Revolutionary
Member
Is it just me or does the scream at the end of the trailer sound exactly like Rick Moranis?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
XCOM Debut Trailer and Preview
- Thread starter FrankT
- Start date
I think it absolutely is, which is why the enemies are unknowably malignant geometric entities that do this to people.REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Given videogaming's appreciation of body horror runs the gamut from fleshy mutation to cybernetic fleshy mutation, it's definitely a step forward.
Neuromancer
Member
I don't find the notion of people turning into little blocks particularly compelling.
Where my sectoids at?
Where my sectoids at?
jim-jam bongs
Member
Are you kidding? That is some terrifying shit right there.
Reading this thread I start to really understand what is so-called "vocal minority" :lol
Last time I saw something like this I was searching for some Fallout 3 info in the web and stumbled across nma-fallout.com. I never thought that people could have so much venom.
I still visit the site sometime and read threads for entertainment. Needless to say that vocal minority is so vocal that it seems to be majority. I was sure that FO3 is bound to bomb after reading this NMA threads (and other boards too) and was pleasantly surprised when it didn't. I hope it'll the same case with this game because right now I like what I see.
Last time I saw something like this I was searching for some Fallout 3 info in the web and stumbled across nma-fallout.com. I never thought that people could have so much venom.
I still visit the site sometime and read threads for entertainment. Needless to say that vocal minority is so vocal that it seems to be majority. I was sure that FO3 is bound to bomb after reading this NMA threads (and other boards too) and was pleasantly surprised when it didn't. I hope it'll the same case with this game because right now I like what I see.
Gorgon
Member
subversus said:
I like what I see too, but I kind of agree with the "vocals" on this one. I tend not to have many problems with old IPs that get rejuvenated. Fallout 3 still had enough Fallout in it to make it a decent successor, Deus Ex 3 looks enough Deus Ex to me too, and so on. Times change, shit change, and we can't realistically expect that these companies are going to put millions into making a fac-simile of a 10 years old game.
But this game REALLY doesn't ring "X-Com" at all to me. I'm interested in the game, it's probably gonna be at least decent, I like that we will manage bases and upgrade them, and so on, but this really isn't X-Com at all. I think this is one of those cases where they are somewhat abusing the IP to make a game with a few "inspirations" from the originals but which doesn't really maintain anything of what the first games were all about (and I mean the first two, obviously). And I'm not refering to isometric view either. With some creativity they could have maintained the richness of the tactical combat, including stats and no real-time combat, with a first-person view. VATS from Fallout 3 is a good inspiration to come up with a sistem for XCOM, including team combat.
Not to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about.Gorgon said:
The only major change is the genre. And XCOM wasn't about being a TBS. It was about base management, about researching alien tech that you capture, about intercepting alien ships, about the sense of attachment to your troops. These are the features that define the XCOM series and it seems they will be present.
Sure it's not turned based anymore so the tactical aspect of the originals might not translate too well to the shooter gameplay mechanic of this new game. I don't care... i loved XCOM and if a re-imagining of the series changes the gameplay from TBS to FPS, but retains all the elements that make an XCOM game, i'll take it.
More Fun To Compute
Member
shuyin_ said:
What you are doing there is picking a few features from the game and saying that those are are the ones that are important to you and therefore to everyone. There are plenty of games that have had some aspect or other of UFO gameplay or style over the years and have been claimed to be a good successor by some person or other who felt that it ticked the right boxes but none have taken the title because no one game has all of the important features. And UFO is weird in that it has a lot of features that work together in a way where there is complexity but the design is already streamlined enough that there is very little that can be removed without damaging the whole.
The game was conceived as a turn based tactics game from the start with the geoscope added later to add depth. The main decisive action happens in the tactics mode just like the main action in this game will be a Bioshock type game. To say that the game is not about turn based tactics is like saying chocolate ice cream is not about ice cream and a cup of coffee with chocolate sprinkles is a perfect substitute.
lttp: but what the fuck is this new aberration?
a) prince of persia 2008 black liquid crap monster thing everywhere in that video
b) FPS with no identity
c) 80's setting
Please reboot. Horrible. I won't be buying this. Even as a non-xcom title, this looks pretty bad.
Xcom 1/2TFOD remake or bust
a) prince of persia 2008 black liquid crap monster thing everywhere in that video
b) FPS with no identity
c) 80's setting
Please reboot. Horrible. I won't be buying this. Even as a non-xcom title, this looks pretty bad.
