Trailers: XCOM - Gameplay Trailer

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Product Placement:

JoesshittyOs:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?

No. All it takes is to claim to be a part of something that it's not. When Bethesda announced a sequel to Fallout, they quickly shut down concerns from the fan community by showing us that they were making a game that was true to the franchise. 2K is clearly failing on that aspect. If they wanted to make this game, like that, they should have created a new franchise.

It's more sad that you don't get that.

My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material

I just want to cry.

Up yours 2K.

JoesshittyOs:

Product Placement:

JoesshittyOs:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?

No. All it takes is to claim to be a part of something that it's not. When Bethesda announced a sequel to Fallout, they quickly shut down concerns from the fan community by showing us that they were making a game that was true to the franchise. 2K is clearly failing on that aspect. If they wanted to make this game, like that, they should have created a new franchise.

It's more sad that you don't get that.

My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material

Entirely possible, but that's why they should be treating it like new IP instead of claiming it has a tie to a completely different history. Cats can be nice, but if you see someone trying to pass off a cat as the offspring of a horse it makes sense to point out that it clearly is not. It serves a different purpose, looks different, smells different and acts differently. This is no different.

Also I don't really buy the nostalgia argument. X-COM UFO Defense (the original) is on Steam now for $5, you can play the original if you feel like it. The interface is clunky, the graphics suck and the learning curve is built on a cliff. The game could definitely be rebuilt into a far better product, but this isn't it. I will even admit that it could be made into an interesting shooter with a strong co-op option to cover up for potential weaknesses with the AI.

JoesshittyOs:
My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material

And who should be blamed for that? Perhaps the designer who makes the claim of it being a successor to said source material?

Really, it's like making a new superhero that's supposedly based on an established superhero, has none of the same powers, looks totally different, yet they insist on it being the same superhero.
image
I'm sorry but that type of stuff will rub the fan community the wrong way, every time, regardless of how well designed the new thing might be. If you want to do things differently, don't say it's the same thing. Say it's something new. That way you'll avoid the raging fanboys who like to drown in nostalgia.

Edit:
@chimeracreator:
Of course the graphics suck, compared with todays standard. It's a nearly 20 year old game.

Ugh. I like what I'm seeing, but I'm also seeing some serious flaws that will severely limit my capability to enjoy this game. First, and I know it sounds petty, but the sprint animation is incredibly snappy. Hate that. Second: The aliens are apparently a vastly superior, dangerous threat, but the alien's weapons are weaker, take fewer shots, and are easily taken down by a few people, so, umm, the US army would work perfectly fine against them. If a carriable cannon can take down the "ultimate alien weapon", then a squad of US rangers equipped to take down armor would do much better. Thirdly, "alien technology" = "abilities" now. I don't like that. It's incredibly inconsistant that you could blow an alien airship to peices and then capture it. Then, you either have a choice of magically employing it under your control and having it dissapear for no discernable reason, or take it back to have it reverse-engineered. This is a very poorly thought out decision. I know it's meant to focus the game on the short term, but that will make the entire matter of capturing alien tech to be fairly trivial. No longer are you bringing down incredibly over-powered enemies against incredibly uneven odds and then taking it back to home-base to have it slowly and painstakingly pulled apart before it's of any use to you. Now it's a game of pokemon with guns. I see what they're doing, but they make a few choices that just bug me.

Incidentally, this isn't because of it being named X-Com. My issues with that are pretty much summed up in that they took a game that subtley deals with the possible ethics of fighting a war against a hive-mind species that probably doesn't even realise that by massacreing populations, that it's upsetting people. :/

EDIT: It's not a matter of "it's different,therefor it sucks". It's a matter of "they took what people loved about X-COM (Ie, the brutal, unrelenting, uncaring, unforgiving reality), and forgot to have that in it. The setting and the characters and the gameplay mechanics weren't what was generally important. It's that the game fucking hates you and will brutally skullfuck you to death if you start to slip up. I would forgive just about any design changes, so long as they kept the general feel of the pointless, random, unavoidable massacre of your people due simply to the sheer inequality of the conflict. Unfortunately, the aliens are flat out weaker than humans in just about every way that's important.

