XCOM in the 60s with fedoras and shotguns? - yes please

[undercovergeek]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/26/the-truth-is-in-here-the-bureau-xcom-declassified/#comments

[Staggerwing]

Instead of making a game I'd rather that they make a movie to go with that trailer.

[GDS_Starfury]

or a tv series

[Swatter]

It will be predictably horrible. Even scratching the surface on this title rings alarm bells like crazy. So, the original game design was scraped mid-stream and changed to a mid-60s third person tactical shooter? This sh*t is going to strike the fan on this one guys. They are going to get it to a barely playable state and release it, grab the money, and cut their losses.

Haven't we all seen this show before?

edit- I didn't even read the wiki page before I posted the above. Here is what is said on the wiki page:

"According to Kotaku in October 2012, the game was rumored to be "coming back as a third-person shooter. While the 1960s setting and general XCOM prequel vibe remains, it's now apparently being pitched as a squad-based game similar to SOCOM or Republic Commando" and "is being developed by the same people who created BioShock 2". According to rumors, the game would be released only for the PS3 and Xbox 360 and possibly as a $30 downloadable title. Kotaku commented, "All of which, if true, make it sound like 2K is set to pull an "I Am Alive", cutting its losses on a troubled project and trying to make the best of a bad situation by selling it on the cheap."

[JasonPratt]

Indeed. This is the ghastly 3PS "remakeiging" of X-Com that was supposed to be coming out, but which was receiving such bad buzz from X-Com fans that the designers decided to quickly set up a modern remake of X-Com instead and dump that out first. Which turned into such a runaway hit that this game was regarded as vaporware for a while!

[LongBlade]

Switching horses in midstream is rarely a good idea in development.

It has the chance to still be good, but my money is on Swatter's scenario: a smash and grab.

[Arctic Blast]

I really don't see why it's all 'doom and gloom' when the only actual change is the name of the agency the characters work for. Everything else sounds exactly like the ideas being developed already when it was called XCom.

Frankly, I'm interested. I was also interested when it was still called XCom, and found the "HOW DARE THEY!" sanctimonious nonsense absolutely ridiculous. We're always crowing about how we want new ideas. Here's a company taking something in a new direction, and then we have a flip out. One reason of about 1,000 that the average 'gamer' sickens me these days.

[JasonPratt]

Yes, because there are so very few 3rd-person shooters already on the market (and even fewer where we fight aliens), compared to all the good tactical turn-based heirs to X-com with updated graphics already on the market. We were quite selfish to want another X-Com instead, like all the other average gamers.

{/sarcasm}

I feel reasonably confident, especially based on the initial buzz, that had they been working on an actual remake of X-Com set in the 60s, instead of another 3PS bughunt (albeit one set in the 60s) named after a property that its fans had been wanting a competent remake of for 10+ years, there would have been no doom and gloom at all. Because X-Com fans did jump up and down cheering when the news first came out.

And then did the other thing when we heard it was another 3PS bughunt, which the designers thought would appeal more to the average gamer (thus garnering a much larger audience) cashing in on the nostalgia value of the X-Com brand name. To the fans waiting for a proper remake, that was like a slap in the face.

Now, having developed a lot of that game before realizing there was really more of a market for AN ACTUAL REMAKE TO XCOM, I don't blame them for wanting to go ahead and capitalize on the work they've already done. But notably, they aren't going to bother attaching the X-Com name and intellectual property to it. Which means there was never any reason to have done so in the first place.

Hopefully it will turn out sufficiently fine after all, and we can have another 3PS, albeit one set in the 60s which ought to be interesting in itself compared to all the other 3PSers.

But more importantly (to actual fans of X-com, who more-or-less by definition are not the average gamer), we have a decent X-com remake at last.  :D

(And if the new game stumbles all over itself on release, that will be sad for the devs, but not for X-com fans whom the publishers wanted to sell it to.)

[Arctic Blast]

Using that rationale, I suppose we shouldn't bother asking for any more Second World War strategy games, right? After all, there are already so many of those.

{/sarcasm}

Why was it a slap in the face to fans? Seriously, why do we get so wrapped up in this stuff that we take it THAT seriously? These are hobby items that exist purely for entertainment...and we're insulted by that? Frankly, that's ridiculous. Perhaps taking a step back would be a very healthy thing for gamers as a whole, because we are apparently taking this way too seriously and putting far too much importance on a hobby item in our lives.

The remake of XCom that came out last year was already in development when the shooter was first announced. It was a 'double shot' of new material. As for no longer attaching the X-Com name to this, I suspect that's because people threw a hissy fit.

Which means there was never any reason to have done so in the first place.