Xcom 1/2TFOD remake or bust
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Jax said:
Do kids these days really think that's what the 80s looked like?
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Jax said:
Try 50s. As for your poor taste, I can't help it.
Gorgon
Member
shuyin_ said:
Huh, I don't agree. Certainly the aspects you refer were important aspects of the game, but the biggest component of the game was the tactical combat. Or at least in my opinion it was. Certainly, as I said, I loved the base creation and development, the stat-based characters that evolved during gameplay, the interception of alien ships and so on, but I realistically don't expect all those elements making it into a new game at this point.
Also, I don't know were you read that, but the elements of interception of alien ships are NOT in this game. And so far there is no indication that "attachment to your troops" will be a feature (in fact, they don't seem to have any management at all, just a couple of guys that you can't control in any way that go to missions with you, which doesn't seem much like it will make you grow any attachment to them).
No one is saying that you should care about the changes and hate the game. What I'm saying is that from what I see, the very few remaining aspects of the original games (base management and little else) are not enough to make it a XCOM game in my opinion.
Strummerjones
Member
shuyin_ said:
Yes it was. It was the spiritual successor to the Gollop Brother's earlier games Rebelstar Raiders, and Laser Squad. Everything interesting in the series is directly attributable to them, and they've effectively spent their entire careers in game development refining their ideas of how turn based strategy games should work, to this day. The later games in the series (Interceptor etc) weren't made by them, and abandon the whole point of their work, notably the TBS genre.
The enemies, setting etc of XCOM aren't very original or interesting at all, the only thing that was good was the TBS mechanics, which were (and still are) excellent. Aside from that there isn't anything else remarkable to XCOM.
This new game might turn out to be really good, but it's a game with nothing to do with the original at all. It's NOT even some reimagining like Fallout 3. An analogy for how bizarre this is: It's like making a golf game, and then at the last minute calling it "Street Fighter Golf!" Only you then don't even bother to put Street Fighter characters in it.
Why anyone thought reviving the XCOM game for a 100% unrelated game was a good idea is anyone's guess, as you're only going to get howls of derision from moany old bastards like me, or mute incomprehension from newer gamers.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
This. It really makes no sense at all.Strummerjones said:
edit:
i just figured out what this reminds me of.. Shadowrun.
Hollywood remakes classic movies into junk. Videogame industry remakes classic games into shooters. At least Hollywood attempts to get the same genre when it tries to remake the movie.
What's next? Gabriel Knight remake that's set as a futuristic FPS? Carmen Sandiego open world murder FPS? Day of the Tenticle multiplayer shooter? Turn Police Quest into a tactical future warfighter shooter? Capcom to remake Final Fight as a first person puncher?
Sigh. =(
What's next? Gabriel Knight remake that's set as a futuristic FPS? Carmen Sandiego open world murder FPS? Day of the Tenticle multiplayer shooter? Turn Police Quest into a tactical future warfighter shooter? Capcom to remake Final Fight as a first person puncher?
Sigh. =(
D2M15 said:I think it absolutely is, which is why the enemies are unknowably malignant geometric entities that do this to people.
Given videogaming's appreciation of body horror runs the gamut from fleshy mutation to cybernetic fleshy mutation, it's definitely a step forward.
Thats usually the extent of movie body horror as well. Plus fleshy gross mutation is a lot more toward the primal fear angle than angry cubes. Its just more effective in general.
HK-47 said:
I can assure you from a long and sober study of the craft over the past 30 years or so that isn't the case. Game art directors just tend to have watched the same 2 or 3 movies.
Anyway. I guess I (and possibly Irrational Australia) had thought the X-Com bunch were a more gently elitist lot, and more likely to be intrigued by a totally abstract threat than another round of gutted corpses, space zombies and undead babies. And, as is the neat thing about games as a medium, you could make a convincing argument either way that X-Com is 'about' turn-based strategy or it's 'about' analysing and effectively confronting an unknown superior force. (Uh, that one to the above posters, not you in particular.)
You may argue that i'm being subjective, but the fact remains that those are the features that separate XCOM from other TBS games.More Fun To Compute said:
Now you're the one being subjective. For me, base planning and all the other micromanagement activities were as important as the combat phase.More Fun To Compute said:
Let me reiterate: the new XCOM will have FPS combat instead of TBS combat. I don't care, as long as all the other aspects of the franchise make the transition to the new game.
