Xcom Publisher: Strategy Games Are Not Contemporary

[Sartan0]

So this is really just about the name.

I'm wondering why nobody cried in mass-outrage over the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie, its really the same situation with continuity, yet Star Trek 2009 is the highest rated Star Trek movie on both IMDB and rottentomatoes...

Or NeoBSG, had fuck all to do with the 80s BSG, wasnt even the same universe.

Or Fallout 3 had tangentially anything to do with the Fallout franchise, while Fallout and Fallout 2 were direct sequels F3 took just bits and pieces of the lore and made their own game, all that stayed was the broad setting of post nuclear civilization (the only thing in common with Fallout 1+2 were the BoS and Harrold as an easter-egg, not even the SuperMutants were the same), yet GOTY awards etc etc.

The fact is you can have great franchise reboots, like Fallout and you can have really shit franchise reboots like Shadowrun.
The genre does not play a role in this, nor the title. What plays a role is how good the actual game is.

If you want to argue that nu-X-Com looks very unengaging, generic etc. pp. im all with you.

Going into betrayal-rage-mode because its not a TSG or doesnt tie into canon is SILLY.

What interests me most is why this massive backlash, because for example Starbreeze is making a Syndicate reboot which will also be an FPS (and not an isometric tactics game like the original), and I have yet to hear a word about anyone caring.

Easy for you to say: 'just a name' when you don't care about it. X-com was arguably one of the best games of it's era when it came out. A whole generation of gamers enjoyed the hell out of it. Yes the rest of the series never quite had the magic but the gamers who care about it will always identify with the first one and hope for a proper modern version being made. This is not a typical situation. This is 2K mishandling something and getting called on it by old gamers. They feel betrayed. Trying to argue with them logically is not going to get past the emotion.

 

[adamtm]

Easy for you to say: 'just a name' when you don't care about it. X-com was arguably one of the best games of it's era when it came out. A whole generation of gamers enjoyed the hell out of it. Yes the rest of the series never quite had the magic but the gamers who care about it will always identify with the first one and hope for a proper modern version being made. This is not a typical situation. This is 2K mishandling something and getting called on it by old gamers. They feel betrayed. Trying to argue with them logically is not going to get past the emotion.

As i said, mostly interested why this backlash is so huge compared to other comparable franchise reboots (Star Trek, NuBSG, Stargate Universe, Syndicate etc. pp.), why is this specific fanbase crying MURDER even before the game is out to be judged.

Nothing else.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

So this is really just about the name.

I'm wondering why nobody cried in mass-outrage over the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie, its really the same situation with continuity, yet Star Trek 2009 is the highest rated Star Trek movie on both IMDB and rottentomatoes...

Or NeoBSG, had fuck all to do with the 80s BSG, wasnt even the same universe.

Or Fallout 3 had tangentially anything to do with the Fallout franchise, while Fallout and Fallout 2 were direct sequels F3 took just bits and pieces of the lore and made their own game, all that stayed was the broad setting of post nuclear civilization (the only thing in common with Fallout 1+2 were the BoS and Harrold as an easter-egg, not even the SuperMutants were the same), yet GOTY awards etc etc.

The fact is you can have great franchise reboots, like Fallout and you can have really shit franchise reboots like Shadowrun.
The genre does not play a role in this, nor the title. What plays a role is how good the actual game is.

If you want to argue that nu-X-Com looks very unengaging, generic etc. pp. im all with you.

Going into betrayal-rage-mode because its not a TSG or doesnt tie into canon is SILLY.

What interests me most is why this massive backlash, because for example Starbreeze is making a Syndicate reboot which will also be an FPS (and not an isometric tactics game like the original), and I have yet to hear a word about anyone caring.

Yeah, it is really is just about the name. That is ALL that this game has to be - distinctly - with the Xcom franchise. Whoring out a respected name. How can you not see that that is a very bad thing for Xcom or any name? That you would not like to see done to your own beloved franchises?

"Starbreeze is making a Syndicate reboot which will also be an FPS and I have yet to hear a word about anyone caring."

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence

Have you looked for dissenting syndicate fans? This syndicate FPS game, where is it? XCOM had a massive building sized poster at E3, it has had so much media coverage. How can complacent syndicate fans undermine the fundamental point of why what is being done here is wrong. It's also a poor comparison as it was real-time-tactical, rather than turn-based-strategic, that makes them semantically opposite in every point of description.

Also there was some dissent over Star Wars 2009 but frankly the Star Trek movies were more than dormant, the movies were DEAD. People ***** about a less than stellar Xcom game, but the Next-Generation Star Trek movies were REALLY REALLY BAD! See Red-Letter-media's review of those flicks. Anyway, he summed up the Star Trek fan's opinion of Star Trek 2009: an SNL sketch played straight with above-average action in place of cheesy comedy. Even the fans didn't care about star trek movies any more, they thought the movies should have ended with Undiscovered Country.

But anyway, Star Trek was a cash in not on the NAME, but on the ENTIRE franchise! That was all that was left, all the writers and actors had moved on, Star Trek was over. All that was left was to recycle things not for the fans but as a massive pop-culture reference.

