Xcom Publisher: Strategy Games Are Not Contemporary

Recommended Videos

FinalHeart95

New member
Jun 29, 2009
2,164
0
0
There is an audience for strategy games, look at Starcraft II. That game sold a shitload. Besides, if you care about "being contemporary", WHY WOULD YOU BRING BACK AN OLD AS FUCK IP? That makes no sense! Hell, it's to the point of self-contradiction.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
 

Vibhor

New member
Aug 4, 2010
714
0
0
DracoSuave said:
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
The title reads strategy. And he also states strategy, not turn based strategy.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
FinalHeart95 said:
There is an audience for strategy games, look at Starcraft II. That game sold a shitload. Besides, if you care about "being contemporary", WHY WOULD YOU BRING BACK AN OLD AS FUCK IP? That makes no sense! Hell, it's to the point of self-contradiction.
Yeah, that's my thought as well. Honestly, I can sort of understand what they're saying and I don't think they're totally wrong. A straight up turn based strategy game on the level of the original XCom games probably wouldn't do huge numbers today (A real time or, even better, pseudo real time a la Valkyria Chronicles would be a better choice). The issue then really is why use the IP at all? The only people who still remember and/or care about the IP are those who do know it as a hardcore strategy title. If they're trying to appeal to little Johnny FPS, the XCom name and the few things they are carrying over won't mean a thing.. which kind of defeats the entire purpose of things.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Vibhor said:
DracoSuave said:
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
The title reads strategy. And he also states strategy, not turn based strategy.
Greg Tito said:
"Turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth," Hartmann said. "But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."
ORLY?


You know, when I was in school, I was taught something about reading comprehension. That being... reading the title of an article, book, newspaper editorial, whatever, is not the same thing as reading the article itself.

It does not matter what the headline is. It matters what the story is.


And I agree with StriderShiryu... Valkyria Chronicles is actually a great way to do a modern X-com. It's cheaper to make, and ValChron shows there's a healthy demand for a strategy franchise similiar to X-com.
 

Cedar

New member
Jul 19, 2008
6
0
0
OK, looking at the new trailer it looks like they tried crossing the 50's stylization of Fall Out, with an attempt at TF2's art style, Then take Call of Duty, or as Spoony said it's more like Mass effect now. You put this all together, and you still don't get X-COM. Now I can see how they are trying to sell this as a Prequel to the old games, before they had all the high tech gadgets, but still, this is not an X-COM game.

Oh, and RTS isn't selling that, tell that to Sho-gun2, tell that to StarCraft 2. But you want to know what I'm afraid is abotu to happen, another Duke Nuke'em Forever. The studio already delayed the release once to rebuild the game, and I'm afraid they are goign to keep doign that because we keep telling them IT SUCKS!!!
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
"That's what we are trying to do. To renew Xcom but in line with what this generation of gamers want," he said. "The team behind it is asking themselves every day: 'Is it true to the values of the franchise?' It's not a case of cashing in on the name. We just need to renew it because times are changing."
That's easy to answer... No, it's not true to the franchise, and yes, it is just cashing in. I love the line of thinking this guy demonstrates: "it was good back in the day, but now it's no good". This is flawed, the answer is to not call it XCom. You are simply alienating people who loved the franchise while not doing anything at all to draw in a new audience. After all, there are a million and one FPS's out there, but there aren't a lot of turn based strategy games floating around. The answer to business is not to reinvent the wheel, but to find use for new and interesting inventions. And it certainly isn't to reinvent the wheel, call it a wheel, but make it square.
 

Moromillas

New member
May 25, 2010
328
0
0
Wow, out of touch with reality much? (Hey, that rhymes.) No, I don't want to be inundated with shooters. Don't want strategy games taken into the realm of "Hey, what would this be like if it was a shooter?" that's like asking what it would be like as a dance dance revolution game. Well, I'll tell you what it would be like 2k - It would be just another cheesy shooter, in a sea of shooters. Clearly they haven't even thought about this, at all, otherwise they wouldn't be going the easy "lets make a shooter" route, then trying to tell people what they like and don't like.

100% disgust.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Vibhor said:
DracoSuave said:
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
The title reads strategy. And he also states strategy, not turn based strategy.
Even if that were so, the old XCom games were definitively Turn Based Strategy. I think this guy doesn't know the difference to be honest with you. I mean, Turn based strategy and real time strategy (the two most common sub genres) are completely different game types.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Baresark said:
Vibhor said:
DracoSuave said:
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
The title reads strategy. And he also states strategy, not turn based strategy.
Even if that were so, the old XCom games were definitively Turn Based Strategy. I think this guy doesn't know the difference to be honest with you. I mean, Turn based strategy and real time strategy (the two most common sub genres) are completely different game types.
To be honest, if they made a full on X-Com RTS... it'd also not be XCOM. ValChron is about as close as you can get and still have it be X-Com.
 

Sinclair Solutions

New member
Jul 22, 2010
1,611
0
0
Oh...oh, dear. I don't think this turned out the way he wanted it to. I'm not even familiar with the series and this statement just...baffles me.

I really hope the folks at 2K can make a decent game out of this. 2K Marin is handling this, yes? I'm a big fan of Mr. Jordan Thomas.
 

unacomn

New member
Mar 3, 2008
974
0
0
"But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."
Well gee, that explains why Paradox Interactive, Firaxis, Relic and The Creative Assembly went bankrupt, and why Blizzard never released Starcraft 2... oh wait, no they didn't, they're actually turning a profit and selling more games than ever.

