the new Batman movies didn't have iconic villains like Scarecrow and the Joker they would be anywhere near as well regarded? Do you think fans would be happy with a Batman movie that pretended the comics didn't exist at all?
Right there is your analogy and it doesn't make your comparison look good.
Can I make a list of all the Batman elements in Batman Begins to prove my point?
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 11:20 AM.
how about...he just said that he WASN'T saying it would be as good a reboot...in other words it could be a good reboot....or...it could,like alot of people think,suck hard. Don't act like he said something totally different than what he actually did. He basically said it could be a good reboot,or a bad reboot
Why not? They've already got half of the gameplay done! Look at all that goo! Goo on the walls, goo in the pipes, goo on the floors, goo on people's faces...Edit: Someone elsewhere said this, but this game could do really well as being an FPS update to World of Goo.
Yeah. It needs more blobs. Clearly, a blob-gun... Or perhaps a blob-sprayer wouldn't be out of place.
More seriously, did anyone think the (player?) screaming out when he threw a blobatov was really cheesy? I thought 2k was trying to avoid the cheese with this "reimagining?"
Also, I have to again ask why the hell he's using a "blobatov cocktail" when it relies upon a presumably dangerous and difficult to contain substance like killer alien blobs. Why not a simple molotov cocktail? Or, better, an incendiary grenade?
Part of what has most of us X-Com fans incensed is the bait and switch here. I mean, when I first heard "2k in production of new XCOM game!" I yelped and rushed out to find all information I possibly could.
Then the soulcrushing despair set in as, more and more, I discovered a game that quite possibly has less in common with X-Com than Enforcer did. If you're not an X-Com fan you might not understand how much of an indictment that is, but trust me, being compared unfavorably to Enforcer when it comes to respecting the name is like being compared to Uwe Boll when it comes to making good movies.
Mainly because it means that in time, "XCOM" will be the only thing that comes to mind when people think "X-Com," save for a subset of true fans. It's a resistance to being marginalized by a flood of people who come in to, basically, pat each other on the backs and say "Oh wow this trailer and game is AMAZING!"
I don't know about you, but I'd rather read a forum that's overly critical of a game - any game, than one that consists primarily of people who just show up to say "oh wow I'm so excited this game looks like its going to rock!"
At least then we're likely to get more reasoned arguments, rather than simple emotional responses to external stimuli.
Not just shooting blobs, Aegeri! Roasting them with the glorious product of Nikola Tesla! Or at least his Cthulhuoid equivelent!
Okay. Now, imagine the next Bioshock game will be an RTS that takes place in 2046, detailing a war between superpowers over "Adam", a strange material/power source that is found on random porches. There are no known references or connections to Rapture, no Big Daddies, no Little Sisters, no art-deco style, and the primary antagonists are a bunch of featureless black blobs and flying stone monoliths.
Also, the devs have stated that they're making a conscious decision to avoid the "cliches" of the series, so you cannot expect to see most of the things that made Bioshock, well, Bioshock.
Oh, and there's most likely no deeper philosophical quandry like Objectivism versus Realism, or Collectivism versus Epicurianism.
Now, how do you feel about our hypothetical Bio-Shock?
I'm not talking of the quality, you've missed the entire point of the argument. The point is how bad an argument you're making in the first place.
Batman begins has every single essential element of Batman lore and comics in it.
This game does not have every single essential element of being X-Com in it.
Do you see the core difference?
You tell me why fans (And I would be one!) think Batman Begins and the Dark Knight were great Batman movies. When you do, you'll realize just how awful your comparison to this game actually was and you'll gain greater understanding as to why you're having this conversation in the first place!
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 11:23 AM.
Yes, I believe so (hear me out). In the Batman universe new villains are created for the purpose of the story. I wouldn't have any problem with Chris Nolan and company introducing a new villain as long as it was a good addition to the series.
Besides, it's yet to be seen if the aliens from the original X-COM games will make an appearance. We've seen the blobs, but those are the lowest rung of the totem pole. It's entirely possible that there will be more familiar faces higher up the list. My theory is that 2K is saving them as a surprise for a later announcement.
