Ok, so there's some discussions floating around as to what this game should be called. Sounds like a good place for a poll to me!
Ok, so there's some discussions floating around as to what this game should be called. Sounds like a good place for a poll to me!
it's about exploring and battling the unknown. which is actually closer to bioshock than X-COM which was a mainly millitaristic game encompassing the world. plus it's set in the 50s and so has the same kind of art deco.
i definatly think it's a far far better title. 2k lose nothing either. the 'XCOM' name just drew the attention of X-COM fans but at this rate it wont sell well in that area anyway. use a new IP and everyones happy and noone will care if it's called 'Xenoshock' or 'Oil busters'
It'd have been nice to have an open poll so we could see who votes for what.
XCOM, why? Because 2K said so, that's why.
XCOM. My reason is because I like the name...
Actually, Xenoshock is a pretty awesome title in all seriousness.
Considering what many first encounter experiences would be like for humans. Could describe a both psychological and physical reaction to seeing aliens or being exposed to them.
Would also fit in line with their other games. Perfect.
This poll wasn't a serious attempt at garnering a name, more a lame excuse for shoehorning a punny joke into the forums(not necessarily a funny one ) with the third suggestion! Do people really think that 2k are going to change anything about the game dependant on the views of several thousand unhappy X-Commer's?
Since they own the original IP, they are the only ones who can make an official X-COM game. Other companies can only make "spiritual successors".
So we keep telling 2k that this game as they have shown us so far is NOT what we expect from an X-COM game, and continue telling them what we DO want (and would buy from them). They can take this information and do what they want with it. I hope they are already working on a secret X-COM:Classic turn based strategy game. I would almost certainly buy that game.
As for the current game, I hope either they have a huge amount of unrevealed content that screams "I am X-COM" that they will soon show (not just talk about.) Or they could begin adding it in. Or they could change the name to something like Xenoshock.
Perhaps you mean you're leader of an agency for fighting aliens. Which is much more of a similarity, but it's still only a similarity in the broad strokes; X-Com was a multinational effort by the nations of the world. XCOM is a subbranch of the FBI and apparently gets its funding from individual states rather than the federal government (???).
You might want to look into playing the original games, at least the first one. They're really cheap on steam, and you'll be able to understand where we're coming from much better, because pretty much all of the similarities that your side cites end up being highly superficial and only a few degrees removed from things like "both of them have human beings as protagonists" and "both of them have alien invasions."
X-Com biological research has nothing to do with granting -shock esque damage bonuses and everything to do with gleaning intelligence from alien captives.and B. for the strategy part of the game that gives this somewhat of an original XCOM feel...you will be able to research enemies thus giving you damage bonuses against them...
System Shock 2 - You research a rumbler organ for a 10% damage boost to rumblers and some delicious fluff.
Bioshock - You research a leadhead splicer for bonus damage and possibly a bonus plasmid or gene tonic. No delicious fluff.
X-Com - You research an alien for intelligence purposes, allowing you to unlock useful information on the alien menace - for instance, researching higher ranked aliens is necessary to discover where the alien headquarters is located and how to successfully attack it. You don't get a damage bonus for researching Chryssalids. You just get delicious fluff.
See, the problem most of us X-Com fans have is that those similarities are very superficial and broad, applying to things that categorically aren't X-Com. Like Halo, or Half-Life: Opposing Force, or even Call of Duty 4.so there you have...you have your ''team'' and your strategy....however,this IS just a matter of opinion,as you and other people may not see it like this,so I won't say it's fact when it's not.
Then there's other things that are rather the opposite of how things worked in X-Com. Like a "strong narrative FPS" compared to the emergent non-narrative storytelling of the first four X-Com games, where the player basically wrote their own story with only a handful of "plot" missions.
The point that many of us make is that "XCOM" has far more in common with the -Shock games than it does with X-Com. Ergo, we believe it should be called Xenoshock since the only similarities between "XCOM" and X-Com are extremely superficial ones.
Of course, we all believe this could change when more info is released. But we aren't holding our breath. What we've seen thus far isn't encouraging.
Last edited by Cpl_Facehugger; 07-02-2010 at 05:04 AM.
Did reading that post make anyone else hungry for cotton candy?
More delicious fluff for me, than.
I may be stirring more trouble but...
"Arguing over the internet is like winning the special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded."
No offense meant to those who are mentally ill, but I bring a valid point.
I've often wondered; does posting that line of text (or the equivalent demotivator) ever accomplish anything besides briefly making the poster feel morally superior?
In any event, it doesn't matter what I call it. All I know is that it just isn't XCom. And I also know that I can't expect 2k to change it because of a forum poll
What I CAN hope for is that the next dev team determines that it really doesn't fit, and opt to ignore it, much like the FEAR expacs, or Highlander 2. A bit vain maybe, but it's no unheard of. I just hope someone who actually WANTS to make a proper X-Com remake gets a shot at it.
Kind of like the way Fallout 3 ignored ignored Fallout: Tactics and, especially, the godawful Brotherhood of Steel.
Really? Didn't spot that one, but then, I only ever played Tactics for about half an hour before deciding I didn't like it much so the reference may not have stuck with me. I thought they said they were just going to avoid references to Tactics. Would you categorise it as an "Okay, it's canon now" reference or more a case of "We'll stick this in and see if the fans spot it"?
Last edited by Brian Damage; 07-12-2010 at 11:46 PM.
I vote to name it Jurassic park 4. It has as much right to be called that as it has being called X-com.
Well, interesting result. Though the poll closed with "Xenoshock" being the runner up by only one point, there were still more votes not to call it "XCOM" than there were votes approving the name.
