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

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It could work if it was done by people who actually give a shit about the game, not just the money.
I only played the original X-com when I was a kid. I don't really remember much about it. But anyway, if a company is remaking a game into a different genre, especially an FPS, it's obviously an attempt to make some money from an already existing idea. What we have here is a bunch of people who didn't even try to come up with an original idea. They just took something that already existed, and they turned it into something simple that makes money - a console FPS.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think Rockstar's decision to re-boot Grand Theft Auto as a 3D third person game was quite successful, both critically and commercially.

In fact it was so successful that they made several sequels and another, half-reboot this generation.

Rockstar took an action packed driving and shooting game and gave it a 3D facelift. Aside from technology leaping forward, the game stayed spiritually the same.

X-Com is not just going from 2D to 3D. Virtually every single thing about that game that made it what it was is being changed, including genre. The only thing left connecting it to the original is "aliens". And they're not even the same fucking aliens!

So if Rockstar had "rebooted" Grand Theft Auto as a Myst-style point and click adventure game featuring a humorless detective investigating auto crime in 60's Poland, do you think fans of the original would have rushed to embrace it?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

X-Com itself is a remake of Rebelstar Raiders and Laser Squad.

But they didn't change fundamentals of the game - or re-wrote the legacy.

That's why XCOM fails before it starts. And why Transformers failed. If you take the name, you have to take the concept behind it as well.

The only reason to use such a name is to draw in fans of the IP, so altering the IP is bound to upset the fans.

It'd be like having a Sonic game ...oh wait, they've already done that.

 

[Raddra]

Honestly, I think X-Com would have been great as a hybrid strategy / FPS game.

For those who never played it:


It combines the genre's near perfectly. It also has base based things such as weapon R&D and you can find enemy weapons to use also.

 

[CD-R]

Best example I can think of is the 2004 edition of Sid Meier's Pirates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Pirates!_%282004%29

Sid Meier's Pirate's was an open world game made for the Amiga back in the 80's. It was very popular. I have the 2004 edition and I think it's great. I suppose it helps that it was made by the same people who made the original. It keeps everything that was great about the original and mostly just gives it a graphical update.

I think Fallout 3 might be another good example. It's not really a reboot but rather a direct sequel with a different game play style. I think the openworld Oblivion esque style works pretty well in the Fallout setting. Even though it didn't have 3rd person isometric view and turn based combat system of the original two (which lets face it were pretty clunky even back then) it still kept the rpg elements, and tried to keep the strategic elements of the original with the VATS system. It also helps that it, you know, looks like a Fallout game. Bethesda at least tried to make a Fallout game.

Then again I might be kind of biased since this was the last Fallout game I played.

Spoiler

I was just happy to play a Fallout game that wasn't a complete embarrassment.

Also Robotron 64 wasn't bad either.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

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.

Okay, just to set things up for myself. I played F1 and F2 before F3, I personally found F2 the best of the numbered sequels. That said, New Vegas is my favourite Fallout game to date, bugs be damned.

I didn't like what Bethesda did in terms of narrative and the setting was a bit hit and miss (it felt like fallout, but at the same time It felt like it was set in a drastically different era, rather then a different state). But bringing the Elder Scrolls formula of a first person rpg to was, personally, a good idea. Though they could have attemtped to do a classically styled isometric game with fancy new age graphics and and less clunky stat system, the choice of going FPS was a natural one, since it's what they are experienced in.

Obsidian took that and ran with it, and made a 3D FPS fallout game that FELT like fallout though with far more bugs then even 2. Essentially, bethesda played to their strenghts but missed the quality by a fair margin and Obsidian rectified it. To me, Obsidian proved Bethesdas idea was good (though rough), but their grasp of the ethos was off the mark.

Re-imaginings are not so bad, though the risk of a much loved name being mecilessly flogged for fat greedy bereaucrats to get their fix is there. Face it, games from 10-20 years ago do not stand up so well today, not because of graphics, not because of their genre, but simply because the games back then were crude and fledgeling and made games within the limitations of the technology. Games now are able to do barrels more then games of yester year, and in the case of rpgs, ditch the roll of the dice for more direct player based input/skill. Stats now serve to tell us what a character can do, rather then the chances of the character doing it. Frankly I prefer the new use of stats.

One more thing. In regards to changing up the core feel of the game (isometric to fps as per the current example). FPS (or even TPS) is by far the more immersive game type as it puts YOU the player in the hot seat, rather then some abstract distance above your character, like some astroprojected voyeur. If done well, you can get sucked into a game... and yes the same could be said about a Isometric far view game, but the former is far easier to accomplish.