Seriously!? This week saw the release of Panzer Corps, a spiritual sequel to Panzer General, but with even a larger emphasis on strategy, and this guy says games like this are from a bygone age? You know what else is from a bygone age? GOOD GAMES!!
 

Ghengis John

New member
Dec 16, 2007
2,209
0
0
Warforger said:
It's not that new ones aren't coming out it's that they're not selling, only a select few titles sell and they're usually ongoing franchise from the 90's and early 2000's like Dawn of War, Starcraft or civilization. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Although I love turn based strategy games, I used to play table top warhammer 40k and it was the more strategic experience I had.
It's 2011. What am I supposed to name if not anything from the 2000's? I have an incredible six months of nothing to choose from. But since you asked, is X-com not a strategy series from the 1990's?
 

Vohn_exel

Residential Idiot
Oct 24, 2008
1,357
0
0
vrbtny said:
Greg Tito said:
One of the most lauded games of the 90s was called Xcom: UFO Defense where you controlled a squad of shoulders on an isometric grid.
A squad of shoulders eh? To command them must take some serious skill.
Hahaha, that IS an awesome typo!

But yeah I never played the game, as turn based strategy games aren't my thing...but um, neither are shooters, so I'm still not the target audience for this. My opinion is that if they want to do more than just make ANOTHER "pew pew" game is to have some sort of strategy element like the first Rainbow Six game had. Even I found that kind of interesting.
 

Sartan0

New member
Apr 5, 2010
538
0
0
Sober Thal said:
Second, this game is anything but another CoD. They are implementing features from the original, so can't they get at least a little credit for not doing the same old thing? Besides, it's almost a year away from being finished!
That does not change the fact that they either mishandled their PR or are willing to piss off many gamers on the chance of getting the word out to more. Either they are disrespectful or sleazy. I think that is what has got fans of the original games goat. They know they are being slammed either way.

As to the merits of the game. I agree we should wait and see but as far as the PR they have failed. Hence, the hate. (I personally will not buy this at launch but will wait and see.)
 

Aklyon

New member
Jul 10, 2010
18
0
0
SL33TBL1ND said:
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Not G. Ivingname said:




Add Frozen Synapses to that. ;) And very soon, Subversion.
Oh my fucking god, I cannot wait for Subversion.
Subversion! :D

Also, this guy must live in opposite land, where pissing off your old IP's fans equals more sales, not everyone tearing your explainations on how this is not a cash-grab to sand-grain sized shreds.
 

Vibhor

New member
Aug 4, 2010
714
0
0
DracoSuave said:
Vibhor said:
DracoSuave said:
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
The title reads strategy. And he also states strategy, not turn based strategy.
Greg Tito said:
"Turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth," Hartmann said. "But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."
ORLY?


You know, when I was in school, I was taught something about reading comprehension. That being... reading the title of an article, book, newspaper editorial, whatever, is not the same thing as reading the article itself.

It does not matter what the headline is. It matters what the story is.


And I agree with StriderShiryu... Valkyria Chronicles is actually a great way to do a modern X-com. It's cheaper to make, and ValChron shows there's a healthy demand for a strategy franchise similiar to X-com.
Did you read the sentence next to the line you bolded out?
If you continued reading then you could have easily seen that he is openly attacking the strategy genre. I think you need to brush up your comprehension skills instead of being a hypocrite.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Vibhor said:
DracoSuave said:
Vibhor said:
DracoSuave said:
I just want to point out something that should be obvious.

The guy said turn-based strategy is old and outdated.

So... could you please stop name dropping Starcraft 2 like it's in any way relevant to the conversation? Not to disrespect that game at all... but it's not a shining example of turn based anything.

Tho yes, obvious betrayal of XCom is obvious. But keep your points relevant to what is said, lest you look like a bunch of Fandumb that doesn't know how to read and only has the attention span of first-person shooter fans.

Which is kinda what you're trying to not look like, amirite?
The title reads strategy. And he also states strategy, not turn based strategy.
Greg Tito said:
"Turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth," Hartmann said. "But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."
ORLY?


You know, when I was in school, I was taught something about reading comprehension. That being... reading the title of an article, book, newspaper editorial, whatever, is not the same thing as reading the article itself.

It does not matter what the headline is. It matters what the story is.


And I agree with StriderShiryu... Valkyria Chronicles is actually a great way to do a modern X-com. It's cheaper to make, and ValChron shows there's a healthy demand for a strategy franchise similiar to X-com.
Did you read the sentence next to the line you bolded out?
If you continued reading then you could have easily seen that he is openly attacking the strategy genre. I think you need to brush up your comprehension skills instead of being a hypocrite.
:facepalm:

Obvious antecedent is obvious. When someone states 'turn-based strategy' in one sentence, it's assumed that use of 'strategy' in the subsequent sentences about the exact same topic are referring to the exact same thing. At no point did he state the entire strategy megagenre. He did not make any attempt to infer the entire strategy genre. All he did was abbreviate 'turn-based strategy' into 'strategy'.

It's called synecdoche where part of something is used to refer to the entirety of something... much like how we say 'Boston won the Stanley Cup' and mean 'Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup.' Or 'I see sails over the horizon!' when one means they are seeing ships. Context shows it's obvious what he means.

Defend X-com, but don't misrepresent what he clearly meant and DID, in fact, say. Taking things out of context just so you can namedrop RTSs doesn't help the case for Turn-based anyways.