----------------------------
I said 'it seems it will be present' and i'm basing my statement on an interview in which the devs say they respect the XCOM franchise and they want to bring back the important elements of the series.Gorgon said:
Well in my opinion, what made XCOM stand out was not the fact the combat was TB, but those very aspects that i mentiond in my previous post. Those were the exact things that defined the series. You want TB? There are TBS games today, play them; they may not be with aliens but they must be as tatical as XCOM. To me, XCOM wasn't only about TB combat; i don't think there was a game at the time to combine base planning, research and troop managing.Gorgon said:
----------------------------
You are completely wrong. CongratsStrummerjones said:
You're saying XCOM is all about being a TBS game? It's all about a genre? That must be why the developers (the same team that made Laser Squad and the other UFO games in the series) changed the genre from TBS to RTS in Apocalypse. Because they wanted to make an XCOM that isn't an XCOM amirite?
So basically, just because combat is now FPS instead of TBS, the new XCOM has nothing to do with the original series, even though most (if not all) of the distinctive gameplay aspects of the series seem to have made it into this new game? That's it, you're a troll. Keep trolling.Strummerjones said:
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Well this is just my opinion but X-Com games were strategy games. Even Apocalypse was still a strategy game. The franchise has been dormant for a very long time and they are remaking the game as a FPS? If you dont see how this is different you are either trolling for a response or are delusional. ive heard the same arguments when people defended the Shadowrun FPS and they still dont hold water.shuyin_ said:
More Fun To Compute
Member
shuyin_ said:
The features you mentioned were added to make the game more like Civilisation to broaden the appeal of the game to that new audience. Instead of being the unique features they were more like the "me too" features added to draw people into what was the more unique tactics gameplay. To this day 4x gameplay is more common than squad TBT.
I was being factual in saying that the decisive actions took place in tactics mode. To win the game you have to do the cydonia mission. The decisive actions month to month are things like terror attacks, base defence missions and countering infiltration missions. You can strongly influence the outcome of these in the geoscope but it is the missions that decide the outcome.
I'm delusional? Can you not read and understand? I was trying to make a point that XCOM was more than just another turn based strategy game, thanks to some of the design decisions the developers implemented in the games.water_wendi said:
And to further confirm that you cannot in fact understand what you read, i never said it isn't different as gameplay(in the combat phase). I simply stated that i don't care, as long as the other defining aspects of the series make a return. Please, next time read my post before replying.
-------------
Yes, i agree the decisive acition took place during the combat phase. But as i said, the micromanaging was just as important to me. Of course, the new game will lose the tactical aspect of controlling all your troops in TB combat. But if all the gameplay mechanics of the Geoscape phase are present, it will still feel like XCOM to me. After all, as i already said, the producers themselves changed genres with the 3rd game.More Fun To Compute said:
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
X-Com is a strategy franchise. If SimCity came out as a FPS im sure you and others like you would be in total defense of it. Sane people wouldnt though.shuyin_ said:
To clarify i meant "If you dont see how this is different" in terms of understanding turn-based strategy -> real-time strategy is a whole other level from turn-based strategy -> first-person shooter. To say that they are the same is laughable.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
HK-47 said:
I don't know if it's more effective in general, it's just a different angle on the subject. Films like Tetsuo: Iron Man and Videodrome were about some supernatural force slowly mutating protagonists to become part of the urbanisation that ravages our environment and culture.
Here given the focal point would be an extraterrestrial threat instantly, overtly attempting to bring an end to us. Thus it makes sense that the change would be nigh' instant rather than slow, that physically these advanced lifeforms would de-construct and reconstruct our cells as though it were as simple as editing binary code, and the look would be clean gruesome, not messy gruesome.
Needless to say I think the effect looks very nice, can't recall seeing anything like it before and could be used to great horrific effect. However I don't like the idea of fighting so many aliens in blob form, I really don't like it.
Strummerjones
Member
shuyin_ said:You are completely wrong. Congrats
I suppose it does indeed "take one to know one", as pretty much every assertion you've made there is wrong at such a basic level it's embarrassing.
shuyin_ said:
I'll keep things simple for you, for obvious reasons.
