Rebelstar was more a poor-man's LaserSquad remake then XCom. If it wasn't plagued by issues it wouldn't be too bad, but even perfectly polished, it would still just be LaserSquad in Isometric 3d.Tempy said:
I hear they're going into facebook gamesStuBurns said:
Mango Positive said:
snoopeasystreet said:
:lol That's the first thought that popped in to my head after reading 2K Marin and Bioshock 2. I'm not gonna jump on the hate wagon just yet, I've played all the previous games and I'll keep an eye on this one, they did a good job with Bioshock 2.Odrion said:So is Hot Scoops working on it?
SonOfABeep said:
by remote controlling a set of robot hands using the steel battalion controllerZaptruder said:
nice post. except for the mindless time sink part, that's all too true. painfully painfully trueStrummerjones said:
those silly gamers had to dig really deep this timeKoopakiller said:
Rad- said:So yes, this is the game OXM hinted at:
I just don't get why they would use the X-Com name at all. I mean, it's not like the original two games had great characters, or an interesting story, or, you know, at least an extraordinary setting. Those games were great because of their strategic turn-based gameplay alone -- and if that's gone, what exactly is left?Legendary Warrior said:
Yes? The game itself might be good, who knows, but again: Why call it X-Com at all? Those who know the original two games are pissed. And those who don't, don't give a shit.SonOfABeep said:
Sloane said:
Joseph Merrick said:
JaseC said:
In all the above cases, they still remained core elements. Fallout 3 had different perspective and combat mechanics, but it still had the universe and all the RPG stuff. Banjo still has the humour, universe, characters and still kept some platforming.Koopakiller said:
raphier said:
Ridli said:Hot dog! We have a wiener!
Identity is the big problem of why X-Com is very different than other games, and why people that see FPS start to nerd rage. Trying to make Fallout or Metroid comparisons is just invalid. In Fallout, *you* were the vault dweller (or chosen one). In Metroid, *you* were Samus. Yes, there were other characters that might have been involved, or even fought along with you, but the player's identity was well established. Changing perspectives was a big risk in both of those franchises, but they were always first person "story," regardless of how the actual gameplay was presented.
In X-Com, the player had no real on-screen identity. In theory, you were in command of the X-Com program, and you certainly issued orders for your troops in battle, but you were never identified as an actual person in game. *You* never stormed into that random South American farmhouse, your employees did. Nameless and silent, you guided an entire multi-national enterprise. Hell, if you wanted, you could imagine yourself as some kind of ambiguous "SEELE-esque" council of benefactors, guiding humanity from the shadows.
The very nature of first person will remove that ambiguity, forcing the player to adopt a specific identity. Even if they make you a silent everyman ala Gordon Freeman, the player's identity is set, and major change in tone will have been made.
It's not that I want the game to fail. In fact, X-Com is a universe rich in details that would make for an excellent squad based shooter (8 man co-op! with heavy plasma! and remote controlled tanks!), it could be a blast.
But being told I'm demoted to Mulder wannabe?
And then caused plenty of people to skip Devil May Cry 3 because it was called "Devil May Cry 3"...shagg_187 said:
Did you even read the press release? You're not even part of the X-COM organization. You're an FBI agent finding clues about The Truth That's Out There. There is no planning. There is no strategy. There is no tactical assessment. There's just a mystery and you're supposed to investigate it through a static narrative, first person Bioshock-style. It even takes place in the same time period as Bioshock for chrissake. :lolsubversus said:
Jay Sosa said:
This was basically my reaction.methane47 said:
