Zachack said:
If people in this thread can suggest that an FPS X-Com could play like R6/SWAT/Hired Guns/Escape there's no reason why anyone else couldn't.
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.
By that logic any side-scroller released on the Wii should have just as much chance of selling 10M copies as NSMBWii.
No, that really has nothing at all to do with what I was saying. :lol
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.
Besides, X-Com was never as big as Civ in the first place. If X-Com: TBS 2010 Edition sold as well compared to Civ4 as, say, XC:TFTD did compared to Civ2 it'd unquestionably be a success.