Product Placement:

@chimeracreator:
Of course the graphics suck, compared with todays standard. It's a nearly 20 year old game.

I'm not saying that there wasn't a reason that the graphics were that way. I was just pointing out that like the interface, AI and learning curve all of these could be improved now.

Doesn't look very much like the existing X-Com games, but I'm really liking the way the aliens are presented in the game.

JoesshittyOs:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?

Lets say we want to reboot Quake but as a child I had trouble with aiming and always felt like it was too fast pace so we are going to go for a strategic element with you managing battle arenas from a top down perspective. You can add in item spawn points and have NPCs pay admission into your battle arenas and play. You can set up concession stands to sell snacks and research new more exciting power ups to make your battle arenas more fun. You got to hire staff to clean up the battle arenas and do repairs when item spawns and jump pads start to wear down. The weapons you can expect to add to your battle arena are pistols, shotguns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, grenades, and a missile launcher. We are going to call it "QUAKE"

Instead of naming it something like "Battle Arena Tycoon" they go use the name Quake when it has basically nothing to do with FPS. That is whats happening with this "XCOM" reboot as it has nothing to do with the lore or gameplay of the original. Its disrespectful to slap the name of a computer game classic like X-Com on a game that really doesn't even try to come close to the original.
In unrelated news I think 2K is planning to revive the Master of Orion series as a racing game where you race space buggies on the planet Orion. They secretly will be inspired by the physics of Mass Effect's Mako driving segments.

Edit: spell check changed my mako into make >:|

Still not X-Com. I really wish they'd stop. Or at least die in a fire. Oh yes, they played the original X-Com? They really must have hated and despised it like the KKK hate non-white races.

I don't see why making a FPS version of X-com is such a big deal, as long as it keeps the core idea. Fighting a hopeless war against a superior enemy. All we saw in that video was some game mechanics and a Story Misson. Even then it was probably tweaked so that we got to see some of the bigger weapons and mechanics without being stopped by long firefights. We can only hope that Level restrictions had been reduced, Enemy health nerfed and so on for the purpose of showing off the eye candy.

The story misson was obviously scripted but the other misson types, like those Resource missons that the narrator mentioned could still be randomly generated

All in all I am more interested in how missons are unlocked and what happens to them when they are not chosen. Hopefully story missions are tied to your research tree or intel collected in battle, Capture missons get harder the longer you wait, and rescue's appear for only one turn.

2K just have better not mess up this golden opportunity.

Truly, this is a heap of Torchwood.

This looks unbearably bad.

In fact I can't see a single good thing about the game. And I liked both Apocalypse AND Interceptor. Actually I REALLY liked Apocalpyse. One time I didn't feel like chasing an alien room to room so I just leveled the apartment building he was hiding in.

2k, can't you just tape over the name and write "Alien Shooter '62" on the box instead. That's apparently all it takes to shut the fanboys up.

Erm sorry, I mean:
Another franchise ruined forever! Boycott 2k for raping our memories! Raping, I say, raaaaaping!

In other words:
Fans being unhappy, news at eleven!

I just don't get why it is apparently so hard to just make another X-COM game. The best attempt we have had was terror from the deep, which was just a re-skin with the difficulty ramped up to 11. Yes, some things need updating, but not the core gameplay... (aka, destructible 3d environments that are procedurally generated is probably not an easy task)

It just baffles me that they take a successful and popular game and then go "hey, even though everyone played this game, it is probably to difficult and weird for them. Let's dumb it down and copy what is currently popular, that will surely get us the smash hit.

I agree with Arcane Azmadi, Vankraken and the others that pointed out that this isnt X-COM.

What I cant understand is why take the X-COM name, then completely isolate the actual fans of that name by making a game that is a completely different genre... and worse a genre that is completely inudated with titles.
The majority of FPS fans probably wont associate with the name X-COM, the chances are high the original wasnt thier type of game so to them it could of been called Generic Cover Shooter X12v22, and it would still sell just as well... and even if the FPS fans did know the original, it most certainly not be associated with a FPS type.

