Xcom Publisher: Strategy Games Are Not Contemporary

[DracoSuave]

Just ignore DracoSuave he's trolling. He completely disregards the inference of the statement, everyone else can read it just fine. Also ignore Sober Thal it's obvious he has never played X-Com and doesn't care for it.

I got the inference just fine. The only thing he was talking about was turn-based strategy. It's pretty obvious. Do you not understand synecdoche? No? Then go away.

It's clearly a bad idea to start going 'But Starcraft 2 hurrdurr' because the problem is, they're trying to make X-Com some real time, action thing, rather than the turn based micro and macro strategy game it should be.

So yeah, keep dropping that real-time stuff, and only prove his point that you want Moar Acshun. Cause, and I'll repeat this... X-Com isn't gonna be good as an RTS either.

 

[AsurasFinest]

Ray Charles would be like Kanye West?

I... Words fail to describe how filled with rage I am at this sentence
Why not just spit on Ray's grave while your at it

 

[TheDist]

It is kinda sad to me as a fan (with my orignal coppy of UFO:enemy unknown sat next to my pc) to see what they are doing to X-com, I'd kill for more turnbased games right now, maybe it's a sign that i'm old eh?

However what is worse I think is their reaction to all the backlash, throw in a pathetic attempt to appease then head in the sand time. In every interview ive seen with the dev's it comes accross to me that this game is going through the wringer. Ah well maybe I can enjoy watching it crash and burn.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

"Yes, we know what fans want. No, not what they keep saying, but what we want them to want. It's so simple!"

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Yep. And diving into the FPS with RPG elements market will be a much better decision. Congratulations, instead of sticking to the guns of the series, and guaranteeing good sales which could become great sales by proper marketing, you're competing with Call of Duty, Halo, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and very vocal fans' opinions.

This will be great success!

I'm not even an X-Com fan and this guy pisses me off.

 

[Zulnam]

I really was considering buying this new X-Com game (It's X-Com, not XCom; I don't care what you write on the boxes, it's fucking X-Com), but after this whole "no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth" and "strategy games are just not contemporary." they can take their contemporary game and shove it up their contemporary behinds.

Seriously, after all the negative feedback they received over the internet, I'm shocked they're still going through with it. I'm still waiting any day now to read an article saying "2K games pull biggest prank on gamers, ever. XCom game meant to be a joke".

 

[Merlark]

Making a shooter just for the sake of a shooter does seem odd, I was never huge into Xcom but strategy games did eventually become one of my favorite genre's. I mean shooters are fun though it seems they have been getting rather stagnant and I simply don't see what Xcom is bringing to the table to run with this type of game play.

I think game company's often mistake what we want for what we end up settling for. We may buy allot of shooters but it's what the industry is putting the most money into these days, even if the entertainment value of each is slowly degrading over time.

What would be best for Xcom though? would being successful as a shooter show them that the IP is still important or a money maker and thus perhaps spawn other types of Xcom games? Or would completely bombing out show them that just trying to go a common direction does not carry the spirit of an IP that people love? would that force them to try again but instead within their original genre?

Tough call.

 

[Therumancer]

I won't be buying it.

In general the basic attitude is that since FPS games are selling well, they want a piece of that market. Why produce a strategy game for a smaller market, and make a profit, when you can produce a FPS and potentially make even bigger profits? That's what they are thinking, and it's common to a lot of the industry nowadays.

In general the FPS market is flooded right now, so I think this "follow the leader" trend is going to do more damage than good for a lot of companies that take this attitude.

I think there would be far more interest in the game as a strategy/tactical RPG title as it was before. Not only are games like Civilization selling well, but you can find examples of things like "Tactics Ogre" and "Disgaea" out there doing pretty bloody well, and those games remind me a lot of X-com.

