thanks for the link! both interviews helped, though circuitously, fill in some blanks. i liked the 2 (older) articles i found at the footer, too... a good summary of the various views you can find here on the forums.
Wonder if he's showing his true colours there lol...
The "here's why it will suck" seems to have a stronger argument then "here's why it will not suck". Although to be fair, we haven't really been shown anything. Certainly none of the strategy that Slater was talking about there.
Why all this secrecy BS? If you have something that you felt could be shown at E3, hurry up and show it to the general public. Such nonsense.
I did like how his "Why it will suck" argument was far more persuasive and better supported than his pure conjecture in the other argument.
And me having just switched flash off to stop it crashing Firefox. Oh well, at least I'm not missing much, apparently.
lol, when he said about inspiration for the 50s era i was like. im pretty much sure they dont need any more, bioshock, mafia.. they must already have a big portfolio that says 'stuff to go in 50s games' that's bigger than my house.
we havent been shown enough. but even with what he's said there's nothing really linking it to X-COM (a map you'll never see one of those elsewhere)
still think i would have been happier if it was more international. but im guessing they just love 50s America too much
i'm praying he's right about fans liking it who know all the facts.. if he's just doing it to save face then they are going to get hit hard by fans when the rest of the info is released
i imagine the setting is driven by budget constraints, not by the desire to develop a world/setting worthy of the X-Com name.
OMG is it just me, or does Martin Slater seem like a zombie?! Sorry man, that was honestly the first thing I thought when you started talking!
Ugh whenever he talks about strategy, it doesn't sound like strategy at all. It sounds like making very simple gameplay decisions that you would make in any game that offers a map / mission choice system. This is not what "strategy" means.
I enjoyed reading the comments people made about those video interviews. Definitely some choice comments.
...its a clever ploy to make everyone talk about the new title, face it, this title has go way more coverage than it would have done without the name.That’s basically the problem with this game. During the E3 presentation, the guy from “2K Whatever” told us that it was gonna be awesome, that you’ll have to manage your base, to pick your team and to make strategic decision… and then proceeded to show us ten minutes of another generic shooter with an extremely narrow field of view, levels that looked ridiculously small and what looked like pretty bland gameplay.
If you want us to be excited at your game, show us exciting stuff. The only cool thing shown during this E3 showcase of the game was the big shapeshifting energy shooting alien-thingy at the end.“We want you guys to hear more about our awesome game and why you should be excited about it.”
“Alright what can you tell us?”
“… Nothing.”I don’t understand why they can’t talk about the game.
If something like controlling your squad or destructible environments are in the game, why the hell not admit it, and boast about it? Why not go full Molyneux with the hype even? I don’t see how enforced silence is going to attract either a) those with expectations, or b) those who’re new to the franchise and just wanting to find out if it’d be worth getting in on.
What’s the advantage of this tactic? Somebody? Cos damned if I know.
And then the interview with Jonathan Pelling...If you preview a new XCom game and proudly present a twitch-shooter and “not comment” on the strategy parts or do some half-assed promises that there “will be research in some form or another”, it clearly shows that the developer’s (or whoever rules this project) priorities do not lie in strategy. For a franchise most famous for its… well, strategy.
That’s what we’re commenting on. There’s more than enough info that shows that they don’t really care about people who like strategy.
(and then on the screen, we see FPS running around shooting blobs... LOL )...it's because we're really respecting the original material...
Just to play devil's advocate on the matter of why they haven't shown more of the game (ie, all this impressive stuff that's going to make us crotchety old fans eat our words...)
The game's not finished yet. Who knows to what degree there's anything to show in regards to this stuff? Sure, you could go the whole Peter Molyneux route - but look at the Lionhead forums the day after they release one of their games and you'll see it gets flooded with "waah! you lied to us!" threads.
They're probably just holding off until they have something solid to show; and they have it all running to a level of quality that they can feel comfortable showing off. Initial response to this game has been ambiguous, at best - there's always going to be plenty of time for them to change our minds later on.
Besides, anything they put out is going to be obsessively pored over, they surely want to make sure it'll stand up to scrutiny (and of course, it'll remain to be seen whether or not anything new ends up being worth the wait.)
I mean, it's not like I'm going to get more biased at this point...
That makes two thoughts come to mind.
1) If these parts were not ready to be shown, don't bother telling us about it.
Of course, then the backlash would be even greater, leading to my second thought:
2) If all you have to show so far is generic shooter stuff, just put off announcing a little while longer. New fans wouldn't notice the difference, and the old fans are used to waiting. And getting disappointed.
But this "We haz awesum stuf! But we cants shows it...." nonsense is beyond annoying.
Oh, and if you feel you cannot get more biased, I can pick up the slack
well, releasing information to the public is typically controlled through a communications strategy -- messaging guidelines and talking points are crafted, and media training is given, to help members of the development team interact with the media.
in the case of XCom, the communications strategy appears to have some serious flaws. perhaps the most serious flaw is the belief that is possible to suggest, in all seriousness, that the forthcoming "XCom" is consistent with the original "X-Com" -- and that the concepts and strengths of the original will in any way be present in the upcoming game.
Last edited by Brian Damage; 06-22-2010 at 12:06 PM.
Sure, we've fought them before, but we've never encountered them in real-time before (Enforcer doesn't count.) Can you imagine what being mind-controlled would look or sound like in a 3d perspective? Would it be hallucinations such as false images of aliens near your squad's location? How about hearing a Chryssalid's fast footsteps echoing from somewhere but not knowing exactly where. Then hearing a scream from Agent Bob who turns around with a very distant look in his eyes.
That was what really excited me about Alliance. I wanted to see up close and personal the terrors my Squaddies had been experiencing all along.
Exactly. How is that not mysterious or terrifying?
Must have been a first-time player .