That honestly makes absolutely zero sense. Never any reason? Why? Because it 'dares' to not be a turn based strategy game? Personally, I think the idea of a team based shooter makes quite a bit of sense in this universe, especially when it was going to involve finding artifacts, research, production, and a lot of the other aspects from the strategy games being brought in to a shooter.

[JasonPratt]

Using that rationale, I suppose we shouldn't bother asking for any more Second World War strategy games, right? After all, there are already so many of those.

{/sarcasm}

You're missing many key points to the rationale. Try again. (Hint: my rationale wasn't that we shouldn't bother asking for more bughunt 1/3PShooters, of which there are already many. But your rationale seems to be that we shouldn't have bothered asking for a proper remake of X-Com, of which there were exactly zero.)

Why was it a slap in the face to fans? Seriously, why do we get so wrapped up in this stuff that we take it THAT seriously?

"Hey X-Com fans! Remember how much you love that game? Remember how much you'd like to have an update with better graphics and some bug fixes and some gameplay polish? Remember how frustrated you've been by all the previous attempts to remake the game? Well, good news! We're remaking X-Com! -- the X-Com! It's even set in the 60s, like the British TV show the game was based on originally!! (And incidentally mimics the real-life "X-Com" group that was created by the President to game out workable options in the Cuban Missile Crisis.) So it'll be different but in a way that respects the source material! Check out these awesome screenshots!"

And there was much rejoicing.

"Cool huh?! So, you can see how much we love the game, too, and we can be sure you'll buy the game now, right?! Because we're doing right by X-Com at long last!"

More details, more details! Although, why does it kind of look like a 3PS?

"Because during the action phases, the camera will reposition itself to show off the action!"

AWWWESSSOOMMMEEE!!!!

"No, just kidding. Actually the whole game is going to be a 3PS, nothing more or other than that. There's practically no gameplay like X-Com at all, except in the most trivial and superficial ways. But we were worried the game wouldn't sell enough to the few fans who actually want a respectable remake of X-Com, so we're reaching out to the average gamer--3PShooters vs aliens are popular with the average gamer. That way we can be sure of making more money! But we can count on fan support, too, right? Because we know how much you want an updated X-Com."

....never the hell mind.

The remake of XCom that came out last year was already in development when the shooter was first announced. It was a 'double shot' of new material.

Clearly we have heard very different things; people far more connected to the industry than I am confirm that the devs changed horses mid-stream to throw off a quick "proper" remake to X-Com after fan reaction to the propose 3PS. More importantly, a double-shot of new material wasn't the story being put around at the time the shooter was first announced; thus explaining fan reaction. The fans would obviously NOT have thrown a "hissy fit" if they had been told from the beginning that a double shot of new material was on the way.

The aftertaste of that bait-and-switch tactic is what poisons our feelings about the 3PS. I am entirely willing to grant that under the current circumstances that's an irrational reaction, and that we shouldn't judge the 3PS based on how the publishers attempted to milk fan desire for a respectable X-Com update. Fan disappointment at the original bait and switch should be very explicable and understandable, though.

I can give a parallel. I don't know why the FPS version of Command and Conquer failed so many years ago, because the concept seems rather awesome to me, and after all there was already a good recent C&C game to build on. From what I've read, the game just wasn't very good.

Had the devs led out with what the X-Com fans actually wanted, and then announced the 3PS set in the 60s, there would have been no outcry (assuming the turn-based game was well-made, which from past history was far from a safe assumption before the fact!)

If X-Com fans want X, and have been routinely disappointed at half-competent and buggy attempts to make X, don't try to sell them S while calling it X. Sell them X first, which is what they want, and then sell them SX. That should be common sense.

Which means there was never any reason to have done so in the first place.

That honestly makes absolutely zero sense. Never any reason? Why?

I meant from the perspective of the devs. If they had had good reasons beyond marketing, they would have kept the X-Com connections; as it is they're afraid of marketing backlash (from their original bait and switch tactic), and so have chosen to drop the connections. Marketing was more important than respecting the property either way.

Personally, I think the idea of a team based shooter makes quite a bit of sense in this universe, especially when it was going to involve finding artifacts, research, production, and a lot of the other aspects from the strategy games being brought in to a shooter.

I'm willing to grant this, fwiw. Had they followed up with that, instead of implying that this was all fans were going to get instead of the competent update fans had been long denied, then there would have been little to no outcry.

[JasonPratt]

Turns out both stories are true. ;) Jake Solomon confirms he and some people had been working on an update/remake for five years, but TOLD ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. Consequently, when the 3PS was announced, that was all anyone in the public knew about what was coming. The other game, the actual remake/update X-Com fans wanted, might as well have not existed at that point.