Last edited by IllusionOfLife; 06-10-2010 at 11:35 AM.
No, they've said there won't be any of the original aliens.
Incidentally, did you ever get DOSBox working?
And yet they didn't.
And they are regarded as fantastic movies.
You haven't made an argument that a Batman movie without the iconic villains would be something fans would want. How many Batman "reboots" (and there are numerous cartoons as well) do not feature iconic villains? Or for that matter basically remove Batman?
I love this quote:Besides, it's yet to be seen if the aliens from the original X-COM games will make an appearance.
That answers that conclusively, right from the developers mouth too“One of the things that we wanted to move away from was the kitsch or the expected from these creatures,” says Pelling. “Creating a set of enemies loaded with preconceptions really undermines the game. Part of the impact of seeing our aliens is that they’re not bipedal things walking around, it’s something completely different. We want you to look at them, study and explore them.”
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that they wanted to go for something less resemblance to sci-fi archetypes and do something more unique, but I've never heard any talk of eliminating the original aliens. Back to the Batman analogy (despite it being so apparently flawed), the Joker in The Dark Knight was different in appearance and history to any Joker that's preceded him, but he was still Joker. In fact, he's become in many's opinion the definitive Joker (though I still like Mark Hamill)
It's entirely possible that they could be reintroducing the classic aliens in a new light. It's also entirely possible that they could not be and the whole game could be shooting blobs and running away from visually boring UFOs.
Also, I've not taken the time to get it running yet. It's on my to do list, but it's not very high because I figure I've got until 2011 to get to it.
More seriously, did anyone think the (player?) screaming out when he threw a blobatov was really cheesy? I thought 2k was trying to avoid the cheese with this "reimagining?"
Ummm, Cpl_Facehugger? Did you even play xcom Interceptor? This is nowhere as goofy and stupid as Interceptor. Trust me on that!
I haven't even told you about the xcom pilots yet!
For those who never played Interceptor:
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs15/f/20...podtech115.jpg
Facehugger and Aegeri, can I just get a clarification from you? I'm really confused about a point here.
When XCOM was first announced, and I claimed so long as it had a good story I wouldn't care about gameplay, yadda yadda yadda (and was shot down for it), I was told that the whol point of X-Com was that the gameplay was the only thing that mattered. There wasn't a "lore" or a "story" to it beyond "aliens are attacking, DEFEAT THEM!"
Now, you're both using arguments of story elements to counter comments related to the fact that the "reboot" is not a "reboot," (and I stated in an earlier post that I think that was a mistake on 2k's part) but in fact changes the whole lore of the game. I'm still really confused as to where arguments are being based on - is the "reboot" a problem because it doesn't keep to the gameplay, because that was the soul of the original, or is it a problem because the lore of the original is what made it the be all and end all of existance?
Batman (to use Illusion's tricksy little analogy) and Bioshock are entirely lore based. You can change the gameplay of Bioshock and still have it be Bioshock, you can change the bad guys in Batman and still have it be Batman (heck, you can even change the feeling of it and still have it be Batman. Adam West, anyone?). Why is it a forgone conclusion that X-Com won't survive the same treatment? I'm really sorry for being utterly absent of understanding on this point, but from what I've read the argument that X-Com had a lore that shouldn't be changed is contradicted by earlier arguments that the gameplay was all that mattered. Then again, this may be my own interpretation of the posts that have been made. Would you mind enlightening me?
Again, my argument is not that this will be a fantastic game. I'm hopeful for it, but I'm not arguing that point. My point is that it's well within 2K's rights to create new creatures for a reboot of the series.
And as for the quote you mentioned it does not eliminate the possibility of redesigned versions of the aliens from X-COM, it simply says that they want to surprise the audience with something new.
This misses the point fundamentally - he was still there and their interpretation of the Joker was also fundamentally faithful to the comics.
Now if you call him Po-po the amorphous blob clown you've got a major problem.