It may be argued that the consoles cant do a true a X-COM game, and PC exclusives just dont make cash for the suits whereas a FPS title is a safe if somewhat boring genre... actually a console could of played the original nearly as easily as the PC, it wasnt a fast paced game it was a thinking game and as such a gamepad would of coped fairly well.

This game doesnt look or sound bad, its just not true to the IP.
It deserves to fail hard because it is a blatant cash grab attempting to exploit the nostolgia value of a IP, while making a fail safe generic game that is statistically proven safe for returns on investment.

Chaos Marine:
Still not X-Com. I really wish they'd stop. Or at least die in a fire. Oh yes, they played the original X-Com? They really must have hated and despised it like the KKK hate non-white races.

No no, you aren't getting the full graveness of the situation, they hate the original X-Com the way the Nazis hate jews. This new game is equal to the holocaust of the 21st century and we, the X-Com fans are its victims.

"They came first for the Fallout Fans
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Fallout Fan
Then they came for the Far Cry Fans
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Far Cry Fan
Then they came for the Prince of Persia Fans
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Prince of Persia Fan
Then they came for the Alone in the Dark Fans
and I didn't speak up because I was a Silent Hill Fan
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

I actually thought it looked quite good - a more strategic take on modern FPS's, but then again I never played the original X-COM.

Meh. I'm very indifferent about this game. I'm going to completely disconnect myself from the "is it or isn't it" x-com debate (I'm a fan, so I'll just let that point drop.)

Instead I'm going to criteque the game based on it's own merits as shown in that 20 minute gameplay sample:

1) The weapons (that we saw) do not appear to be satisfying in action, animation or sound. Yahtzee did a good piece on this, and I agree with him - Part of what makes a weapon great is the visceral feel you get from firing it. These guns looked pretty weak.

2) Squad members seemed very ineffective. Essentially they look like mobile spells for the player and that's all. In fact, I'm not certain a squad member took down a single alien in that entire 20 minutes.

3) Hey look... CHEST HIGH WALLS.

4) Not only CHEST HIGH WALLS, but in a game that takes place in actual "Real world" scenarios, they've had to put ALIEN CHEST HIGH WALLS in the game, obviously denoting that a fight is coming up for people with half a brain.

5) In a game that features CHEST HIGH WALLS, it looks like they don't have corner looking. If you're going to implement the most cliche FPS mechanic since the exploding barrel, at least do it right guys.

6) The one map they showed was extremely linear with obvious "story scripted events". Now, some people think linear allows for a "better story", I would tend to agree - but I didn't see much story in the progress from getting from the "check point" to the university. Why make it so linear?

7) I also like how they touted their "strategy vision" as the answer to criticism about how this is not an "x-com" game. It's actually kind of insulting because all their strategy vision amount to is basically just a "slow motion power select". Wow.

All in all I am not excited about this game. If it comes out on PC I might pick it up if it's in the bargain sale on steam just because of the setting being attractive, but the game play mechanics seem to put it squarely in B list.

Yep, Mass Effect taken to the '60s, down to the little details like squad size=3 and power selection pause. The game could be entertaining enough, but it's nothing special.

JoesshittyOs:

Product Placement:

JoesshittyOs:
It's sad to see that this game is going to fail because of whiny fanboys drowning in Nostalgia.

All it takes is a name to make a game bad nowadays, doesn't it?

No. All it takes is to claim to be a part of something that it's not. When Bethesda announced a sequel to Fallout, they quickly shut down concerns from the fan community by showing us that they were making a game that was true to the franchise. 2K is clearly failing on that aspect. If they wanted to make this game, like that, they should have created a new franchise.

It's more sad that you don't get that.

My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material

If it has so much potential then why can't it be its own thing? Why the attempt to connect it to a beloved series with which it has *nothing* in common.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Truly, this is a heap of Torchwood.

Oi! I kinda sort of like Torchwood sometimes. When it's fullmoon and the wind blows from the east. I mean... Eve Myles?

