• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Take-Two: "Strategy games are just not contemporary."

Nirolak said:
Sometimes even the people who seem to get it don't actually go and change: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/bioware-triple-a-is-the-wrong-thing-to-chase


It's been a year and we still haven't seen anything.

Because bioware screwed up when they sold to EA. They had poor vision for the future of the market. I almost see that as an admission of that being a mistake; at the time they thought they needed larger budgets to do the projects that would keep them profitable. Consider also that it was 2007 before steam had really gained traction and PC gaming didn't have a centralized marketplac.

Bioware is the prime candidate for a studio that could see much of their top brass leave to do something new sometime in the near future. I cannot believe everyone there is happy with the paint-by-numbers aspects to many of their projects.
 
The X-COM FPS was actually more appealing to me when it had its marvelous first art style.

But yeah, a XBLA X-COM please.
 
Nirolak said:
Sometimes even the people who seem to get it don't actually go and change: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/bioware-triple-a-is-the-wrong-thing-to-chase


It's been a year and we still haven't seen anything.

Yeah it's weird. To me, Dragon Age: Origins was them coming out swinging. While not perfect, it was a decent attempt to modernize their older RPGs while still keeping what made those games appealing in the first place. And... it worked! People loved it and it sold a shitload. Then they released Dragon Age 2 and it's as if they learned absolutely nothing.

Now I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I'm sure their idea of smaller teams and projects is less of how they can make some niche games with depth and more how can they milk their franchises on iOS.
 
Smokey said:
Ray Charles compared to Kayne West?

I really lol'd

What a way to start my morning.

He uses the Rolling Stones to explain salutary energies of game development organisation in an old 1up interview I just looked up.

It seems to be his thing.
 
Nirolak said:
Yes, it actually is releasing the same day as Mass Effect 3.
I was going to mock him for his hilariously stupid comments in the OP, but I guess making fun of the mentally disabled is in bad taste.
 
echoshifting said:
If decoupling space sims from joysticks is what they need to do to bring them back then I say let's do it.

according to Volition it's exactly what they need to do.
 
How well did the original X-Com games sell? Also, how well did that 3DS Ghost Recon strategy game sell? It had universal positive word of mouth on a system with a mostly (sigh) "hardcore" fanbase, did it do okay?

In any case, the quotes in the OP seem almost comically designed to elicit maximum rage.
 
Salazar said:
He uses the Rolling Stones to explain salutary energies of game development organisation in an old 1up interview I just looked up.

It seems to be his thing.

That would make sense, since the Rolling Stones are timeless. Unlike Ray Charles.

edit: sorry, I will stop harping on the race thing, the focus should be on the gaming aspect. It just rots as I turn it over in my head. =/
 
What a load of bullfuck. Could they at least respect us and not telling us stories in a vain attempt at looking intelligent and insighful?

Shooters sells more, a more intelligent and complex strategy game does not. There's nothing more to it. Stop telling us a mountain of crap like the subject at hand was deep or something.
 
randomkid said:
How well did the original X-Com games sell? Also, how well did that 3DS Ghost Recon strategy game sell? It had universal positive word of mouth on a system with a mostly (sigh) "hardcore" fanbase, did it do okay?

In any case, the quotes in the OP seem almost comically designed to elicit maximum rage.
You are using Ghost Recon sales on 3DS as a benchmark?

anyhow:

wiki said:
The game [X-COM: UFO Defense] was released [in 1994] to great critical acclaim, selling more than 600,000 units on the PC platform alone, not counting the later ports to the Amiga computers, Amiga CD32 and PlayStation.
 
I think he has a point. Similar noises were made when Fallout went 1st person in real time. They seemed to work out just fine and now we're experiencing that type of open world in different genres. It might not be old X-Com but it could still be a fun game.
 
I think it's more about budgets. Now it's it seems to be impossible to make a game for less than millions of dollars. So instead of a game being successful selling 20k copies, which is possible in a niche market, a game needs to sell 500k copies to turn a profit.
 
Dyno said:
I think he has a point. Similar noises were made when Fallout went 1st person in real time. They seemed to work out just fine and now we're experiencing that type of open world in different genres. It might not be old X-Com but it could still be a fun game.
Bethesda's games and Fallout actually had a lot in common, and Bethesda made a lot of modifications to the Elder Scrolls formula to try and accommodate Fallout's mechanics, such as adding a semi turn based combat system and adopting their stats/perks system.

Bethesda even went so far as to hire Obsidian, the closest thing to the original developers of Fallout available, to make a spin-off to the series.

2K Marin on the other hand made the statement "We don’t want players to micromanage the combat," completely missing the point of X-COM.
 
Dyno said:
I think he has a point. Similar noises were made when Fallout went 1st person in real time. They seemed to work out just fine and now we're experiencing that type of open world in different genres. It might not be old X-Com but it could still be a fun game.

Your comparison is flawed. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are still RPG's (Using a largely identical stat/perk system as well). Fallout as a universe also has a distinctive theme, style, and humor that was carried over.