Whats more, in a free roam adventure game, FPS/TPS is a little more special as it allows for the finer details to get emphasised. Small things like that skeleton of a man who worked his way through a dangerous mutant infested building to find a lost treasure, only to bring a manual on lockpicking to open a, sadly, computerised door (actual scene in fallout 3). In an ISO rpg that scene would probably been some skeleton model laid down on the ground with a block of textures next to it that we have to assume is a book, which when we interact with it, would explain to us what happened.

Frankly, for me, the former is more immersive and interesting as it allows me to piece together the events. The whole motto of "show don't tell" comes to mind. Fallout 3 is littered with those little touches... it's why I don't hate the game, despite it missing it's mark.

Bethesda had an actual reputation. The guys at X-Com does not, and 2K has a bad reputation for ruining good franchises like Bioshock.

Fallout 3's example doesn't work.

Eh... no. Bioshock 2 did not RUIN bioshock. Objectively it was the better game in terms of mechanics and gameplay, but even from my point of view I will say it didn't stand as tall as the rather sublime prequel. Also 2k games acutally has a pretty solid reputation as a producer/developer/publisher much like Bethesda. Here's a list of games that they have been involved with at various levels:

Sid Meier's Pirates!
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
Sid Meier's Civilization IV
Close Combat: First to Fight
MLB 2K5: World Series Edition
Dungeon Siege II
Jade Empire
Motocross Mania 3
Serious Sam II
Vietcong 2
24: The Game
CivCity: Rome
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Warlords
Dungeon Siege II: Broken World
Dungeon Siege: Throne of Agony
Family Guy Video Game!
Prey
Sid Meier's Railroads!
Stronghold Legends
The Da Vinci Code
Sid Meier's Pirates!
BioShock
Carnival Games
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Ghost Rider
The Darkness
The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization
Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution
Borderlands
BioShock 2
Mafia II
Civilization V
Duke Nukem Forever

So yeah... some hits and misses (not unlike bethesda... rogue agent, never forget). Funnily enough I notice a cross over here. I do believe Bethesda outsourced the xbox version of shivering isles.

 

[Spitfire]

Some might disagree, but I'd argue that Command & Conquer Renegade is one such example. The game was more or less an FPS reimagining of the original C&C, which was obviously an RTS. The gameplay was fun as hell, the dialogue was humorous, and the game managed to adapt almost every aspect of the original. Of course, the major difference between Renegade and X-com, is that Renegade was made by the same studio that made the original game, whereas X-com is not. Take from that what you will.

 

[CD-R]

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.

Bethesda though at least tried to make a Fallout game. They at least tried to create the same feeling of wandering a nuclear wasteland. They at least tried to make it you know, look like a Fallout game. Were they successful? In some areas yes in other areas no. Game play and setting wise I think they were. The Capital wasteland was a generally interesting place to explore and the VATS system worked very well. Story and character wise I think they fell short. Sure there were some good side quests and the locations (vaults etc.) had a lot of interesting stories, but the main story wasn't really that great. Fortunately New Vegas came along and picked up the slack story wise.

This new X-Com's main problem is that it doesn't even look like X-Com. Seriously if it had the same setting and aliens from the original I'd at least be willing to give it a shot. As far as the new Syndicate game goes that at least looks like it could be a Syndicate game. Then again I only played a few missions of the original so I don't know. EA could have avoided 90% of the backlash if they just said it was "a visceral first person shooter set in the grim dystopian universe of Syndicate". Rather than saying it's a direct sequel or series reboot.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Whats more, in a free roam adventure game, FPS/TPS is a little more special as it allows for the finer details to get emphasised.

Taking XCOM for a moment:
Do you think the terror of a Chrysalid invasion will be there?
Do you think mind-controlling other aliens will be in there?
Do you think juggling the various countries chance of being invaded will be in there?
Do you think the fully destructive environments will be there?
Do you think sending the tanks out will be there?
Do you think things like the blaster bomb will be there?

Do you think you'll actually "care" if one of your people gets killed?

These are all staples of X-Com that appear to be nowhere in XCOM.

Equally, all of the staples of Syndicate (chest-nukes, clones) seem to be missing apart from the Persuadotron - which is being amped up to the Sonic Screwdriver stage of being able to do anything.

Fallout 3 acted as a big brush over the original IP. As did Transformers - effectively producing two IPs. Both XCOM and the remade Syndicate could have their names swapped with little difference apart from the setting - and also rebranded as Call Of Duty: Alien Invasion or Call of Duty: Cyber Invasion.

That makes an extremely worrying thought for any other IP that isn't an FPS now, because it soon might be "reimagined" as one.

Sabrewulf, Ant Attack, Monty on the Run, Blagger....Sonic?

 

[ChupathingyX]

Fallout 3 may have been a critical and commercial success, but from the fans perspective...it's probably one of the biggest battles of preference and opinion.