I treat the games gameplay as the same effectively thing as Batman Begins lore and plot. Batman Begins is a faithful remake because it respects the lore of Batman - but you don't play it (another fatal flaw in using this as an analogy).
In X-Com terms the lore is rather secondary, but then again it would be better to have the iconic aliens of X-Com than the rubbish that composes amorphous uninteresting blobs and modern art. Like if I had a choice I know what I'd take! What I'm really referring to with regards to X-Com is the gameplay, themes and other things being bought forward. This is where the "reboot" fails entirely. It doesn't respect the old games lore, it doesn't bother about its gameplay and in the end we end up with a very bioshock feeling shooter with an X-Files like theme.
With blobs. Oh and a research camera. To photograph blobs.
Edit:
So when he says they aren't going to make bipedal aliens you're going to assume they're going to redesign old, bipedal aliens into... what? Something that isn't actually anything to do with the original aliens?
Come on now.
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 11:41 AM.
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that they wanted to go for something less resemblance to sci-fi archetypes and do something more unique, but I've never heard any talk of eliminating the original aliens. Back to the Batman analogy (despite it being so apparently flawed), the Joker in The Dark Knight was different in appearance and history to any Joker that's preceded him, but he was still Joker. In fact, he's become in many's opinion the definitive Joker (though I still like Mark Hamill
It's entirely possible that they could be reintroducing the classic aliens in a new light. It's also entirely possible that they could not be and the whole game could be shooting blobs and running away from visually boring UFOs.
Also, I've not taken the time to get it running yet. It's on my to do list, but it's not very high because I figure I've got until 2011 to get to it.So the design process distorted them until there was nothing familiar remaining. One of the lead designers specifically say's there'll be no greys or other bipedal aliens with guns, too.
Okay. That addresses the enemies in this "reboot." Let's leave aside the question of whether these new villains are compelling or interesting, since we know nothing about them besides blobs and evil modern art. I'll give 2k the benefit of the doubt here.
Now, tell me, would Batman: The Romantic Comedy be a worthy successor? We'll call it "Batman in Love," and it'll involve a young man named Bruce Wayne (conspiciously not wealthy and with conspicuously living parents) trying to woo the girl of his dreams, a blonde cheerleader named Talia, who is secretly pining after Bruce against the wishes of her father, Ras. "Batman" won't be a crime fighter, he's Bruce Wayne's alter ego that he invented in an attempt to appear dashing and mysterious to Talia.
Now, it could well be the perfect chickflick, hitting every pleasure center in a woman's brain. But would you be pleased at this new adaptation of the Batman franchise, if you were a fan of the originals?
That's a very appealing theory, I can see why you'd want to hold it. But are the developers not on record as dismissing the familiar faces as not being unknown and alien enough?It's entirely possible that there will be more familiar faces higher up the list. My theory is that 2K is saving them as a surprise for a later announcement.
Yes and now we have two different direct quotes from the developer and previews supporting that view, while blind optimism is the only response.
To be nitpicky, difficult and a pain in the backside, Batman Begins really screwed the pooch when it comes to Batman plot. Rhaz Al Ghoul is immortal in the comics, yet he appears to be dead in BB.
So the "lore" here is the feeling evoked?In X-Com terms the lore is rather secondary, but then again it would be better to have the iconic aliens of X-Com than the rubbish that composes amorphous uninteresting blobs and modern art. Like if I had a choice I know what I'd take! What I'm really referring to with regards to X-Com is the gameplay, themes and other things being bought forward. This is where the "reboot" fails entirely. It doesn't respect the old games lore, it doesn't bother about its gameplay and in the end we end up with a very bioshock feeling shooter.
With blobs.
No the gameplay, which is what I view as most important to a game. That they are replacing the lore with blobs is insult to injury.
Edit: For the record my objection to the lore is that when you replace the iconic aliens in the original games (and there were always some like Sectoids in each one) you better have a good replacement. The trailer just demonstrated to me how poor it is to try to "Cthulhu" something up and have no understanding as to why Cthulhu horror works. The iconic aliens would even fit into a 50s game better than what they are using IMO.