X-Com as a game was defined by the incredible depth of the sandbox experience that they created; the setting was secondary to the gameplay mechanics and there wasn't a pre-constructed narrative (the game systems were really conducive to a self-made narrative however).
 
Dyno said:
I think he has a point. Similar noises were made when Fallout went 1st person in real time. They seemed to work out just fine and now we're experiencing that type of open world in different genres. It might not be old X-Com but it could still be a fun game.
but it was not fallout :/
 
erragal said:
Beyond your completely ignorant statement that only Blizzard strategy games sell, why do you need to invest 20-30 million in a strategy game? That's the problem right there; not matching your budget to the market. Especially considering that genuine strategy players aren't picky about graphics as long as they're polished, consistent, and preferably have a unique art style. Have you ever even seen Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, or Victoria?? You actually think those games cost 20million to make?????
demosthenes said:
I'm curious, why does this game have to have a budget of $20-$30 million?
Well, we're talking about Take Two here, not an obscure eastern European publisher. I just assumed the guy was talking about "AAA" type games and the budget that accompanies them.
 
Dyno said:
I think he has a point. Similar noises were made when Fallout went 1st person in real time. They seemed to work out just fine and now we're experiencing that type of open world in different genres. It might not be old X-Com but it could still be a fun game.

Fallout 3 didn't switch genres though. A more apt comparison in reviving an old franchise with a genre shift might be Shadowrun.
 
bradido said:
I think it's more about budgets. Now it's it seems to be impossible to make a game for less than millions of dollars. So instead of a game being successful selling 20k copies, which is possible in a niche market, a game needs to sell 500k copies to turn a profit.
So how come the examples from page 2 are so successful? How come there's a new Stronghold and a new Tropico coming out ? Hell, how come there's a Panzer General remake ?

The budget argument is a tautology: an FPS needs a big budget > we need to sell many copies to be successful > we need a genre with a wide audience > we need to make an FPS > repeat step 1.
Except you didn't need to make an FPS in the first place.
 
Heavy said:
Well, we're talking about Take Two here, not an obscure eastern European publisher. I just assumed the guy was talking about "AAA" type games and the budget that accompanies them.
creative assembly games are triple-A, and I doubt them having 20-30 million budgets. I believe Relic doesn't operate on that budget either
 
I generally try to be more nuanced and constructive and add to the discussion. But in this instance?

Get fucked asshole.
 
What they REALLY mean is that strategy games are only successful on PC but they want to sell X-COM on consoles.

Consoles just can't handle complicated strategy games due to limited input options and the gamers not usually being the type to enjoy strategy games.
 
I can't HNNNGGGG enough reading that first post quote.

Man, effort, pfft, it's so not contemporary.

This is why bullshit like Call of Duty, Jackson Pollock, Kanye-Gaga, whatever your "flavor of hell" is get's praised. Touting approach as if it's intended and not at all to do with the easiest sell and product, brand.

Strategy games are hard to balance and perfect, likewise play, painting volumes and thinking about material approach, proportion, structure of composition is hard, and designing and perfecting melodies and compelling arrangements in music over the course of years to make a truly lasting song is hard.

Much easier to forgo all that, make a first person shooter complete with "setpiece_shamylantwist_04.map", slap some streaks at a canvas and pin an aftermarket meaning onto it, and auto-arpeggio a whole "track" in 2 hours to be consumed like crumbs of dogshit falling on an anthill.

These things sell, and disturbingly earn praise, worst of all their crimes.

Old NEVER means bad. It can only mean "limited in execution" IF it was ever even limited by the technology of the time. RTS certainly isn't something that's inherently old or inferior.

The progression for newer, better, interesting ideas has dissipated for the focus of easier, faster, safe, 'needed' ideas.

The future is flawed.

tl;dr:
fuck_the_future_small-222x150.jpg
 
Zzoram said:
Consoles just can't handle complicated strategy games due to limited input options and the gamers not usually being the type to enjoy strategy games.

ARGH!

Make it for Move or Wii and it could work really well.

Would be better with Kinect, if Kinect were better.
 
Zzoram said:
What they REALLY mean is that strategy games are only successful on PC but they want to sell X-COM on consoles.

Consoles just can't handle complicated strategy games due to limited input options and the gamers not usually being the type to enjoy strategy games.


Note that Tropico 4 is getting a release on 360; I imagine Tropico 3 must have sold well enough for them to put out the sequel there. It's fairly complicated but having pause features minimizes the impact of lacking direct pointer control.

It's also a genre that could really benefit from more mature Kinect control schemes.
 
Zzoram said:
What they REALLY mean is that strategy games are only successful on PC but they want to sell X-COM on consoles.

Consoles just can't handle complicated strategy games due to limited input options and the gamers not usually being the type to enjoy strategy games.
He could have said that, couldn't he?

Anyhow, Halo Wars ended up being a good game and ended up selling 1 million units. Of course it was based on a popular franchise, but X-Com being released as a multiplat on PS3 and PC as well, could have really helped it.