Not too unlike the political situ in the uk especially with the colours. 1 serious right wing group, 2 putatively left wing/centrist. The left vote is fractured and so is undermined. All that needs to happen now to complete the parody is for d-files to make a coalition with xcom and turn on everything it stands for in the name of stability.
A good poll would have been:
Anything else including but not limited to: yadayadayada...
I didn't get a chance to vote, but if I had I would have voted for the name to be XCOM (now put away your pitchforks for a second and hear me out).
The way I see it is 2K is trying to create a game that takes ideas present in the original X-COM series and present them in a new light with a new style of game. This is a reboot that is taking the series in a different direction, and yes, it could stand to be more faithful to the original games but I am still holding out hope that 2K is playing these things close to the chest until we get a little bit closer to the time of the release and they can start showing us some more finalized concepts (they've been burned once already by revealing things early on in the development of BioShock 2 and having to change them).
The biggest thing for me is that this game is a reboot, not a sequel, prequel, or any sort of continuation of the established cannon. This game would have absolutely no right to be called X-COM 6, but 2K isn't calling it that. They're using the X-COM name, and many of the ideas from the series to craft something new. It's a fresh start using the old games as a jumping off point, and I'm ok with that. Yes, I agree from what we've seen it could stand to be improved, and yes, I too hope that more of the elements from the X-COM games make an appearance. As it stands, though, I feel that XCOM is a fine name for this game.
Last edited by IllusionOfLife; 07-27-2010 at 03:47 AM.
Even if they did make a direct sequel, I wouldn't expect them to slap a number on it. None of the other XComs ever did this. If they had, then, well, there would be even less reason to believe them when they say "they're fans", because if they were, they would know how silly it would be to start using a numbering system THIS far in. Sadly, they opted not to do that, thus robbing us of an easy method to show to everyone that they're off their rockers
Myself, I'm holding out for a big "PUNK'D!" on April 1st 2011, when they show that it is, in fact, the same original setting. A man can dream, can't he?
Let's compare reboots:
Battlestar Galactica had a reboot that made huge changes. And yet it kept many of the trappings of the setting and premise. Robots exterminated humanity, prompting them to look for the legendary lost colony called "Earth." Heck, even the space ships were by and large similar.
If nBSG was to oBSG as XCOM appears to be as to X-Com, it would be more like "We're calling this show Battlestar Galactica. It takes place on 1950s Earth which is under attack by an army of robotic blobs. The story follows the "Star" class battleship USS Galactica and her crew as she investigates and fights the blobs."
That's the thing about reboots. They keep the iconic aspects of the setting intact even as they take the whole setting in a new direction.
Why, exactly? What makes it worth the inevitable parallels between X-Com and XCOM, unless it's merely a move meant to exploit out the name for PR and/or profit purposes?As it stands, though, I feel that XCOM is a fine name for this game.
Edit: Indeed, I challenge everyone who voted for "XCOM" as the name to justify it without falling back on "2K owns the franchise, 2K can do what they want to it."
That would be the most epic trolling of any fanbase ever. It would go down in gaming history.Myself, I'm holding out for a big "PUNK'D!" on April 1st 2011, when they show that it is, in fact, the same original setting. A man can dream, can't he?
Last edited by Cpl_Facehugger; 07-28-2010 at 05:00 AM.
We can only hope lol
Last edited by Nosmirc; 07-28-2010 at 09:02 AM.
I think what this comes down to is trust. I trust that 2K is doing what they set out to do, which is make a game that takes the ideas from the previous XCOM games and applies it to a new setting and gameplay type. I also trust that 2K wouldn't willfully abandon everything that made the beloved franchise beloved in the first place. I also trust that they are fans themselves and want to make a game worthy of the name just as much as you want them to.
You, and many of the other frequent posters in this forum, don't have that same kind of trust, and that's totally understandable. I completely agree that it would serve them well to reveal some more of the heavy hitting iconic X-COM elements now (assuming they're even there) but I also understand the hesitation to reveal stuff, especially the stuff that people will get most excited for, before it's 100% locked in. Hopefully for everyone's sake, this game holds a lot of secrets we aren't aware of just yet, and I also hope that 2K will be able to showcase some things further down the line that will build your trust.
To sum up: I think that XCOM is a fine name because I trust 2K enough to take them at their word. You think XCOM is a completely inappropriate name because you don't have the level of trust to take them at their word and need visual examples, and the few visual examples we've been given so far admittedly bear superficial at best resemblance to X-COM.
I mean, I've already been burned once by devs who assured the fans that they were fans too and that they wanted to do the franchise justice. I'm referring to Fallout, and particularly Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. I'm not exactly willing to take a dev's word on them respecting the source material, since devs will often lie about such things. I don't blame them since they're on a deadline and are beholden to marketing corporate suits... But that doesn't mean I'll accept what they say without thought, especially if what they say and what they've shown suggest two very different things.
I suppose it doesn't help that they lost points right out of the gate with the 1950s setting or making an FPS when Enforcer is around as a reminder either, but I could look past that if the overall picture wasn't so bleak.
I can also totally understand where you're coming from. You've been burned in the past, not only by Brotherhood of Steel, but also previous entries in the X-COM franchise. You're not just going to immediately trust a developer with only a handful of notable works to breathe new life into a dead, but cherished franchise.
At this point, both points are valid because we don't have enough information. You can either take 2K at their word or you can't, because other than a limited test build which has rough at best representations of a small number that might be in the final game, all we have to go on is their word. Hopefully we'll get some more hard hitting information soon.