The problem is that critically, well most reviewers are dickheads, I'm sorry but that is how I feel about them 90% of the time. As for awards...they're bullshit too.

As for commercially many fans of the original did not like the move to 3D FPS, but they couldn't make their final judgement until they actually purchased it and played it. In the end it turned out that Bethesad took so many liberties with the Fallout universe that the lore became a mess, and even when looking at it without considering the Fallout world, things like the story, characters and all that were still boring and stupid.

Personally I really didn't like Fallout 3 and neither did a lot of other people, so no, I would not call it a success.

New Vegas on the other hand pretty much fixed all of the issues Fallout 3 had (except for bugs) and if it replaced F3 then that would have been a much better success, and the game did sell well.

 

[Continuity]

I think the real question we need to ask is why have these old genre died? is it impossible now to make a successful AAA game that doesn't fit into one of the major genre slots? Thats a sad thing if true.

However this is clearly the reason for the re-work, its not because there was anything wrong with the original formula its just that the AAA industry isn't geared to making these sorts of games anymore... all the talent and all the game engines and development tools and all the development practises and design paradigms that exist in these AAA studios are geared for first or third person 3D games. The shift needed and the risk involved in creating a true modern AAA sequel to XCOM is incomprehensible to these people.

 

[Vault101]

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?

I couldnt really say from experience

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

I think in regards to others it doesnt reseble the originals at all...its just the name really

 

[Vault101]

Fallout 3 may have been a critical and commercial success, but from the fans perspective...it's probably one of the biggest battles of preference and opinion.

The problem is that critically, well most reviewers are dickheads, I'm sorry but that is how I feel about them 90% of the time. As for awards...they're bullshit too.

As for commercially many fans of the original did not like the move to 3D FPS, but they couldn't make their final judgement until they actually purchased it and played it. In the end it turned out that Bethesad took so many liberties with the Fallout universe that the lore became a mess, and even when looking at it without considering the Fallout world, things like the story, characters and all that were still boring and stupid.

Personally I really didn't like Fallout 3 and neither did a lot of other people, so no, I would not call it a success.

New Vegas on the other hand pretty much fixed all of the issues Fallout 3 had (except for bugs) and if it replaced F3 then that would have been a much better success, and the game did sell well.

Im not sure I buy the "critcs dont know what they are talking about!" as a way to justify your veiw that they were WRONG when saying FO3 was great, not saing your veiw is wrong but still....

they way I see it, they took the series and made it into an action RPG, since you like New vegas that shows at least you dont dislike FO3 and NV beccause they arnt isometric turn based strategys

alot of people (sadly) hate them for this reason and this reason alone

lets not discuss FO3...again

 

[Continuity]

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

You know they didnt do that good a job on FO3. Sure the aesthetic was neatly preserved for the most part but the humour was almost completely absent, and the humour was a major part of what made fallout fallout. Really FO3 is just a pale impression of content of the originals. Plus although they created a fantastic sandbox world with tremendous detail, they were rather light on the actual number quests they put in there.

Those are my only complaints really, so on the whole the did a good job, far better than I expected.

 

[Vault101]

in regards to Fallout 3 and NV (you know for the FO3 haters) it keeps everything that MADE it fallout, the world general tone and everything..plus it was an RPG, only difference was combat

You know they didnt do that good a job on FO3. Sure the aesthetic was neatly preserved for the most part but the humour was almost completely absent, and the humour was a major part of what made fallout fallout. Really FO3 is just a pale impression of content of the originals. Plus although they created a fantastic sandbox world with tremendous detail, they were rather light on the actual number quests they put in there.

Those are my only complaints really, so on the whole the did a good job, far better than I expected.

you may be right, however somone like me (and many others) who werent very familiar with fallout, it introduced us to the world, it was fun and allowed New Vegas to be made...and just brought fallout to a wider audience

anyone who has a problem with that needs to get over themselfs (the whole "new fans" thing, not disliking the game)

 

[Souplex]

I'd be okay with this if they also gave us a real XCOM game (Turn based strategy is so hard to find these days, and let's be honest: RTSes aren't real strategy games as your strategy will always be hampered by your ability to manage the interface. XCOM was one of the best, and I'd like to see it back.) on the DS or something.

 

[Abengoshis]

In the future 99% of games involves guns and 90% of them are FPSs. Oh wait, that's now.

 

[veloper]

So all the re-imaginings and spin-offs mentioned sofar, kept (most of) the setting of original, even if the gameplay genre changed.

That makes the new XCOM idea a unique little brainfart in game land.

The best thing you can say about buying the IP is that it's giving the game some negative attention and that also puts the game on people's radar.

Reception will depend on how the game will compare to the Mass Effect series, since it copies most of it's gameplay mechanics from Bioware's.