Kotaku: XCOM By Any Other Name Could Be Great

[Relight]

Kotaku's Brian Crecente has some choice comments from Martin Slater, studio director at 2K Canberra.

Give the full article a read, it's got some great points throughout, down to the last two paragraphs, which, in conclusion, especially drive home the key point in all this.

If the press keep pushing this point in interviews, 2K is going to keep sounding obstinate and kind of foolish whenever they try to justify their choice to name this game after the X-COM franchise.

http://kotaku.com/5569585/xcom-by-an...could-be-great

[Nosmirc]

Heh. I think he misread the snappy comment from Slater. That sounded more like "Don't ask annoying questions!" then a "We believe in this game".

That might be the cynic in me speaking however. Maybe he should have asked "Will this game cause another Summer of Brian?"

[Brian Damage]

The command center of the original X-Com games, shown as a series of charts and graphs floating over a rotating Earth, is now a place with a physical presence. You can walk around in this command center, visit the guy who makes the weapons, talk to a lady with an armful of manila folders, each representing a mission.

And that works, not just because it's more visually pleasing, or because it adds character and personality to the game, but because it seems easier to navigate.

Hmm. I think I know which one would be quicker to use. Hint: It's the one that doesn't involve walking everywhere.

Slater said that the agents can progress and that they are "critical to your success in the misson." But he declined to elaborate.

"It'll be cool but we can't tell you how!". Does anyone else think they're simply going to be leveling up after sucessful missions, with no differentiation in abilities?

The player-controlled agent, William Carter, opened a paper map to show the surrounding area and where the 911 call, which triggered the mission, came from.

I think I've seen 911 calls mentioned in a few previews by now. It's funny because 911 was bought into use in 1968.

[ShanDaMan]

One of the neat things about the battle is that the blobs don't just look different, they behave differently as well. Instead of hopping around on the ground and moving between rooms, these blobs attach to the ceiling, bounce off walls, seep through the floors and even going into the pipe of the house through the sink.

Oh, no. After the Blob-a-tov we will unlock research for the Blob-O-Rooter.

I'm afraid things are going to end up in the sewer...

[Brian Damage]

I think I saw a minigolf game on the Amiga that did that with the balls... somewhere around 1988.

Also, the most important bit of blob research:

You have photographed: Guy Getting Choked by a Blob.

Congraturation! You have unlocked the research (new items) topic: Penny Facemask From The Downtown Hardware Store!

***

[Puts in some research points]

You have researched: Penny Facemask From The Downtown Hardware Store! Equipped agents are now resistant to blob blobination attacks (+2.0 seconds to shoot attacking blobs away from fellow agents).

Congraturation! You have unlocked the research (item upgrades) topic: Army Surplus Gas Mask!

***

[More research points]

You have researched: Army Surplus Gas Mask! Equipped agents are now completely immune to blob blobination attacks.

[podtech115]

You have photographed: Guy Getting Choked by a Blob.

Congraturation! You have unlocked the research (new items) topic: Penny Facemask From The Downtown Hardware Store!

***

[Puts in some research points]

You have researched: Penny Facemask From The Downtown Hardware Store! Equipped agents are now resistant to blob blobination attacks (+2.0 seconds to shoot attacking blobs away from fellow agents).

Congraturation! You have unlocked the research (item upgrades) topic: Army Surplus Gas Mask!

***

[More research points]

You have researched: Army Surplus Gas Mask! Equipped agents are now completely immune to blob blobination attacks.

Gods below, that sounds terrible!

I would hope there would be a UFOpedia, at the very least.

[Ga1Friday]

I think that there is some merit to the author's worry.

I remember that 2K claimed that BioShock would require strategy. Reports talked about the moral choices, the need to research enemies, the importance of finding and implementing plasmids in order to beat tougher foes...

Doing these things; researching, pondering the affects of your actions, searching out plasmid/weapon combos for each foe was an option in the game but it was by no means a necessary component for game completion. I ran through the entire game using nothing but the wrench; I grabbed tonics to make the wrench stronger and i did some research but I just fell into a groove--this was not a strategy.

What I mean is that sometimes games that claim to require strategy really don't. First Person Shooters fall claim to this often. Bungie touted it's advancements in Halo 2 regarding player strategy but the game was really the same (see a grunt throw a grenade; see that sniper rifle lying there for no reason? You will probably need it soon!) BioShock 2 was no different. We received weapons as we needed them, found tonics as we developed a use for them, and earned research gifts based on the enemy researched with a pretty quick max out point.

This is not a back handed BioShock 2 complaint; BioShock 2 was a great game. What I am trying to say in comparing BioShock 2 to XCOMis that it is hard to call a run through of BioShock 2 strategic. A notable exception is the stuff that people came up with for the vidcap contest; but we have come full circle... FPS games can offer strategic opportunity but creating a game in which strategy is paramount has yet to be done within this gametype.

I am worried that XCOM will be the same; that there will be opportunity to strategize but that it will not be needed and that because of that loop hole several players will glide through enjoying the shooting but missing the "X-COM-ness

I believe one of the few examples of a killer strategy game is Dead Rising from Namco. It is not a first person shooter, but it is a zombie killing action game with the option to save survivors; but you must time your resuce operations as to not miss important phone calls, plot developments, or other survivors. In the end the entire game is a puzzle waiting to be cracked but it maintains the fun of a slasher film.