And how much did Homefront end up selling anyway? how much Bulletstorm?
It's also a genre that could really benefit from more mature Kinect control schemes.
And we know there are other games that has done this before as a proof of concept, so this could have been possibility as well.
 
walking fiend said:
He could have said that, couldn't he?

Anyhow, Halo Wars ended up being a good game and ended up selling 1 million units. Of course it was based on a popular franchise, but X-Com being released as a multiplat on PS3 and PC as well, could have really helped it.

And how much did Homefront end up selling anyway? how much Bulletstorm?

Strategy games on console were all massively outsold on the PC side. Halo Wars is still the best selling strategy game on consoles, and most of those sales were to hardcore Halo fans which aren't strategy gamers.
 
Zzoram said:
What they REALLY mean is that strategy games are only successful on PC but they want to sell X-COM on consoles.

Consoles just can't handle complicated strategy games due to limited input options and the gamers not usually being the type to enjoy strategy games.

Real-time strategy games maybe, but turn-based strategy games work just fine on consoles (and handhelds):

Fire Emblem
Advance Wars
Final Fantasy Tactics
Ogre Battle
Disgaea
Valkyria Chronicles
The PlayStation versions of the X-Com games.
 
Zzoram said:
Strategy games on console were all massively outsold on the PC side. Halo Wars is still the best selling strategy game on consoles, and most of those sales were to hardcore Halo fans which aren't strategy gamers.
what's wrong if it could have sold really well on PC?

As I pointed out, not ever shooter is multi million seller by default, even those that are backed up by heavy marketing.
 
That Ray Charles/Kanye West quote is one of the most hilariously appalling PR quotes I've ever heard. This guy is a master of bullshit.
 
This comment just adds to the pile of absurdly ridiculous claims made by executives that totally miss how to create and market successful products in creative entertainment. I am confident that I could embarrass a lot of the suits working in the industry if I were to ever get a job working with a major publisher.
 
Zzoram said:
Consoles just can't handle complicated strategy games due to limited input options and the gamers not usually being the type to enjoy strategy games.

Tropico 3 wants to have a word with you. Tropico 4 is coming to 360 as well.

Really the only no bullshit no compromise hardcore strategy/simulation on consoles to date. And it works.
 
OMG that Ray Charles/Kanye West analogy. I truly fear the day is coming soon where no big budget game holds any interest for me.
 
RedSwirl said:
Real-time strategy games maybe, but turn-based strategy games work just fine on consoles (and handhelds):

Fire Emblem
Advance Wars
Final Fantasy Tactics
Ogre Battle
Disgaea
Valkyria Chronicles
The PlayStation versions of the X-Com games.

I love all those games but none of them are going to sell 5 million copies whatever you do with them and that, for perfectly understandable reasons, is all Take two are interested in.

The best you can hope is that if the XCOM is a success it'll spawn a spin-off that's closer to the original. Maybe on the 3DS or something.
 
There are few genres I actually think would have a very hard time becoming popular again, even with a once popular series. I'm thinking of shmups, mainly.

But this? This is the kind of thinking that brought the forceful death of the 2D platformer when it's actually got a very broad appeal (provided it's done right, which it isn't with the exception of NSMB).
 
The boss is a moron and appears to have not put much thought into his statement. This isn't mind boggling stuff though. Businesses go where the money is. Strategy games don't typically sell well on consoles yet FPS titles can sell truckloads of cash. It's just really obvious stuff. Nobody should be surprised as more resurrected IPs go the money route and are "ruined".

All the more reasoning to just retro game the classics that have been executed or are awaited execution. Journey, Dark Souls, Twisted Metal, and UC3 are on my radar. That's slim pickings but I'm OK with that.

To me, this generation of gaming is about retro gaming. All of the monotony and franchise killing leads me back to when gaming was diverse and the franchises were on top. I don't understand the obsession with every modern game having to be a classic. It sucks, we hate it, I hate it, but you have to roll with it.
 
Dyno said:
I think he has a point. Similar noises were made when Fallout went 1st person in real time. They seemed to work out just fine and now we're experiencing that type of open world in different genres. It might not be old X-Com but it could still be a fun game.
If Fallout 3 is the benchmark for "working out just fine" then I can feel pretty confident about avoiding this trainwreck.

RedSwirl said:
Real-time strategy games maybe, but turn-based strategy games work just fine on consoles (and handhelds):

Fire Emblem
Advance Wars
Final Fantasy Tactics
Ogre Battle
Disgaea
Valkyria Chronicles
The PlayStation versions of the X-Com games.
Yeah, Valkyria Chronicles alone disproves the utterly asinine notion that turn-based strategy games are outdated. It was an utterly fantastic game and sold well enough to get a sequel. An X-Com game in that vein could be a great (and legitimate) way to retain the X-Com experience while "modernizing" some aspects of it (I remember Julian Gollop saying he wanted to make a game almost exactly like it, in fact). But in chasing a goal as senseless as Take-Two is, it's necessary to make likewise senseless decisions.
 
Top Bottom