There are very VERY few fans of the original BSG, which was not very good while the reboot is undoubtedly similar enough to retain the BSG name. It explores the same subject matter from the same perspective only so much better.

"If you want to argue that nu-X-Com looks very unengaging, generic etc. pp. im all with you."

That is not what I am saying. This game may in fact be quite good, but it has nothing to do with X-com, it should not be called X-com. My problem is 2k seems to want to whore out the Xcom name in a shotgun marriage that is a terrible combination that only makes both of them look bad.

BSG (2004) and Star Trek (2009) are reasonable reboots for different reasons. But this xcom game isn't even a reboot, it is claiming to be an official prequel and should be totally accepted as one of the franchise when it's blatantly obvious it is only called XCOM because they owned the copyright to that name/IP.

"Going into betrayal-rage-mode because its not a TSG or doesnt tie into canon is SILLY."

Weasel Words right there. The objection is that this game has NOTHING to do with any X-com lore, far worse than contradicting anal details of canon. It's worse than it just being "not a TSG" it doesn't have any strategic elements, just a vaguely tactical team-mechanic.

This could be a good thing but is so incredibly far removed from Xcom it does not fit with the name. It purely whores out the name as a marketing gimmick.

 

[Jamiemitsu]

"But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

Contradiction detected.

I have to admit, I've only recently heard of Xcom, but being a fan of games like Final Fantasy Tactics, the series looks right up my street. So yes, I for one would most likely check the game out if it was a turn based strategy. Honestly, I dont really see the appeal in trying to compete with call of duty, especially if it comes at the cost of genuinely good IPs.

 

[boag]

So because people arent "Into Strategy" they wont make "Strategy Games", thats the biggest load ive heard since Michael Bay said the retarded humor wouldnt be in TF3.

 

[Tiamat666]

I don't know what to say. That's stupidest thing I've heard all day. Not content with talking bullshit about strategy games, he then goes on to prove he knows fuck all about music. What.

Seconded. They could have sticked with the original X-Com formula but brought the individual gameplay elements into the 21st century with polish, new ideas, 3D, multiplayer and atmosphere.

But that would have required some innovation. Better stick with the getting-sick-of-it 1st person shooter that everybody else is doing.

 

[The3rdEye]

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.

Apocalypse had an RTS option, an option which I have opted for since I started playing it at release. Admittedly not the strongest of the X-com titles, it was far more on target than Interceptor and is worlds away from what 2K is showing.

 

[Quanta Starfire]

Worst case scenario, I'll just play a different installment of the series. Or, you know, I'll play a different game. Since I'm not fond of JRPGs, I'm not interested, ergo I move on. Doesn't seem like that hard a concept to me.

There aren't that many places to move to in the case of X-Com. You have the UFO: AfterSeries, which got mixed reviews and is very hit-or-miss because, while it's considered by some to be the spirtual successor to X-Com, others feel that some of the changes made to the core gameplay ruined it for them.

You have UFO: Extraterrestrials, which was so fucking horrible that it had to be modded into playability. I hear it's decent now, and a sequel is forthcoming (with the guy who modded it into playability now working for the developer) that people are hoping is good.

You might be able to move to Jagged Alliance, which has a new game coming out, but it's a totally different setting and they're changing the gameplay for Back in Action to use real-time with a "Plan and Go" interface so you can pause the action and queue up commands for your guys to execute.

Frozen Synapse looks interesting, if a bit surreal because of the simplicity in the environments and characters. The fact that it's multiplayer and can generate seemingly endless and unique scenarios probably means it could support a large playerbase.

I dunno. The whole X-Com situation just bugs me. I want there to be another game closer in concept to it, but the options seem limited compared to other genres.

 

[Yuri 'Arara']

Disclaimer: I joined Steam last year solely to buy X-Com for $2. I still play it a bit when I'm not playing Civilization, Mass Effect, Team Fortress and Super Meat Boy.

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"

World of Warcraft, Halo Wars and Fallout Tactics were true to what a Warcraft, Halo or Fallout game was. Their ambient, characters, art style and storyline were compatible to previous games in each franchise.

Final Fantasy is a different case, since (almost) every Final Fantasy introduces a new setting, characters and storyline, so what a Final Fantasy game is all about is the RPG gameplay and... general... nipponism. Dissidia was pure fanservice. Really fun fanservice.

XCom does not take anything from former games except the name. No ambientation, storyline, enemies, weapons.
XCom does not try to bring anything resembling the original gameplay. It will be a RPG-smeared-shooter with tactical commands everyone will neglect, instead of a hard-as-fuck strategic game.
Finally, XCom isn't fanservice. The guy in the article went out of his way to tell older fans they suck. That's fandisservice.
So why the comparisons?

I'm not saying it won't be GOOD. Maybe it will. But it doesn't have anything to do with the franchise. I'd buy a X-Com game with similar gameplay and totally new ambientation, as well as I'd buy a FPS X-Com game with the original weapons and enemies (imagine how fun it'd be to see those brainy things controlling your teammaters, or defeating the underwater mecha-t-rexes!). XCom, on the other hand... is just sad.

