2K Games announces XCOM (X360 and PC)

Brimstone

my reputation is Shadowruined
Jun 19, 2004
3,719
0
0
icarus-daedelus said:
And just as Shadowrun FPS had Brimstone, so will X-Com: Enforcer 2 have its defenders. Oh, sure, they'll make a real X-Com game if this sells well, just for shits and giggles. Or maybe they'll just make another X-Com FPS.

And I look forward to people repeatedly claiming that TBS just won't fly on consoles even though the original X-Com and TFTD both came out on the PS1. With a difficult interface, sure, but still.


This type of thing has been going on for quite some time.


An Axis & Allies real time strategy game was made. Of course that is nothing like the original boardgame. I'm actually suprised that a turn based based Axis & Allies game isn't available on Xbox360 or PS3. The game has a fairly large following.



Maybe with the release of Natal things will change.
 
Sep 26, 2009
11,772
327
725
St. Louis
DiscoJer said:
Well, there have been several knock offs. the UFO After___ series. And a couple years ago a turn based one called "UFO Extraterrestrials" from I think the Czech Republic. The last one was pretty close to X-com, but set on another planet, but lacked the random maps that make the original so replayable
And I'm shocked to discover that UFO Extraterrestrials is getting a sequel (supposedly this year, though I wouldn't count on it considering how much the original was delayed)

http://www.ufo2extraterrestrials.com/

It's something at least.
 

Seraphis Cain

bad gameplay lol
Apr 8, 2009
24,870
0
0
stuffaboutvideogames.tumblr.com
From the "Bourne game canceled in favor of Syndicate remake" thread:

KareBear (on 3-24-10) said:
Im glad the Bourne game is cancelled but im not too excited about a Syndicate reboot done by Starbrezze.They will likely turn in into another shitty console fps like what happened to Shadowrun.The rumored x-com reboot by irrational will turn out the same aswell.If this turns out well i hope they revive other Bullfrog franchises like Dungeon Keeper properly.
Clairvoyancy :lol :lol
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,803
6
890
Western Australia
Seraphis Cain said:
From the "Bourne game canceled in favor of Syndicate remake" thread:



Clairvoyancy :lol :lol
Maybe, in bizzaro world where 2K Marin were Irrational Games. (Unless you're not-so-subtly agreeing with the earlier theory that X-COM was handballed to Marin from Irrational.)

Edit: Shit, was supposed to edit the above post.
 
Nov 14, 2008
20,817
14
845
MMaRsu said:
We get it, no matter what this game is going to be like, as long as it's not like the old games it's not going to satisfy you.

We get it.
We get it, you feel the need to defend a game you know nothing about in the face of annoyed gamers who don't want an X-Com FPS.

We get it.
 
May 24, 2007
5,011
0
0
subversus said:
I like that nobody has yet seen the game but hates it already :D
It would be best if the only thing we ever saw was the screenshot floating around. Quietly can it after the backlash and start work on a TBS game for XBLA/PSN/PC or take the X-COM name off it and call it Random FBI Agent Guy Adventures.
 

subversus

I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
Oct 26, 2009
24,268
0
0
I remember playing Fallout in 1997 and wishing it was in real-time, 3D and in first-person perspective. I've always thought that all isometric turn-based games (except Civilzation, Heroes of Might & Magic and so on) are made this way because of hardware limitations. I got what I wanted only in 2008.

But some people clearly like turn-based gameplay. I can't understand why, I can only respect it. So I'm really happy that X-COM will be in first-person perspective and real-time.

By the way there is a rumor that they've tasked Firaxis with turn-based version of the game, I don't remember where I've seen it, so it's probably just bullshit rumour.
 
Jun 6, 2004
14,917
0
1,440
subversus said:
I remember playing Fallout in 1997 and wishing it was in real-time, 3D and in first-person perspective. I've always thought that all isometric turn-based games (except Civilzation, Heroes of Might & Magic and so on) are made this way because of hardware limitations. I got what I wanted only in 2008.

But some people clearly like turn-based gameplay. I can't understand why, I can only respect it. So I'm really happy that X-COM will be in first-person perspective and real-time.

By the way there is a rumor that they've tasked Firaxis with turn-based version of the game, I don't remember where I've seen it, so it's probably just bullshit rumour.

i think it has to do with keeping it more rpg like, or think about your move, then go type of thing, less twitch skills needed, imo I like realtime with a pause feature, dragon age origins or BG2 style (or fallout 3 even).

altho in xcoms case it raised the tension level a bit when you spotted someone didnt have enough time units to attack in your turn, and had to hit end turn and O_O while the computer moved hiddenly
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Sep 14, 2005
7,274
0
1,365
subversus said:
I remember playing Fallout in 1997 and wishing it was in real-time, 3D and in first-person perspective. I've always thought that all isometric turn-based games (except Civilzation, Heroes of Might & Magic and so on) are made this way because of hardware limitations. I got what I wanted only in 2008.
No, isometric turn-based games were not made because of hardware limitations. Real-time first-person RPGs have been around forever, well before 1997.