So, after all of that rambling I say this:
Please look at Dead Rising; it is not a perfect game but it got the strategy bit right. Please do not just give opportunities for strategy; enforce the need to strategize. Oh! And please, please remember that strategy games are more than choose-your-own adventure books wherein you can take one wrong turn and land in a dungeon; there must be a long term goal and plausible reactions to player choices.

I think that about does it for my opinion.

[nu_clear_day]

Interesting read. I think I have similar memories of the originals to the author. To be fair, it's like they say - you can never go back home again. Any attempt by any developer to make any sort of new X-Com game is going to be unable to capture that same sense of magic that came with playing the originals.

Still, I keep hearing about how 2K went back to these "founding principles" upon which the old series was based, and how the important thing is that they're staying true to those concepts. A sense of fear of, and research into, the unknown invaders, was certainly key to the experience. Stepping through a doorway and hoping you had enough AP to deal with what you found on the other side is something I'm sure you can bring over into a first-person action game just as well.

But I'm not sure, if I were to try and distill the old series into it's base elements, that I'd necessarily agree with 2K in this regard. Sure, all that stuff was a part of it, but I (and probably a lot of us older fans) remember the series for other things than those elements around which 2K has decided to reform this new game.

For myself, what was central to that experience to a large degree, was the emergent nature of the gameplay. You were essentially playing a single-player strategy game against the AI, after all. The narrative that built up through that gameplay was largely of my own creation.

The game didn't tell me which characters I was going to care about, or where and when the major turning points would come about. For the first few missions of a new game, they were all essentially nameless soldiers I was dealing with. It wasn't until after a couple of promotions that I started recognizing the names of some of my units who had survived long enough to mean anything to me.

I was the one who ended up deciding that "Helmut Zimmer" was going to be my platoon leader in my elite squad, or that "John Anderson" was going to be the one who always got the heavy weapons, or that the rookies would always take point because they were more expendable. And you can't really distill that same sort of narrative into what 2K seems to be making, here.

Sure, I lament the loss of my turn-based strategy, and the in-depth management systems - when it comes down to it, I become a fan of a series because of the actual "game." I liked those games because I liked the gameplay, after all. I may like Pac-Man, but it doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy a game where I control Pac-Man through a platforming adventure game - even if the devs were to say "it's still a game where you're running away from ghosts," it doesn't inherently mean it's all that "true" to what made Pac-Man fun to play.

I can live with all of these changes. Even if I end up disliking this new game, I don't connect that with any real sense of loss. But even if I end up becoming a fan of this new XCom game, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to give me anything of what I'd want out of an X-Com game, either...

[AlphaCent]

Interesting read. I think I have similar memories of the originals to the author. To be fair, it's like they say - you can never go back home again. Any attempt by any developer to make any sort of new X-Com game is going to be unable to capture that same sense of magic that came with playing the originals.

Still, I keep hearing about how 2K went back to these "founding principles" upon which the old series was based, and how the important thing is that they're staying true to those concepts. A sense of fear of, and research into, the unknown invaders, was certainly key to the experience. Stepping through a doorway and hoping you had enough AP to deal with what you found on the other side is something I'm sure you can bring over into a first-person action game just as well.

But I'm not sure, if I were to try and distill the old series into it's base elements, that I'd necessarily agree with 2K in this regard. Sure, all that stuff was a part of it, but I (and probably a lot of us older fans) remember the series for other things than those elements around which 2K has decided to reform this new game.

For myself, what was central to that experience to a large degree, was the emergent nature of the gameplay. You were essentially playing a single-player strategy game against the AI, after all. The narrative that built up through that gameplay was largely of my own creation.

The game didn't tell me which characters I was going to care about, or where and when the major turning points would come about. For the first few missions of a new game, they were all essentially nameless soldiers I was dealing with. It wasn't until after a couple of promotions that I started recognizing the names of some of my units who had survived long enough to mean anything to me.

I was the one who ended up deciding that "Helmut Zimmer" was going to be my platoon leader in my elite squad, or that "John Anderson" was going to be the one who always got the heavy weapons, or that the rookies would always take point because they were more expendable. And you can't really distill that same sort of narrative into what 2K seems to be making, here.

Sure, I lament the loss of my turn-based strategy, and the in-depth management systems - when it comes down to it, I become a fan of a series because of the actual "game." I liked those games because I liked the gameplay, after all. I may like Pac-Man, but it doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy a game where I control Pac-Man through a platforming adventure game - even if the devs were to say "it's still a game where you're running away from ghosts," it doesn't inherently mean it's all that "true" to what made Pac-Man fun to play.

I can live with all of these changes. Even if I end up disliking this new game, I don't connect that with any real sense of loss. But even if I end up becoming a fan of this new XCom game, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to give me anything of what I'd want out of an X-Com game, either...

I had a kick ass scenario for a possible X-com restart. I think it would be awesome. Incorporating all the awesome elements, story, plot,...
No, it wouldn't be UFO: with better graphics. But a UFO: without the inconsistencies.

I could post a quick sketch of the story i made. Which is somewhat different from the original canon, but still retains the same principles. For one thing...aliens are not some unimaginable half god type. But down to earth and vulnerable.
And the story would explain how is this possible.