Edit2: Just for the record, my opinion is shared by other entirely neutral grounds on the internet. 2k games' trailer hasn't won them any favors.
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 11:51 AM.
But there's a difference here, genre and gameplay are two separate things. Batman Begins and Batman Returns were both action/thrillers, they both involved a tragic vigilante trying to save the city from an evil madman.
Likewise, X-COM and XCOM are both science fiction games where a government organization must gather intelligence to understand, and eventually defeat, an alien attack on humans.
Gameplay is a different thing from a genre. A genre refers specifically to the story or work itself, while gameplay is just the way it's presented. Yes, apparently X-COM had a very thin story and the presentation was the main thing that was showcased, but it still doesn't change the fact that X-COM and XCOM are in the same genre just with different gameplay types.
And as for the quotes from the previews, I will admittedly stand corrected. I agree that it would have been a smarter choice to rework the original aliens than to erase them entirely. Even so, I'm sure they're something better than the blobs higher up on the list. It may not be a sectoid, but I'm that this game isn't only going to be fighting blobs. This early on you can be sure that we haven't seen everything yet.
Last edited by IllusionOfLife; 06-10-2010 at 11:54 AM.
No they're not.But there's a difference here, genre and gameplay are two separate things.
Arguably as well your argument fails on the core point that XCom not only changes gameplay but it changes genre as well. So you've got a double problem.
This doesn't make them the same genre, one of these is set in 1999 and the other in the 1950s. One of these has more standard iconic aliens and the other is Cthulhu gone wild in a modern art exhibition.Likewise, X-COM and XCOM are both science fiction games where a government organization must gather intelligence to understand, and eventually defeat, an alien attack on humans.
Edit: one is also a worldwide war effort, the other is the FBI in America.
One of these things is not like the other ...
Gameplay is a genre and has been for ages and that X-Com and XCOM share one similarity in no ways makes them the same genre. I could argue given the inter-dimensional Cthulhu horror aspect in XCOM that it's not the same genre as X-Com. It's Cthulhu-horror now and not that traditional science fiction alien invasion scenario of X-Com.but it still doesn't change the fact that X-COM and XCOM are in the same genre just with different gameplay types.
This argument is so badly tortured on logic it isn't funny.
Not to mention one was a global "war game" and the other is the X-Files. Do you think the X-Files would be the same genre as Saving Private Ryan?
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 11:58 AM.
Okay, now I understand a little more where you're coming from. Lore to me means story and feeling, which is why I've been having such difficulty seeing why ya'll are incensed.
I'm still excited for the XCOM, and I'm not going to apologize for that, but I do agree that there is definitely something wrong with evoking the idea of the only thing the original was centered upon and altering it completely. I hope that your fears won't be as terribly bad as you think they are, but something tells me that even if in practise the game just feels like an FPS version of X-COM the damage will have already been done.
Its kind of disheartening for everyone involved.
As a side note: I like the blobs (yes, smite me for it, I'm asking for it! D: ) and after years of having to watch the Goa'ould get more and more satirical of themselves through Stargate, the Wraith starting off really silly and every other humanoid alien on Star Trek, Earth: Final Conflict, Andromeda, Battlestar Galactica (though the cylons aren't really aliens... all I have to say is Skin Jobs...), Futurama, V (once again, not really 100% good analogy... lizard people wearing skins and all) I was looking forwards to something rather different.
Edit: I forgot Babylon 5! Maybe because that wasn't about the aliens themselves but about the politics involved... oh well >.>
Last edited by Codex; 06-10-2010 at 12:04 PM.
I'd like to point out this is IllusionofLifes argument as applied to Saving Private Ryan and X-Files.
X-Files they had an episode where they fought NAZIs.
In Saving Private Ryan they fought NAZIs.
Therefore X-Files and Saving Private Ryan are the same genre, because they fought NAZIs.
Edit: The point here is a superficial similarity does not make one the same genre. There are huge differences in execution and theme to X-Com and XCOM. One of these is a tactical strategy game that is a global war effort. The other is basically the X-Files. If we can call one of these the same genre as the other then almost anything can be the same genre as anything else.