Well it looks like it has potential... I do wish someone would have the guts to make another X-com tactical game though. We really do have enough FPSs to be getting on with these days...

-Gift.

Doesn't look like the worst thing ever i just wish they'd call it something other than xcom.

Wow, this game looks less like it was inspired by X-Com and more like Mass Effect 2 and Destroy All Humans had a crack baby with fetal alcohol syndrome.

If the purpose of a trailer is to convince you that a game is worth buying, this failed pretty miserably.

Specific complaints:

The capture ability makes it seem like humans have better technology than the aliens. If they want to present players with a tough dilemma, how about "Do we abort the mission, write off Dr. Weir, haul this thing back to base and study it, or do you blow it up so that it doesn't shoot us in the back, take a few pieces with us, and hope that we learn SOMETHING useful, in the unlikely event that we survive this?" Heck I'd even settle for "Have one of your men call to have a Sky Ranger extract the alien artifact, and you have to do without him for several minutes of game-time while he stays behind to secure the artifact." Being able to put alien turrets in your pocket really doesn't make me feel like we're hopelessly behind in an arms race with the invaders.

The aliens are underwhelming. If you're outnumbered by a supposedly superior enemy, you should not be able to slaughter them with one special ability and a flanking maneuver.

The Time Units mechanic seems like a pathetic attempt to rename Mana and claim "See? We use TIME UNITS! We really ARE an X-Com game!". This is insulting to X-Com fans, pointless to FPS fans, and impressive to neither.

AT LEAST have destructible environments! Unless your research determines that the alien technology has a fundamental weakness in that their offensive weaponry is nullified by painted wood, taking cover on a porch should be about as much protection as using plywood as body armor.

I'm usually not too worried about graphics, but this really does look like a game made for last-gen consoles.

I'll admit, though, that I'm judging this game FAR more harshly than I normally might due to it's name. Well, tough. If 2K is going to try to use an IP name to generate publicity and attract nostalgic fans, they better be ready to deal with the fallout when they utterly butcher the concept that drew the original fans in the first place.

Why must every game be a shooter these days?

Also the setting doesn't seem much like X-Com at all. They seem to have been more inspired by the Fallout series than by X-Com with the 1960s setting.

I don't get you people you seem to be forgetting that the x-com name is not worth Jack at this point what with only one good game out of five to its name so why do you people act like this is new and that you have been betrayed just now because interceptor and avenger would like a word with you

Also let it be known I would of liked a new squad based strategy game as I am a fan of the original x-com and the UFO games but i guess I will have to put up with that indie version thats coming out in a bit

Edit: hears a link if your intrested http://www.xenonauts.com/

Simonism451:
2k, can't you just tape over the name and write "Alien Shooter '62" on the box instead. That's apparently all it takes to shut the fanboys up.

Erm sorry, I mean:
Another franchise ruined forever! Boycott 2k for raping our memories! Raping, I say, raaaaaping!

In other words:
Fans being unhappy, news at eleven!

People are not unhappy because they changed something, they are unhappy because they changed so much that there's no real connection between what they are presenting and the game that they are "updating".

Fallout 3 had major changes compared to Fallout 2, but they still had the same set pieces (zombies, rad scorps, mutants, vault boy), environmental setting, familiar companion systems and a general Mad Max feel. The enemies of the original Xcom games are absent, and the original environment (as someone else has said) of taking place on an incredibly brutal worldwide battlefield with an immense squad of soldiers is scaled down with safety measures like regening health, revives and limiting you to a 3 man squad.

The main point here is that if they are confident that their game is of high quality and a "contemporary" title, why do they need to directly associate with such an old series when their game bares so little resemblance to it.

They've got husks, they've got the power wheel, they've got the galaxy map as a map of the USA, all of which already make it more recognizable as connected to the Mass Effect series than the Xcom franchise.

That's the issue, not that they've changed something.

TL:DR- If I really like apples, don't give me a tasty orange and spend the rest of the day trying to tell me it's really an apple.

theonecookie:
I don't get you people you seem to be forgetting that the x-com name is not worth Jack at this point...

