Has the 'X-com reboot approach' ever worked?

[Zhukov]

No doubt the vast majority of you are aware that the old X-Com games are getting the reboot treatment in the form of an FPS with RPG upgrade elements and a 1950s America aesthetic.

Needless to say, fans are a bit miffed about this. (For the record, I am not one such fan. Never played the old games. Not terribly interested in the reboot.) The general feeling seems to be that the developer/publisher is just using the name for the sake of brand recognition. This is viewed as a bit stupid, since non-fans won't give a damn that it's called X-Com and fans of the old games will hate your guts for shaking down a classic. There's also a bit of the usual bile being thrown about regarding FPSs, lowest common denominators and so on, yeah... you've heard it all before.

There's a similar scenario regarding the Syndicate games which are also set to be rebooted as, heh, you guessed it, a FPS.

So, my question is, has this approach ever worked in the past?

The closest example I can think of is Fallout 3. Bethesda took an isometric turn-based RPG and made a real-time RPG-FPS. They pissed a few people off along the way, but the game was well received and sold a bunch.

Are there any other such examples?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I loved the first two x-com games, and i like the trailer for the new game. Looks interesting. All those fans are bitching about nothing. They can still play the old games, or even that new Xenonauts game that is like x-com thats being made. People just need to get over it already, a remake or redo doesnt make the original games any less good. Just a different interpretation of the material.

 

[Kae]

I immediately flashback to Shadowrun and then screams NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It gives me nightmares since I loved the Snes version.
As for the Fallout thing at least it is still an RPG.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd agree with your assessment on why this is viewed as stupid. What's the point? Make up your own FPS if you want.

On the other hand, if you're going with the spinoff set in the same universe, you could go with a different format if you liked. Hell, movies don't make as much money from theatres as they do from merchandise.

 

[varulfic]

Does Resident Evil 4 count? It took a series that had more in common with adventure games than action and turned it into a third person shooter, and everyone loved it. Then again, it wasn't a revival of a long dead classic, just a reimagining of a concept that they'd done to death.

 

[Zhukov]

Does Resident Evil 4 count? It took a series that had more in common with adventure games than action and turned it into a third person shooter, and everyone loved it. Then again, it wasn't a revival of a long dead classic, just a reimagining of a concept that they'd done to death.

Um... not sure about that one.

It seems to me that the only major change in RE4 was finally giving the player control of the damn camera. All the other improvements kinda flowed from there.

 

[Bostur]

Fallout 3 is the only one I can think of that got popular.

The Command and Conquer series had a 3D spinoff called Renegade that combined some shooter gameplay with some RTS gameplay. I thought it was an interesting experiment but it wasn't exactly a success.

WoW used the setting and graphical style of Warcraft 3, but of course to make a completely different game.

Return to Zork could be said to be a very early attempt at 3D'ifying the old text adventure series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_To_Zork

 

[ColeusRattus]

The actual question can't be answered, unless you define what "it worked" means.

There are some instances where game franchises took a turn, and I will briefly talk about the examples.

Fallout:
Already mentioned, and it did work on a publishers point of view. On a fan's of the original point of view though, it didn't. It's not that I outrightly dismiss FO3, I actually really want to like it, but it can't hold my interest sadly. So for me, it didn't work.

The same goes for Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six:
I loved the original games, but both took a dive for a more casual/arcade approach, which made them sell better, but made them sucky in my eyes.

X-Com is kind of a special case, because people rage about it being a FPS, while most seem to forget that, after a stellar, a good and a mediocre turn based tactics game, the franchise became a bad space sim and a bad third eprson shooter... So while I am not too fond of the newest one either, it's not that surprising actually.

And then there is Operation flashpoint, which made a nice heel turn into CoD territory. At least it wasn't too successful with it.

I do fear the new Brothers in Arms (a somewhat realistic, drama driven game turned into Borderlands meets Inglorious Basterds) and Syndicate (top down real time tactics becomes Riddick... ) will outsell with thsese, in my eyes crappy and unneeded iterations, the originals, thus erasing the contiunation of the originals...

But come to think of it, the question shouldn't be if it works, but why publishers shoehorn games into exisiting franchises, even though they are clearly not in the same vein.
I just don't understand the logic behind that, because people who didn't care for Fallout 1 and 2, wouldn't mind if FO3 was called "Aftermath", while fans of the franchise will be alienated and pissed.

 

[Nouw]

Does Space Marine count as one?

 

[ScrubberDucky]

Technically, Human Revolution is a reboot, and it was fucking awesome. The strategy CAN work, it just doesn't often. It's the fine line between genuinely good-natured rebooting or grubby money-laundering.