 

[Red Albatross]

I'm going to go play Sins of a Solar Empire and laugh at what an idiot this guy is. Granted, there haven't been many GOOD strategy games in the past few years (besides the Total War series, which is been pretty consistently good), but the market is there. Knowing the different between correlation and causation apparently isn't a requirement to work at 2K.

 

[Sartan0]

Easy for you to say: 'just a name' when you don't care about it. X-com was arguably one of the best games of it's era when it came out. A whole generation of gamers enjoyed the hell out of it. Yes the rest of the series never quite had the magic but the gamers who care about it will always identify with the first one and hope for a proper modern version being made. This is not a typical situation. This is 2K mishandling something and getting called on it by old gamers. They feel betrayed. Trying to argue with them logically is not going to get past the emotion.

As i said, mostly interested why this backlash is so huge compared to other comparable franchise reboots (Star Trek, NuBSG, Stargate Universe, Syndicate etc. pp.), why is this specific fanbase crying MURDER even before the game is out to be judged.

Nothing else.

Crushed hope angers folks. The fact that they are making this likely puts the final nail in their dreams of a new X-com that is a modern version of the old one as they see it. (In most cases that would be a RTS with the ability to pause and issue orders. So kinda a hybrid. Certainly not a shooter to put on the pile of other shooters) Edit- also in all but one of your other examples it was basically impossible to continue with the original versions. As to the one game you mention it was not nearly as big or well loved as the original X-com. A quote from wikipidia: "It is the first entry in the X-COM series and is often regarded by critics and in polls as one of the best video games ever made.")

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

So, you'll keep making shooters- and being the only thing on the market we'll keep buying them- and you'll complain that shooters are the only thing that sell, while we complain that they're the only thing that gets made.

Ugh. Enough.

 

[BenzSmoke]

What the hell does this have to do with X-Com: UFO Defense? If they insist on moving away from the old-fashion turn-based strategy gameplay then why do they use an IP that's famous for old-fashion turn-based strategy gameplay? That doesn't make any sense! Games don't need to be updated into FPSs just because the market says so! I mean look at 2K's own Civilization V for example. I don't see them trying to "keep up with teh times" by turning that into an FPS. All you're trying to do is tap into an existing audience by labeling your game X:COM. However, you've changed so much that you've completely alienated fans of the old franchise. So insisting that your game is an X-Com game isn't going to do anything. All your sales are going to come from FPS fans, which begs the question, "Why did you insist on calling this X:COM in the first place?!"

 

[kickyourass]

Ok, I already had no interest in buying this game and I've never even played the original. But now that they've said THIS, I might actually understand if people actively boycott it. Saying that Strategy isn't "Contemporary" is wrong on a few dozen levels as it is, but comparing RAY FUCKING CHARLES to Kanye West, fuck you Christoph, fuck you.

 

[internetzealot1]

"what Susan Arendt saw last month, it doesn't look like it will be worth it."

Uhh...that preview seemed nuetral-positive to me.

 

[puffenstuff]

Some one has been reading to many marketing reports. This guy is so out of touch that.... he would do.... something really out of touch.

Edit:

"what Susan Arendt saw last month, it doesn't look like it will be worth it."

Uhh...that preview seemed nuetral-positive to me.

I have never seen a non-positive/nuetral-possitive preview. Hell, Duke Nukem Forever had nuetral-positive previews.

 

[Folio]

No 2K. Gamers buy shooters because companies SELL shooters. We're turning into mindless, ranting idiots who think that what we say matters, but game companies still don't know how to listen. They only hear what they want to hear.

If you give the audience something new, something FRESH. You might not need to reboot, rehash or alter ANYTHING.

Gamers are upset because you didn't stick with the roots of the franchise. People don't trust you when you don't.

You need to take the core elements of it. The absolute, perfect form of the game.

notmakeitintoafuckingshooter!

 

[Savber]

RTS not viable? Just shove it, 2K... -_-

 

[benvorbeck]

f**k this, i am really not going to buy this before its been played and reviewed for a couple of months. if they aim to make money and not stick to the heart of the game..whatever

 

[thereforecrowbar]

I think this company is confusing "contemporary" with taste. It's not black and white TV versus color TV...and even still I bet there are people who find black and white more aesthetically pleasing or more appropriate for the mood of a film than color. And while the focus in the music industry may appear to change focus throughout time, there are plenty of people still buying Beethoven's works...heck, my favorite songs are from the 1940s (thank you Fallout~)

And if the company just wants to make a shooter based on a game that was originally a strategy game, then they should just make a shooter--making up excuses just makes them look like they're having difficulty finding a good reason to switch genres.

...and while I don't feel like continuing to rant, can genres go "out of style" or be "contemporary" in the first place? Shooters are certainly not a recent phenomena...heck, if we compare this with genres like romantic comedies in literature and/or movies, Shakespeare can certainly prove they're not "contemporary"...or rather demonstrate, in my opinion, that it's rather inappropriate to label genres contemporary or not...