If you want meaningful combat you would usually need full party control and positioning, which means you pretty much need an isometric (or at least movable third-person) camera. There have been good first-person RPGs, but I can't think of any with really good combat. Turn-based (or at least pausable real-time) combat is important too, and aside from a handful of JRPGs, I can't think of any real-time RPG that's had any real meat to its battles.
 
Jun 6, 2004
14,917
0
1,440
Chairman Yang said:
No, isometric turn-based games were not made because of hardware limitations. Real-time first-person RPGs have been around forever, well before 1997.

If you want meaningful combat you would usually need full party control and positioning, which means you pretty much need an isometric (or at least movable third-person) camera. There have been good first-person RPGs, but I can't think of any with really good combat. Turn-based (or at least pausable real-time) combat is important too, and aside from a handful of JRPGs, I can't think of any real-time RPG that's had any real meat to its battles.
i would say dragon age (on pc) is the perfect collision of real time combat (for the dudebros) but can also be paused and strategized.
 
Jul 7, 2009
46,557
0
0
ZombieSupaStar said:
i would say dragon age (on pc) is the perfect collision of real time combat (for the dudebros) but can also be paused and strategized.
There were people who didn't pause and strategize? Mindblown - the pause+tactic was the whole point of the game to me.
 
Aug 16, 2009
232
0
0
Funky Papa said:
That's the first thing I thought. The car shadowing looks kind of funny, too. The original X-Com games were kind of cartoony, so that is something I'm not opposed to.
Actually the smoke coming up from that car looks just like the smoke in the original game, only 3D :lol

for reference

 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Jan 24, 2007
19,101
0
0
Nashville, USA
DennisK4 said:
Really, I find that hard to believe. Next you will be trying to tell me the console version didn't have a isometric view mode either :lol
LOL.

This could end up well, or it could fail miserably. I think part of the issue people have is that they want an isometric view game and if this is successful, the devs are likely to stick to FPS, and if it fails they won't have the budget/faith to do an isometric. Same as Fallout, the success of the FPS version does not mean they will now make a traditional version, instead more FPS and DLC.
 
Nov 18, 2008
3,933
0
0
Chairman Yang said:
No, isometric turn-based games were not made because of hardware limitations. Real-time first-person RPGs have been around forever, well before 1997.

If you want meaningful combat you would usually need full party control and positioning, which means you pretty much need an isometric (or at least movable third-person) camera. There have been good first-person RPGs, but I can't think of any with really good combat. Turn-based (or at least pausable real-time) combat is important too, and aside from a handful of JRPGs, I can't think of any real-time RPG that's had any real meat to its battles.
Yes, in this case, forever is 1987.

 
Jun 9, 2004
2,170
0
0
charlequin said:
The issue is that literally the only reason to make X-Com an FPS in the first place -- i.e. to slap an old, familiar name onto a game in an overcrowded genre to make it stand out -- assures that the person making that call is fundamentally not interested in doing the game right. Sure, there's a way you could make an X-Com FPS that felt true to the series in some way, but there are like 27 different ways to do an X-Com game better (heck, you could even make it a real-time strategy game) that aren't turning it into an FPS, and someone who actually wanted to make a good X-Com game would inevitably explore those avenues instead.
You keep pretending that you're stating the obvious but there's nothing inherently wrong with the notion of turning X-Com into either a RTS or a FPS. Microprose already turned the series into an RTS with Apocalypse; it's a tiny jump for any half-capable and history-aware developer to see how you could morph X-Com into a Dungeon Keeper.

You have played Dungeon Keeper, right? Or Valkyria Chronicles (a different yet similar game)?

No, that really has nothing at all to do with what I was saying. :lol
You might not think it was but that's what happens when you use bad examples like Civ as a comparison to X-Com.

The issue isn't that every turn-based game can sell as well as Civ -- just like not every shooter can sell as well as MW2 and Halo, not every platformer can sell as well as Mario, etc. The issue is that people don't inherently mind turn-based gameplay at all. Civilization and turn-based Final Fantasy and other examples of games with turn-based gameplay sell millions here in the US. The idea that it is turn-based gameplay isn't itself a turn-off or an undesirable gameplay style in any way -- that's just a lingering falsehood that came into vogue when RTS games took off and has never quite been shed completely in the West.
And now you're lumping all turn-based gameplay into some sort of super-genre, which is just idiotic. By your methodology 2K should be releasing Falcon 5.0 because Ace Combat selling decently means that there must be a strong-enough market for to support a hyper-realistic flight-sim, or that Advance Wars selling really well globally means there's a market for for a medium/high-budget Steel Panthers 4.

I don't think anyone is saying that turn-based games are inherently unwanted, but there is a steep division in the kind of easy-going low-demand turn-based games like CivRev Final Fantasy and the detail-loaded (and detail critical because not paying attention to the details will ensure a bad experience) games like Jagged Alliance or X-Com.

I'm also really confused as to why you think you're some sort of torchbearer against those ignorant western publishers, particularly given that 2K games also published a high-budget, well-reviewed TBS console game in 2008 and continues to port that same title to new platforms.
 