Mythos games only made two XCOM/UFO games. These were a continuation of their dalliances with Turn Based Strategy games on the 8-bit computers of the '80s. UFO: Enemy Unknown was the first game, and took everything they'd learned from those games, and married the central TBS gameplay with a second metagame, looking after bases etc, which you seem to find so riveting.
A follow up game, XCOM: Terror From the Deep was then released by a different team, using the original game's rules, and mainly introducing a hell of a lot more bugs.
Mythos then released XCOM: Apocalypse, which introduced a real time mode in the vein of Syndicate et al, but you could still play the entirety of the game as a turn based strategy title, you mewling half-wit.
Microprose then decided to milk the series for all it was worth by making a pair of ill-judged spin-offs. They abandoned pretty much everything that made XCOM what it was (i.e. a strategy game series!) and used XCOM's flimsy ficiton to wrap around some forgettable action games. By changing genre they removed everything that was distinctive and accomplished about the series.
Mythos started work on a further XCOM game, which fell apart due to lack of a publisher. Some Czech developers then created their own similar but unrelated series of games based around real time strategy.
The Gollop brothers then regrouped and created Rebelstar Tactical Command on the Gameboy Advance, and Laser Squad Nemesis, Turn Based Strategy games that even feature some of the old aliens they created for XCOM.
shuyin_ said:
By definition this is correct.
shuyin_ said:
None of the "distinctive" gameplay aspects of this series have been carried over. You are wrong.
So now Im insane? First you said I was delusional, now that Im insane. Im seriously considering reporting you, since you offended me unprovoked.water_wendi said:
Plus you still dont seem to get my point: I dont care if the remake changes TBS combat for FPS combat, as longs as the design aspects for which the series is known are present. Continue offending me, while stubbornly ignoring my point and telling me about how you hate the change from TBS to FPS (which I got since your first post, thank you) and I WILL report you
Not to mention your deficiency in expressing your thoughts (hence the need to rectify your poorly worded remark about the difference in genres).
And because you still dont get it:
water_wendi said:
I didnt say the transition from TBS to FPS is the same as the transition from TBS to RTS (what I said about the 3rd XCOM being an RTS was in another context, in response to another user). Stop saying I dont know what the difference is.
One more time (hopefully for the last time): I dont care if the combat phase is a FPS now; I consider the Geoscape phase much more important in an XCOM game.
--------------------------------
I'm not going to bother replying to the history of Mythos games as i'm aware of it. Not to mention my point still stands.Strummerjones said:
I'm going to reply to your last statement. Now, i'm unable to tell whether you're trolling on purpose or not, but since i stated in one of my above posts that base planning (with everything it implies) is one of the distinctive features of the XCOM series of games and the producers recently officially confirmed it will be present int he new XCOM, how can you say "None of the "distinctive" gameplay aspects of this series have been carried over."? How can you say that? Are you trying to be annoying? Are you stupid?(no offense but i just don't understand your logic).
At this point, arguing with you is pointless and i'm very tempted to add you to ignore.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
If you think a SimCity FPS would be an honest continuation of the SimCity franchise, absolutely.shuyin_ said:
If thats what made X-Com X-Com to you, i cant really argue that because its opinion but this game shows nothing of the sort. Not in any news ive read and certainly not in the trailer.
Here is the press release from 2Ks site:
2K themselves admit that strategy is the core behind the X-Com franchise. Lets see how strategy is going to make it into this FPS reboot.
"Strategic gambits?" "Heart-stopping combat experiences?"
i cannot fathom how your response to this is genuine. Maybe a shill or an investor or you have family working there or you are just a masterful troll.. i dont know. The game could be great but to defend it as an X-Com game is just lol-worthy.
Gorgon
Member
shuyin_ said:
But we know that they won't. There are no interceptions. There are no control of individual squad mates, and it seems there's no squad comands either. There are no stats evolution of squad members like in the original, which kills any bond between the player and them. The whole feel of the game looks different and not even remotely connected. The only remaining thing are the bases and weapon development. That's good, but that's hardly XCOM in itself.
shuyin_ said:
But from the previews and articles I think it's clear there are no interceptions. And that statement by the devs is hardly indicative that everything else is there. Tactical combat, perhaps the most important single aspect of XCOM, isn't.
shuyin_ said:
Of course it wasn't, no one says that. But it was extremely important to the series nonetheless. If you take that out, plus every single aspect of squad combat, plus interceptions, and so on, where will it end? It's like making a new PES but decide this time that instead of playing soccer you'll be playing the role of a manager. It's still about football, right? It doesn't work that way in my opinion.
shuyin_ said:You are completely wrong. Congrats
You're saying XCOM is all about being a TBS game? It's all about a genre? That must be why the developers (the same team that made Laser Squad and the other UFO games in the series) changed the genre from TBS to RTS in Apocalypse. Because they wanted to make an XCOM that isn't an XCOM amirite?