 

[Fujor]

I loved the first two x-com games, and i like the trailer for the new game. Looks interesting. All those fans are bitching about nothing. They can still play the old games, or even that new Xenonauts game that is like x-com thats being made. People just need to get over it already, a remake or redo doesnt make the original games any less good. Just a different interpretation of the material.

This I agree with.

they're rebooting it but apparently it's keeping a lot of elements from the original series. rather then moan about it I think I'll use some sense and see how it is first. although im sceptical i've seen some promising things

it is a shame that people think you can't make triple A titles with strategy games but they're just responding to the market here. And until FPSs' stop selling so much expect more of this.

 

[Zhukov]

The actual question can't be answered, unless you define what "it worked" means.

Worked: "Received a strong critical reception or profitable sales, ideally both".

Perhaps not the best definition, but it's all I got.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

To me, it smacks a little of trying to capitalise on the name of a great game back in the day.

I had the original XCom (UFO Enemy Unknown), on my Amiga and I loved it. Played it extensively through 6th form and University, in fact. And personally I loved the turn based strategy element of it, as well as the building and managing of your bases, working out which UFOs to intercept, research...

Ask any fan of the game about Terror Site missions and I guarantee you we'll all have the exact same expression on our faces. Plus there was always this sword of Damocles hanging over you - moving all your guys, but trying to make sure they still had a couple of action points left over in case an alien appeared. Then the fear that there might be one lurking round the corner, only you can't see it yet, and what if it pops round on their turn and shoots you in the face?

Maybe you had to be there.

The idea of it as an FPS just does not appeal to me - it's taken all the bits that made XCom fun and removed them. There's plenty of FPS games out there, I'm not bothered by a new one just because its' name is a franchise I used to love. General consensus seems to be that turn based strategy is dead as a dodo and won't make money, but I know which I'd prefer to play if it's got the XCom brand on the box.

 

[Raddra]

Hey, at least the F3 setting was vaguely recognizable.

Now if they had rebooted Fallout as a racing game set in a 1950's car racing circuit and even the cola ads on the billboards weren't referencing nuka..

 

[plugav]

As for the Fallout thing at least it is still an RPG.

This and it also keeps the same setting, more or less.

You mean taking an old game and turning it into an FPS? Or rebooting it and ignoring everything that came before? If the former, Duke Nukem. If the latter, Prince of Persia Sands of Time.

You could say Wolfenstein 3D did the same thing as Duke Nukem 3D and was even more successful.

Does Space Marine count as one?

It's not called Dawn of War and it doesn't reset the WH40K setting, so no, I don't think it counts.

Technically, Human Revolution is a reboot, and it was fucking awesome.

I agree on the awesome part, but I don't think it was a reboot. It both kept the continuity and did a good job of providing similar gameplay.

 

[Nomanslander]

First person is just a means the gamer views the world, that is how I like to think of first person games instead of generalizing them as being dumb twitch base shooters. There is a lot you can do with games in this mode as long as they're developed right (Portal being a good example, Mirror's Edge being an example of a FP platformer that could have used a lot more polish).

Basically what I'm saying is I see nothing wrong with taking franchises like X-com and Syndicate and turning them into games takes place in the first person perspective. What I do care is how they're made, will the developers make a faithful spiritual successor to what made the originals great. Or will take the easy route, turn them into a straight up shooter with none of the gameplay aspects that were in the originals.

For instance with Fallout 3, they did at least try to implement a sort of turn based strategy that is found in the first two. I won't say it was really that successful but the VATS system was at least a fair attempt which should have been tweaked with New Vegas.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Bethesda took an isometric turn-based RPG and made a real-time RPG-FPS. They pissed a few people off along the way, but the game was well received and sold a bunch.

The big question is - was this a success though?

If we're talking about sales, then sure. But then XCom/Syndicate/whateverotherheapofshittheyrebringingout might.

If it's a good addition to the canon, then you can say Soulcaliber etc. failed.

The main thing is, that it's a bit stupid to change an old, well-loved game into something that will leech off an over-saturated market.

It's like bringing XCOM out as a casual Tower Defence game, there's just no need.

BUT, as always, we'll have the people who love FPSs defending it because they hate nostalgia and they hate non-twitch games and most of all, they hate anything that doesn't include them.

In the change from X-Com, to XCOM, they've removed all canon, all tactics, all graphics, all settings, and everything that made the name. Then they've 're-imagined' it.

That's like having War and Peace 2 as a murder mystery starring Detective Leon Tolstoy and his spunky talking dog.

And I bet that would sell equally well.