Jun 9, 2004
2,170
0
0
Chairman Yang said:
No, isometric turn-based games were not made because of hardware limitations. Real-time first-person RPGs have been around forever, well before 1997.
This is true and untrue. Hardware limitations did (and still do) define what you can do within a certain genre. Fallout FP-RPG would have looked crude beyond belief in 1997, or they would have been forced into a DM/EOTB locked movement structure. Draw-distance is typically what gets hit the hardest; compare Fallout 3 to Ultima Underworld. Or Magic Carpet 2 to... Red Faction, I suppose.

For all its problems, technology had to advance for Ultima 9 to have roughly the same amount of interaction as Ultima 7.
 
Feb 22, 2009
8,053
3
0
Zachack said:
This is true and untrue. Hardware limitations did (and still do) define what you can do within a certain genre. Fallout FP-RPG would have looked crude beyond belief in 1997, or they would have been forced into a DM/EOTB locked movement structure. Draw-distance is typically what gets hit the hardest; compare Fallout 3 to Ultima Underworld. Or Magic Carpet 2 to... Red Faction, I suppose.

For all its problems, technology had to advance for Ultima 9 to have roughly the same amount of interaction as Ultima 7.
Some people still think that Daggerfall is the best Elder Scrolls game, specifically because it was the least constrained and most complicated.
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Sep 14, 2005
7,274
0
1,365
Zachack said:
This is true and untrue. Hardware limitations did (and still do) define what you can do within a certain genre. Fallout FP-RPG would have looked crude beyond belief in 1997, or they would have been forced into a DM/EOTB locked movement structure. Draw-distance is typically what gets hit the hardest; compare Fallout 3 to Ultima Underworld. Or Magic Carpet 2 to... Red Faction, I suppose.
A Fallout first-person RPG could have been done easily in 1997. Hell, look at 1994--by then, you already had games like Betrayal at Krondor, System Shock 1, Elder Scrolls: Arena, Strahd's Possession, and many more. They all looked at least decent by the standards of the time. None of them had forced locked movement. They had limited draw distance, but that never affected their gameplay all that much. These sorts of RPGs were in vogue and well-understood. Fallout was the way it was for gameplay reasons, not because of technical limitations.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Jul 4, 2004
35,737
0
0
Zachack said:
You keep pretending that you're stating the obvious but there's nothing inherently wrong with the notion of turning X-Com into either a RTS or a FPS. Microprose already turned the series into an RTS with Apocalypse; it's a tiny jump for any half-capable and history-aware developer to see how you could morph X-Com into a Dungeon Keeper.

You have played Dungeon Keeper, right? Or Valkyria Chronicles (a different yet similar game)?
There are a few first person strategy games out there. In fact, one of my favorite RTS games (Uprising) was primarily played from a first person view. But they haven't released any information that suggests that the new X-Com is even in that genre.
 
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
0
subversus said:
I've always thought that all isometric turn-based games (except Civilzation, Heroes of Might & Magic and so on) are made this way because of hardware limitations.
You have always thought incorrectly. Real-time gameplay is actually older than turn-based gameplay, in computerized gaming terms.

There is nothing a game like Oblivion is doing today in terms of real-time 3D exploration and combat that FP real-time RPGs weren't doing in some form way back in 1992 with Ultima Underworld.

Zachack said:
You keep pretending that you're stating the obvious but there's nothing inherently wrong with the notion of turning X-Com into either a RTS or a FPS.
There's plenty wrong with it:

Microprose already turned the series into an RTS with Apocalypse
I rest my case. :lol

If you actually want to talk about this I'm up for it, but the first step is to actually try to grasp what I'm saying. I am quite clear on the ways that one can make lemonade out of a lemon like an X-Com FPS and I have even posted them in this thread but the idea of actually setting out to do so as the revival of a long-dead series is still innately problematic and an X-Com game that looks like what we're getting (a "narrative" FPS almost certainly completely lacking the core gameplay elements of the franchise) is the inevitable result of said logic unless the developer put in charge of the project actually takes it upon themselves to actively solve the problem.

I'm also really confused as to why you think you're some sort of torchbearer against those ignorant western publishers, particularly given that 2K games also published a high-budget, well-reviewed TBS console game in 2008 and continues to port that same title to new platforms.
I'm really not. I accept that games get greenlighted based on conventional wisdom that is not always accurate and that I am not going to change that by myself, so I just buy games I like when they do turn up. Describing a series of events (the games of the late 90s helping build a persistent idea in the West that TB games can't sell well) isn't really the same as taking a pitchfork to someone's castle over it.

More Fun To Compute said:
Some people still think that Daggerfall is the best Elder Scrolls game, specifically because it was the least constrained and most complicated.
There are people who don't think that?
 
Dec 5, 2008
2,807
0
0
Sinatar said:
Well at least this announcement compelled me to start up a runthrough of X-COM.

God this game is timeless, still as addictive as ever.
I've done that as well! :lol

easily my favourite game ever made. So good.