Of course also remember that FPS games are relatively cheap to develop being "out of a toolbox" products to a large extent. What's more, most game companies nowadays want to launch game series that they can crank out installments to fairly quickly. Like it or not, games with massive replay value, that you can put hundreds upon hundreds of hours into aren't that profitable as much as gamers want them, which is why you see so few titles being developed for that (hype aside). A company wants people to finish the single player, and burn out on the multi-player in time for their shiny new sequel a couple years down the road (tops). It's like drug companies not wanting to actually cure illness, creating a perfect game that keeps people occupied and satisfied for a really long time, hampers the sales of more games. I suspect this feeds into why so many games are so short, or a lot more limited than they could be, as much as the other reasons so frequently mentioned.

 

[adamtm]

I don't understand the outrage, I really don't.

There have been a gazillion game-franchises that had sequels/prequels that were not the same genre.

"I won't buy/play X-Com because it's not a turn based strategy game" seems like a very weak argument.

Lets try it with some other titles:

"I won't buy/play World Of Warcraft because it's not a RTS"
"I won't buy/play Halo Wars because it's not a FPS"
"I won't buy/play X-Com:Interceptor because it's not a turn based strategy game"
"I won't buy/play Fallout Tactics because it's not a RPG"
"I won't buy/play Final Fantasy Dissidia because it's not a jRPG"

silly

If your argument is that the game is bad, I'm totally ok with it though.

Would it make you happy if they named it X-Com: Ground Combat or sth? Is that all you needed?

 

[Wolfram23]

I wonder just how many people here bitching have actually played Xcom. I'm 25 and never heard of it until this reboot started getting coverage many months ago. And I know that most Escapists are still teenagers, not to mention predominantly console gamers.

Anyway... on topic of changing the genre, I don't see it as an issue. I mean, I'd love for a great single player strategy game, with characters and story and such. SC2 was a massive let down for me (SP) and I'm not really into the Civ style of strategy (tho I think it's a good genre).

That said, I'm definitely an FPS fan so if it's good, it's good. I'll keep looking into it, I just hope they don't make it all CoD like but do something at least somewhat original for the genre. Meanwhile I'm going to be playing STALKER: SoF

 

[Treblaine]

Just ignore DracoSuave he's trolling. He completely disregards the inference of the statement, everyone else can read it just fine. Also ignore Sober Thal it's obvious he has never played X-Com and doesn't care for it.

Accusation of trolling is against the forum rules.

Especially when it is blatantly obvious he was not trolling, just being very very right (though pointing it out in quite a condescending way)

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

The core essence was a strategy game which people played to this day.Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[Treblaine]

I don't understand the outrage, I really don't.

There have been a gazillion game-franchises that had sequels/prequels that were not the same genre.

"I won't buy/play X-Com because it's not a turn based strategy game" seems like a very weak argument.

Lets try it with some other titles:

"I won't buy/play World Of Warcraft because it's not a RTS"
"I won't buy/play Halo Wars because it's not a FPS"
"I won't buy/play X-Com:Interceptor because it's not a turn based strategy game"
"I won't buy/play Fallout Tactics because it's not a RPG"
"I won't buy/play Final Fantasy Dissidia because it's not a jRPG"

silly

If your argument is that the game is bad, I'm totally ok with it though.

Would it make you happy if they named it X-Com: Ground Combat or sth? Is that all you needed?

I know, but the brass balls here to call it simply "XCOM" not "XCOM: Origins" or "XCOM: Tactical".

Simply calling it XCOM denigrates the entire brand, and brands are importan. All the other examples you give include part of the original name but add a distinct sub-title to distinguish it. Imagine if they made a lof of shitty Star Wars prequels (oh wait, they did) but they called them nothing but "Star Wars". Everyone would say "Star Wars Sucks" refering to the more recent version but denigrating the original.

But this is just a part of an overall betrayal. The Star Wars prequels for all their shittyness were clearly in the same universe, but this XCOM game doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with the classic series!

I don't think you understand quite how little in common this Xcom-in-name-only has with the rest of the series.

This looks exactly as if 2K Marin just had their own idea for an FPS game set in the 1950's and at the last minute the XCOM name and a few VERY trivial aspects of lore are slapped on at the end. And then they have the nerve to say it is not a reboot... but a prequel. This this game is now CANON! No.

No. Wrong, you can't do that.