And look how successful Apocalypse was, both with the fans and the press. And in sales. Looks like 2K didn't learn the lesson regarding what fans want out of an XCOM game. But I have no doubts this game is going to sell well and I will probably buy it. It won't be an XCOM game for me, though, but something else.
Actually, in that press release by strategic core they were referring to exactly what i said: base planning (which is part of the geoscape phase) and not to the genre of the XCOM series.water_wendi said:
It seems it comes naturally to you to misunderstand what you read :lol
No i'm not involved in any way with the development of the new XCOM. I'm just a fan of the old series, happy to be able to play another game in the series. I also like Synidcate; that too will get a new game in the series. I'm reptty sure it won't be a strategy; i'll still enjoy it if it'll be a good game.water_wendi said:
Oh and if you think this isn't an XCOM game just because it changed genres consider this: Metroid on snes was a side-scrolling game, right? Aren't the new Metroids played in FPS mode? Oh noes, the new Metroids are great but to defend them as Metroid games is just lol-worthy
Advice: read carefully before replying and try to change your attitude. You're not smarter if you insult someone.
Gorgon
Member
shuyin_ said:
But they aren't, neither are the tactical aspects. That's the whole problem. There is no geoscape, just a map of the US where you get to choose what mission to do next in a limited branching basis. And the 3rd game bombed.
Remember the 4th game, XCOM Enforcer? From wikipedia:
Doesn't sound that different from the new one, does it? It also doesn't sound like an Xcom game either. It bombed of course.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Did you read the rest of my post? The part where i wrote "Lets see how strategy is going to make it into this FPS reboot" and took from the press release what they meant by "strategy?"shuyin_ said:
Metroid went from a 2D shooter to a 3D shooter. Thats not changing genres.Oh and if you think this isn't an XCOM game just because it changed genres consider this: Metroid on snes was a side-scrolling game, right? Aren't the new Metroids played in FPS mode? Oh noes, the new Metroids are great but to defend them as Metroid games is just lol-worthy
Strummerjones
Member
shuyin_ said:
That's nice, but it empirically isn't.
shuyin_ said:
What a coincidence!
Gorgon
Member
I would have a bit more respect for 2K if they were calling this XCOM Enforcer II, because this looks like the sequel to that one and certainly not a sequel to what made the first two games so special.
The game still looks interesting, though, and I'll probably bite if it proves to be good.
The game still looks interesting, though, and I'll probably bite if it proves to be good.
Koopakiller
Banned
Games should be promoted the way they promoted the first Bioshock: a 15 minute walkthrough showing the core elements of the game. Most of the time we get action montages which are always a poor indication of what the game plays like because all games look the same if you only shown an action montage.
They're only promoting these kinds of comments:
"OMG another FPS"
"looks generic lol"
"looks like *insert generic fps*"
But really, we're getting the best of both worlds, people: superior FPS gameplay combined with the core elements that made XCOM.
They're only promoting these kinds of comments:
"OMG another FPS"
"looks generic lol"
"looks like *insert generic fps*"
But really, we're getting the best of both worlds, people: superior FPS gameplay combined with the core elements that made XCOM.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Really? We're getting a strategic turn-based strategy game where you recruit a bunch of soldiers in a futuristic sci-fi world and make your own story while capturing and researching alien technology in a bunch of bases around the globe that you build up, so you can intercept UFO sightings?Koopakiller said:
Because that was the core element of X-COM.
Koopakiller
Banned
EmCeeGramr said:
Yes, except for the turn based strategy part
EmCeeGramr
Member
Not what I'm reading.derFeef said:
I'm reading the story of an FBI agent who goes to surburban homes to shoot aliens and take photos of them with the BioShock camera.
If it wasn't for the X-COM name, I'd have no idea they were trying to say it was the same series.