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 12:05 PM.
I wasn't here when XCOM was first announced, so I couldn't participate in those arguments. Personally, I believe that X-Com is thus:
1. Intelligent strategic gameplay, driven by an enemy AI that dynamically attempts to undermine the player on the strategic level. That is to say, missions are generated based on the wider strategic situation. For instance, if you have a particularly good week and shoot down a lot of UFOs, the aliens will start sniffing out your base in preparation for launching an attack on that base. (This is wholly at odds with the map room as a jumping off point for semi-scripted missions that this game appears to use.)
2. Intelligent tactical gameplay, featuring a military response to the alien threat. Whether this is isometric TBS gameplay or a flight sim or even FPS/TPS ala what Alliance would have been. In essence, there must be a significant element of risk, requiring intelligent tactics to defeat. Run and gun Bioshock style is completely at odds with this necessity.
To expand on this, the aliens should be horrifying not because "oh god, blobs!", but because their capabilities make them deadly in combat. In the original games, even your veteran captain with power armor could still get killed easily by any mook floater or sectoid. A heavily narrative-based shooter does not easily, and arguably cannot foster this sense in the player, because the player can't die without the story ending.
3. A game rooted in either "real" UFO lore (ie X-Com 1), or rooted in the lore of the previous games (X-Com 2-4). Much more importantly, it must be self-consistent, both with itself, and with the wider X-Com setting. So, for instance, Elerium cannot be found anywhere but alien power generators. Ahem. The story/lore should also be presented in a subtle fashion, with the emphasis being not so much on "investigating" the alien threat as combating it. EXtraterestrial COMbat unit, after all.
It's like a triangular table. Take away one leg and the whole thing starts to collapse. At least that's my view. I don't necessarily know what views other X-Commies hold, since we aren't some monolithic alien hivemind ruled from Cydonia. Trust us... I mean me.
It's both lore and gameplay based. More gameplay based than lore based, but both are highly important to being a halfway decent X-Com game. You can have one or you can have the other and get away without major criticism - for instance, Alliance was going to significantly change the gameplay but it was still an X-Com game in the lore and it still maintained the strategic aspects, hence it was looked at with cautious optimism.Batman (to use Illusion's tricksy little analogy) and Bioshock are entirely lore based. You can change the gameplay of Bioshock and still have it be Bioshock, you can change the bad guys in Batman and still have it be Batman (heck, you can even change the feeling of it and still have it be Batman. Adam West, anyone?). Why is it a forgone conclusion that X-Com won't survive the same treatment? I'm really sorry for being utterly absent of understanding on this point, but from what I've read the argument that X-Com had a lore that shouldn't be changed is contradicted by earlier arguments that the gameplay was all that mattered. Then again, this may be my own interpretation of the posts that have been made. Would you mind enlightening me?
Conversely, the game being a remake of X-Com 1 in gameplay with a different story would likely be accepted, albiet somewhat grudgingly by purists like me, as a reboot or reimagining.
It's when you ditch both the lore and the gameplay that you run into issues. The best example of this is Enforcer, which nobody thinks is a good X-Com game. (I think it's a pretty fun arcade shooter, but it has nothing to do with X-Com besides shooting aliens. Much like this game. No, wait, Enforcer had Chryssalids, Mutons, and Sectoids.)
Last edited by Cpl_Facehugger; 06-10-2010 at 12:08 PM.
Goodness, missed commenting on the DOSBox thing: You're missing out, dude.
As for the original aliens, their comments about being "More cohesive" with the designs of their aliens this time around just makes me think we'll be getting multiple sculpters for the abstract art enemies and probably something like "elemental" or behavioural variations on the blobs (like the DnD monster manual's "Ooze" section).
Last edited by Brian Damage; 06-10-2010 at 12:20 PM.
Yes, they are, actually. I've conceded many points, but I won't budge on this one. I equate differences gameplay to be the video game equivalent to differences in animation. In animation you have stop motion, you have CGI, and you have traditional hand drawn. You can theoretically tell the same story in any combinations of these animation types, and each one would be the same story with the same genre but it would just be presented in a different fashion.