(Also, I have to admit being wrong about X-Com not being attached as a property to the new 3PS; the article linked at the beginning of the thread indicates they're still connecting it to X-Com. Which is perfectly fine with me, so long as what I--and other fans--actually wanted, a respectable remake of X-Com, has been provided first. "If I had my pick of XCOM spin-offs, this sharply dressed number would beat Interceptor and Enforcer into the dust." -- RPS. I quite agree. But to get an X-Com spin-off without a competent modern update is back-asswards.)


His development strategy seems alien to me. He struggled forever (from what he said) trying to make the game work, and haunted by fear that it would be a(nother) failure, and now he looks back and thinks the new game is completely different from the old game and he realizes that despite many successes there were things from the old game he wished he could have gotten into the new game.

Seriously? What the hell? How exactly is this difficult?

Step 1.) Recode X-Com. Because X-Com already works, it's what the fans already love, they would clearly pay good hard cash for a less buggy, prettier version of X-Com. This has been said for years and years and years, all the evidence is in favor of this, no evidence against it.

Step 2.) Fix the bugs along the way.

Step 3.) Improve the graphics as much as the budget allows. But port and polish the gameplay first.

Step 4.) Profit.

But if you absolutely must innovate, NOW is the time to innovate. Once the core gameplay is ported into modern code and polished, you can build on what provably works.

Step 5.) Innovate, as long as it doesn't break what works.

Step 6.) Profit even more.


Jake's strategy appears to have been to innovate out the wazoo from the beginning, and it was giving him nightmares (and incidentally delaying what could have been a series of profitable modern X-Coms for the past several years). "Guessing, just guessing what people are going to like [before release]." THERE WAS NO NEED TO GUESS!--PEOPLE LIKED X-COM ALREADY!! The reason they like the update/remake is because of how close it got to the original X-Com. The problems they have with the update/remake tend to be because the new gaming system still has some bugs (which a polish of the original game code/design would have avoided), and because it doesn't include as many actual gameplay factors as the original (which would a polish of the original etc.)


Well, maybe there was some kind of legal issue that forced them to build the whole thing from scratch over again.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/14/firaxis-jake-solomon-post-mortems-xcom-part-one

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/15/firaxis-jake-solomon-post-mortems-xcom-part-two


Note that he talks about working constantly on the game for five years, and then explains the number of release bugs: "the design came together so late for the game that everybody was scrambling." That indicates there was no planned double shot from the beginning, and fits the public impression that the 3PS was the only game Firaxis (or 2K or whoever) was planning on releasing at first.

[Arctic Blast]

I'm glad the new game isn't the old game. I've already played that. It was good for it's time. Show me something at least a little bit new.

And had they simple re-made the previous game, it STILL would have gotten complained about from the other side : "Pffft...all they did was make a prettier version of the same game. How lazy is that?" And I guarantee that most of those complaints would have come from the exact same people who complained about every little change made in the new one. Not that those complaints were invalid, but I think this is a great example where the nostalgia is far too powerful for people to really realize that the original X-Com was a great game AND a hot mess.

Note that he talks about working constantly on the game for five years, and then explains the number of release bugs: "the design came together so late for the game that everybody was scrambling." That indicates there was no planned double shot from the beginning, and fits the public impression that the 3PS was the only game Firaxis (or 2K or whoever) was planning on releasing at first.

Huh? It indicates that the game had a release window that he was trying to hit, something that exists for every single game in development ever. Why does the release order matter? No game company on Earth is going to release two games set in the same universe on the exact same day, or any two high profile games with nothing else in common with each other for that matter. It would be an absolute nightmare to deal with both pre-release and post-release.

Him and a team working on a game for five years actually proves that Firaxis WAS always going to make a push for the game on release. Nobody is spending 5 years of development cash on a title, then just throwing the result to the wolves without any marketing behind it.

The final development push (from what I've read) involved the tactical battles. There was originally a lot more from the original game crammed in to it, but it wasn't working well. So Jake, Sid Meier and a few other guys actually sat down and designed a board game of the tactical setup (which would be awesome to see released). Once they came up with a ruleset that worked in that environment, the team went back and re-worked the tactical system to work the same way. The rest of the game was pretty much done at this point.

[Swatter]

I don't want to wade into the debate that has sparked up since my last visit, just let me comment on the "doom and gloom" post. To me, I don't see it as a smooth shift into a better paradigm. I see the last second switch and the approaching release date as a huge red flag. I am not saying it will be a bad game, but this one warrants extreme caution and pre-ordering could be considered fool-hardy (unless your rich). Plus, gamers in general should view all trailers with a heavy dose of skepticsm. Just my rather unimportant opinion.