That reasoning makes 2K's decision to name it Xcom even MORE confusing. We're just people are the internet, they're a multi-million dollar company and THEY'RE the ones sinking big money into the Xcom name.

theonecookie:
...what with only one good game out of five to its name so why do you people act like this is new and that you have been betrayed just now because interceptor and avenger would like a word with you

First, 3/5 games were good. Or 2 were good and 1 was OK depending on your opinion of Apocalypse. It was also Microprose' baby in the first place so if they wanted to run it into the ground while filling the monthly reports with slams on Microsoft, they're free to do so, it doesn't change that they did something awesome. I'd say the same for 2K but this license just didn't belong to them in the first place and there's no reason for the name except as a crutch made of nostalgia.

As much as I lament not being able to play a glorious HD version of the original XCOM, I must admit this doesn't actually look all that bad. I just hope they touch up the talking animations on that lady, she seemed a bit off...

JoesshittyOs:
My point still stands. A game that has a tremendous amount of potential is going to fail because it's not true to the original source material

Maybe, maybe not. If it's a good game in its own right then it'll do well, if it was just trying to cash in on a name then it's gonna fail hard, because that name means something different from what they're offering.

Dream news:
This just in!
2k has renamed the current X-COM reboot, titled XCOM, to something entirely different!
In addition to that, 2k has just announced an HD remake of the original X-COM game, with enhanced AI, full 3d graphics, and an option to switch between 3d and 2d modes to allow people without top-of-the-line equipment to still play!
Also, a brand new coop campaign mode has been announced for the remake!
And then everyone who sees potential in this shooter can buy that, and fans of the original can play a remade HD version, in both 3d modes and "classic" 2d modes at the touch of a button! (similar to civilization V)
Who's unhappy? Nobody!

Yeah yeah yeah it's not XCOM. Surprise surprise.

On the actual merits of this walkthrough; I wasn't expecting this. The game oozes Mass Effect, which is fine, honestly, it looks great. But I was thinking, from the trailers, it would be more of a survival horror. Just the Aliens themselves aren't at all what I wanted...from all the black mist I assumed they'd be shapeless creatures, and the whole gratuitous gore aspect supports that survival horror ideology. Nonetheless, this looks great; I'll pick it up for sure.

Still not a huge fan of this being called X-Com (it makes no goddamn sense, especially in the universe canon, as X-Com emerged as an international venture in 1999, and no secret 60s American version was ever mentioned), but I'll hold out on calling it bad or good until it comes out. What I will call it is misleading and probably dishonest. It doesn't feel like X-Com at all, they've gutted out anything they've considered 'overwhelming'(which was exactly what made X-Com X-Com...the complexity and customization you were offered). It's quite clear that it's a cash-in title, as if they were trying to distance themselves from the original they wouldn't do the annoying remake title. However, from the gameplay I've seen it at least looks interesting (but then again, this is 2k Marin, and after Bioshock 2 I trust them a lot less). Honestly, they could have marketed this as an original IP and saved themselves a lot of rage.

Also, if they're going for the 1960s setting, they've really got to do better research. The narrator goes on and on about social and cultural shifts occurring in America at that time, but a woman as X-Com's chief? In the 1960s? Really, really stretching it 2k.

hmm... judging by the comment's, it would appear that I would have to have never played the previous xcom games in order to enjoy this one. What I saw, fankly, looked fun, and that's all I really care about. Will I preorder? heck no. will I play? probably.

i've never played X-com so i don't think i have much of a "it's not X-com" bias in the opinion. but what i got from this is that it's a sci fi shooter that is based in the 60's with many elements from Mass effect and pokemon. And for some reason i really like this combo :). is it unoriginal i wouldn't say that it isn't a carbon copy of mass effect it has better team tactics that are more than, the rock paper scissors ability use, and the capturing is an incredibly awesome feature that i really like. They have better tech let's use, perfect logic.

Hm... chest-high walls and brothers in arms style squad crap. No thanks. Detective work yay, boring gun battles between chest high walls boo.

Looks more like resistance FoM to me... That had more of the " you're fucked no matter what" feel to it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here