By the same token the same story could conceivably be done in more than one different gameplay type (Halo Wars, and the dearly departed Star Craft: Ghost for instance), they would be the same genre with a different presentation and system of input.
Granted certain movies are better suited for a specific animation type and certain games are better suited for a different gameplay type, but both of these things are separate from genre. In a game like X-COM with very little story it relies a lot on the gameplay in a way that you could mistake it for the genre, but it's not, it's simply the way that the game is experienced by the player. In the same way, many sequences in Fantasia did not contain story, but that doesn't mean Fantasia's genre was 'hand drawn animation.'
XCOM is a science fiction/mystery game, and from my understanding that's more or less what X-COM was too, among other things. I totally understand your point that with X-COM the gameplay was the single most important thing and that by changing that XCOM is seemingly missing the point. But gameplay is still distinct from genre, it's a common misconception, but a misconception none-the-less.
No.XCOM is a science fiction/mystery game, and from my understanding that's more or less what X-COM was too,
One is a military game on a global scale against an escalating invading alien army.
The other has far more in common with X-Files.
One of these things is not the other.
Edit: I'm not misconceiving anything, you're taking the most tortured of similarities and declaring them the same genre on that - which doesn't even make sense. The aliens in XCOM aren't even in the same genre as those from the original! We've gone from campy aliens to Cthulhu horror based blobs and geometric shapes. They couldn't be further apart in genre if they tried!
Last edited by Aegeri; 06-10-2010 at 12:21 PM.
The reason people did (and STILL) play the original 3 X-com games is not because of the lore. I can tell you this much... yes, the science and familiarity of greys is important, but above all else it boils down to gameplay..
I think the arguement keeps getting derailed by discussions on 'lore this and lore that'. The lore was pretty thin in the original 3 games...
Lets talk more about it being a damn 'FPS run n gun game' instead of a TURN BASED stategic game.
This is the greatest offence. Not the change of lore.
Thank you for your very in depth comments Facehugger. I don't want to sound petulant or anything in the following comments (and I apologize greatly if this is how they come across - I in no way mean to be difficult here), but I do feel that there is one big counter argument for everything you've put here. Whilst its as full of holes as anything else, its a little thing that keeps wandering around my mind in such a way that I cannot get past it.
The argument is thus: We still really don't know if all of these elements are going to be missing from the game. Now, please, please hold your horses and let me finish this thought, because I really feel that if they manage to pull off the image I just got in my head this game could be one that blows GTA IV (urgh) out of 1st place on the metacritic charts.
What if these events aren't as scripted as they appear to be? What if the fear is heightened because you only have one base, each mission carrying with it a weight of alerting the aliens so that the end of the game could come faster through some sort of "final stand" in the base, thus upping the strategy content?
In the grand scheme of things, we know little more about the game other than it's an FPS with blobs in it. Oh, and modern art of death (I find that ironic, personally). Whilst this quite reasonably sets off alarm bells, maybe it isn't going to be the 100% failure that it seems to be to you. I get the feeling we know little about this game at the present because it is going to be released after E3 next year (guess on my part, you can indeed hold this against me at a later date if it proves false). Unfortunatly, until we see some actual gameplay videos rather than trailers and hear some more from reviewers/2k, we're not going to be able to find a common ground. Illusion and I will still be the optimists we're being and you guys will still be the realists, read to crush our hopes and dreams with very well founded arguments and fears.
The utter adoration of X-Com's gameplay alone, especially now that I understand it a bit better, is reason to worry, but I am not one hundred percent sure that things aren't going to change at some point in the near(ish) future. If the image that came to my mind while reading your post is how the game plays on release day (and I didn't explain it too well, but it was a pretty awesome mix of FPS and what you described >.>') then I wonder what will happen to gaming in general. If it is just another FPS... Well, we'll have to see when that happens.
As a side note: if the blobs were Cthulu there wouldn't even be a chance to save the planet and there'd be no game. Cthulu insta-pwns the world.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote