[E3 2011] X-Com

[Ghostbear]

There have been a lot of concerns about the direction that the new X-COM game is going. The fact that it was a shooter mainly. Can it possibly give you the same experience as the old turn based games? No, however I think it captures the essence of the series. Here's why. Before I dig into the why and how of why I still think this is an X-COM game at heart, I thought I'd share with you Scott's rundown of our walkthrough demo from E3.

Originally Posted by Psykoboy2

As the mission opens, a chopper flies us in to a small neighborhood in Rosemont, Georgia. The town is empty. We make our way to the security checkpoint to find it empty with dead guards all around. As we move inside finding more and more dead bodies, we come upon a soldier looking over some sort of book. The main character yells out to him and the soldier rushes us and begins attacking. As we shoot it, his face begins this odd transformation, as though it is being broken down piece by piece and as it does, it reveals the alien inside. We kill it, however, but not before it was able to release a loud beacon to alert the other aliens in the area.

Moving out of the checkpoint and into the city streets again, we’re attacked up ahead by more of the Outsiders. This is where we see the cover system come into play as well as the tactical combat. We issue the other two men on our team to fire from the right side. Finally, the game goes into a blue hue and the action slows down tremendously. From here, we can then set orders for our squad. I have no reference for this but was told they really wanted to bring back the “Battlescape” from XCOM 1. Once the order is issued, the two other squad members (by the way, this is government agent work in the 1960s…these guys aren’t black ops with tactical gear and whatnot. They’re all in suits but with machine guns and some other advanced weaponry) draw the fire from the Outsiders so the main character can flank to the left of them. Once they, he draws their fire completely, giving the squad mates enough time to take them out.

The group then moves ahead to another batch of enemies, this time with a turret. Again, using Battlescape, we draw their fire to one direction and flank to another, taking out everyone although we don’t destroy the turret. With some type of alien technology, we’re able to capture the turret and keep it for use later or to send it back to base for research (seemingly to then have it in our own arsenal). If you keep the weapon throughout the mission you’ll arrive back to base with it, although if the need arises you can then deploy the weapon for use in combat should you run into a sticky situation.

Not only does the game force you to fight tactically, but like the X-COM games of old you get to choose what order you take the missions in. Be warned though, you will not be able to do everything and people may die as a result of your inattention.

The very feel of the world drips with atmosphere, you can almost feel the paranoia and creeping fear. This is not a blockbuster alien invasion, it is smaller, intimate and more insidious.

You also recruit your agents like you do in the old games, this where you level their abilities and choose who to take on missions. Need a guy that can keep you supplied with ammo? Or perhaps you want someone better at stealing the alien tech. Choose wisely as you will be stuck with them for that mission.

Scott mentions in his walk through that you can choose to redeploy the alien tech immediately, the downside being that you can no longer take it back to base in order to research new weapons and gadgets. The choice is yours, immediate reward or long term gain?

Things like this make me believe that 2k Marin really understands what makes a game like X-COM tick. Hard choices. You have to choose what upgrades to take for your agents, weapons, research and mission order. That's really what the old X-COM games are all about, making choices and being forced to deal with the repercussions of those decisions. True, it may not be a turn based strategy, but I think there is room in the X-COM universe for a shooter. It really captures the spirit of the world and that is enough for me to get pretty excited about the game's release next year.

[Karak]

Unlike others I don't see any issue with them branching out into different territory for a game.
I am excited to see if this is fun.

Now bring on Age of Empires the shooter please.

[AyeEmBored]

The original X-Com was one of my favorite games of all time. It was a near perfect combination of bite sized pieces of strategy and "Just One More Turn" addictiveness. I can't see how a FPS can have the "one more turn" addictiveness or the replay value that the original had. They aren't going to have random mission layouts and situations, are they? If so, that might soften me on opinion that as much as I loved it, X-Com should have stayed dead.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by AyeEmBored

The original X-Com was one of my favorite games of all time. It was a near perfect combination of bite sized pieces of strategy and "Just One More Turn" addictiveness. I can't see how a FPS can have the "one more turn" addictiveness or the replay value that the original had. They aren't going to have random mission layouts and situations, are they? If so, that might soften me on opinion that as much as I loved it, X-Com should have stayed dead.