This looks EXACTLY like 2k's PR agents forced 2k Marin to adopt this IP - to spite it being completely unsuited to the game they are making - as they know that it will make the game more marketable.

This game - that no one can really call XCOM - is simply whoring out the brand recognition of X-Com. I don't think you understand how PR guys sell things, they don't appeal to your logic, they appeal to the lower brain of emotional associations of a huge population; the public don't "know" what the Xcom brand is, they have just heard in many places that is has a good reputation. And they exploit that, just to a tiny extent, enough to increase sales a bit.

This is the betrayal that EVERY gamer is rightly aghast about as if it can happen to XCOM, it can happen to games that they are fans of!

I am a big fan of the Hitman game series. But I'd be mad as hell if the IP was plastered over a generic FPS war shooter wand didn't use any of the elements, characters, themes or motifs of Hitman... just the name. Hitman would have been in the public consciousness vaguely known as the name of a good game, till it was whored out and the name then meant nothing but a much more familiar bore-fest.

XCOM fans have been crying out for a proper new XCOM game for decades now, no other game has done it as well. The very legacy of the Xcom name has always been a reason to make a great turn-based strategy game again, but that reputation is being whored out here. Decreasing any possibility of a great continuation of the XCOM games.

 

[Pscyon]

Now my forehead hurts. Facedesking is not healthy. Either the guy is a complete and utter idiot or... no, he is a complete and utter idiot. One who isn't very skilled at lying apparently. Think he'd actually earn himself less hate if he just came out and admitted it's a cash-in that does the whole shooter-thing cause then they can do one of those dreadful cross-platform releases which wouldn't be viable with a proper TBS.

If strategy games are apparently not what gamers want these days then why the hell are they relying on the brand recognition of a well established strategy series.

Indeedy.

 

[SoopaSte123]

Hm... this makes me wonder: turn based strategy or real time strategy (and by real time strategy I mean all games in real time that have strategy, not just normal RTS games)? I think I prefer real time strategy games in single player, as I love the "think on the fly" style. That, and always being able to move my character around is nice. Multiplayer, I prefer turn based, though, because I'll never have the reflexes quick enough to be one of the best. A battle of minds is preferable to a battle of minds + reflexes, for me at least.

 

[Sahasrala88]

Turn Based Strategy isn't contemporary?!! I've got a list for you of turn based strategy games:
Raidiant Historia, Shin Megami Tensei (the entire series), Legend of Heroes, FF Tactics A2, Advanced Wars (series), Fire Emblem, Disgaea, Frozen Synapse, and POKEMON!!!

Almost all of these games or series have had games made in the past 5 years. Turn based strategy is alive and well my friends. Yes I know that a number of the examples are technically tactical strategy, but they are still turn based. This guy has no idea what he's talking about, game related or music related. This X-COM game is a betrayal to the fans. FPS games are rarely anything special these days. The game will just be referred to as some rip off of another FPS franchise. Way to go 2k games, you just sent a great game series into the realm of mediocrity.

 

[Imbechile]

So the best way to sell more copies is to make the game a part of the most overcrowded genre? Yeah nice logic.

A little off topic: Developers PLEASE STOP trying to make the next Call of Duty. So long as COD is making money you aren't going to fucking succeed.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Nah, it's just majority of gaming systems - PS3, 360, Wii - does not feature an official, and I will stress it, OFFICIAL controller for strategy games. Sure, PS3 supports mouse and keyboard but how many developer ever included support for them?

 

[(LK)]

Is it really still part of the same game series if the only things you don't change are the setting and name?

If Bethesda made an "Elder Scrolls" game that was a racing simulator, because those happened to be popular at the moment, would the public really accept the validity of considering it part of the same series/franchise of games?

More pointedly: does the goodwill attached to a series of really good strategy games even get passed on to a shooter with the same name? They're fairly different products. I wouldn't assume a guitar named the "civic" made by Honda would be a decent guitar, just because the car was a decent car.

Heh, as for the "not contemporary" nonsense, alternate headline: "2K spokesman denies existence of Starcraft"