So a chance to revisit a beloved world and atmosphere, versus never returning to it. You would choose to never return to it? I can actually see it both ways. If they released Space Harrier as a RTS I would personally find the developer and tie their intestines in a knot and feed them live cats.

[Wolvie]

Originally Posted by AyeEmBored

The original X-Com was one of my favorite games of all time. It was a near perfect combination of bite sized pieces of strategy and "Just One More Turn" addictiveness. I can't see how a FPS can have the "one more turn" addictiveness or the replay value that the original had. They aren't going to have random mission layouts and situations, are they? If so, that might soften me on opinion that as much as I loved it, X-Com should have stayed dead.

Thats kinda where I'm at. X-Com was a random game. A level based FPS with a story just won't have this. It sounds like it will have bits of what made X-Com great. But it was the whole made X-Com great.

What this is is a FPS with Full Spectrum Warrior worked in. I like the recruiting and weapon research thing though. I still can't get past the era. 1960's? Bleh. The art direction of the aliens? Double bleh.

All this new info did was make me slightly less disinterested. It's gonna take huge review scores and fans of the original swooning over this to get me to try it. As it stands right now? This is on my 'skip it' list right next to Duke Nukem Forever.

Edit: also Karak, I disagree. We aren't going back to the same world and atmosphere. It's an all new world era and atmosphere, as well as new aliens. We're not going back in to the same thing in 3D. We're going into something different with some nods to the original. And those things are research and recruiting. The tactical thing sounds more like glorified bullet time Full Spectrum Warrior.

In short, it's like adding some pizza toppings on spaghetti and trying to say it's pizza.

[AyeEmBored]

Originally Posted by Karak

So a chance to revisit a beloved world and atmosphere, versus never returning to it. You would choose to never return to it? I can actually see it both ways. If they released Space Harrier as a RTS I would personally find the developer and tie their intestines in a knot and feed them live cats.

You know, that Space Harrier analogy isn't that far off, but I'd almost compare it more to, say, pen and paper, FASA board and miniature Mechwarrior compared to Mech Assault. The name and the props are the same, but the gameplay has nothing in common.

What I have the attachment to isn't the setting (although it helps), but the gameplay. Not knowing what you're going into on any given mission, that gave the game it's tension. If each mission has the same enemies in the same places when accepted at the same time in the game and the locations are the same in each playthrough, it's a fail. Other than storyline missions, this game NEEDS randomized maps to really feel like X-Com.

If this game turns out to have the feel of X-Com, I'll be all over it. I'm just VERY worried that this will have too much of the shooter mentality and not enough strategy to call itself X-Com.

/Just random armchair game designing. A multiplayer mode where a group of players can choose to take missions together, or split to do two, or four, or whatever number of missions and split their forces would be completely in the flavor of the world. If someone finishes their mission quickly they can choose to drop in on a mission that has gone FUBAR for another player or group of players. If you die, you take over a greenhorn recruit. If you get nailed by a chrysalid, join the baddies. The possibilities would be grand.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by Wolvie

Edit: also Karak, I disagree. We aren't going back to the same world and atmosphere. It's an all new world era and atmosphere, as well as new aliens. We're not going back in to the same thing in 3D. We're going into something different with some nods to the original. And those things are research and recruiting. The tactical thing sounds more like glorified bullet time Full Spectrum Warrior.

In short, it's like adding some pizza toppings on spaghetti and trying to say it's pizza.

Ah I get that...then why does it matter at all then. Just because of the name?

The reason I ask is because I just had this discussion about Star Trek 2009 and it got me to thinking about how I see reboots and such. I still hate Star Trek 2009 but I can watch it and I suffer no illnesses from viewing it.

So I am wondering if this is one of those situations. Where, so much is different that you have maybe 4-5 things that are the same "aliens, team members" blah blah blah, but will that stop you from playing it just due to the name?

[Ghostbear]

Honestly, I think you guys are being tremendously unfair. Forget it's called X-Com then, it will be a fun, badass tactical shooter with leveling.

[AyeEmBored]

Serious question here, since I wasn't really paying attention to fan opinion at the time. What was the Halo fan's reaction to Halo Wars? This is almost the same type of situation, but in the other direction (minus the years and years of time since the property was seen).

[DoctorFinger]

Originally Posted by AyeEmBored

Serious question here, since I wasn't really paying attention to fan opinion at the time. What was the Halo fan's reaction to Halo Wars? This is almost the same type of situation, but in the other direction (minus the years and years of time since the property was seen).

It's not really an analogous situation. Halo was an active and incredibly popular franchise; everyone knew that another Halo FPS was just down the road. This is the first X-Com game in a decade, and there's a real worry that if this shooter isn't a hit then there won't be another strategy X-Com ever again.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by AyeEmBored

Serious question here, since I wasn't really paying attention to fan opinion at the time. What was the Halo fan's reaction to Halo Wars? This is almost the same type of situation, but in the other direction (minus the years and years of time since the property was seen).

As a Halo fan I was stoked beyond belief. I like to see the game worlds from as many aspects as possible. I find it sort of like side stories in books. I love anything else that is there.

BUT...from what I am hearing this might literally just be the name.

To me it looks awesome and if its fun I will buy it. But I don't blame anyone for being sore.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by DoctorFinger

It's not really an analogous situation. Halo was an active and incredibly popular franchise; everyone knew that another Halo FPS was just down the road. This is the first X-Com game in a decade, and there's a real worry that if this shooter isn't a hit then there won't be another strategy X-Com ever again.

Thats a good point but thats at least 1 game in the future, and without that 1 game, the strategy X-Com isn't coming anyway...otherwise...that's what they would have showed us. So the best bet would be to saddle up and support what you can, if that is the true worry.

[Ghostbear]

I stand by my opinion, that at this point, I think it will be X-COM in more than just name.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by Ghostbear

I stand by my opinion, that at this point, I think it will be X-COM in more than just name.

I thought it was as well from all I read.

[LongStepMantis]

Originally Posted by DoctorFinger

It's not really an analogous situation. Halo was an active and incredibly popular franchise; everyone knew that another Halo FPS was just down the road. This is the first X-Com game in a decade, and there's a real worry that if this shooter isn't a hit then there won't be another strategy X-Com ever again.

Sounds familiar...



*cries*

[AyeEmBored]

Originally Posted by LongStepMantis

Sounds familiar...



*cries*

So true. So true.

[Ghostbear]

To be fair, Shadowrun could have worked as a multiplayer shooter, it was just really bad. At least from a PC angle.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by LongStepMantis

Sounds familiar...



*cries*

Uhm...Shadowrun was all kinds of awesome dipped in amazing sauce though for the 360. So...if the same result occurs, people should be super happy right? Or...wait...did everyone hate it as well?

[Wolvie]

Originally Posted by Karak

Ah I get that...then why does it matter at all then. Just because of the name?

The reason I ask is because I just had this discussion about Star Trek 2009 and it got me to thinking about how I see reboots and such. I still hate Star Trek 2009 but I can watch it and I suffer no illnesses from viewing it.

So I am wondering if this is one of those situations. Where, so much is different that you have maybe 4-5 things that are the same "aliens, team members" blah blah blah, but will that stop you from playing it just due to the name?

I'm one of those guys that thinks if ya can't do it right, don't do it at all. If I had to choose this or nothing, I choose nothing.

X-Com is more than a name to me. It's the whole package. Changing as much as they have has turned this into another game. And it pisses me off. I don't want THIS, I want the real X-Com. This game is not X-Com, and no one can convince me otherwise.

And I'm not supporting this just because it's there and it's the only option. Screw that. I'm voting with my wallet. And they aren't getting any of my money. I hope this franchise dies on the vine and they abandon it. Maybe some day someone will pick it up and do it right. That's how much I dislike what they've done. No, I HATE it. There I got that off my chest. I feel better.

[TrackZero]

Originally Posted by Wolvie

I still can't get past the era. 1960's? Bleh. The art direction of the aliens? Double bleh.

And this is why you're wrong:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115151/