   2K announces XCOM inspired FPS
LinkQuote:"players will be placed in charge of overcoming high-stake odds through risky strategic gambits coupled with heart-stopping combat experiences that pit human ingenuity - and frailty - against a foe beyond comprehension. By setting the game in a first-person perspective, players will be able to feel the tension and fear that comes with combating a faceless enemy that is violently probing and plotting its way into our world."I've always dreamed of an XCOM remake being done by a AAA studio with decent resourcing (instead of the countless fan remakes that never get finished or are just crap).But i'm not too sure about this one.. I don't see how they can make XCOM work as an FPS without coming off as cheesy. Is this just going to be a standard survival horror FPS?What are your hopes for this? Do you think they will be able to achieve the XCOM feeling with an FPS, or are they just using the brand to make a guaranteed buck?   
Quote:By setting the game in a first-person perspective, players will be able to feel the tension and fear that comes with combating a faceless enemy that is violently probing and plotting its way into our world."Meh, it's same as Star Trek. Anything that's not non-stop visual effects loaded action of standard action flic cliches simply doesn't sell today.The "fear" and especially the "tension" is why X-com is still remembered today. FPS or not, the kind of subtle atmosphere that came with the original is not likely to be replicated, or even come close. Not that it matters when one can just wtfpwn.With that in mind, original X-com was well rounded game, with little to evolve on. While TFTD was ok-ish, if not too hard-ish, the series should have ended with the first game. Instead it dragged on over Apocalypse (ok-ish as such, but with simply too many unbalanced aspects and simply too constricted scope) into Interceptor (I remember playing that and thinking it's sort of a mistake, like watching an alpha release with none of actual functionality implemented) in a sort of devolution. But the spice... um, money must flow.Anyway, with regard to quality, I don't think that this remake will be much talked about 16 years after release, as compared to original X-com, that people still play and according to youtube, made several Let's Plays about.   ;This is nothing new, sadly.;  What's the point? The X-COM brand isn't even that well known since the original game was sold as UFO in Europe.A real X-COM game with turn-by-turn gameplay, AAA graphics and done right, now that would be awesome.;Quote:Original post by CodexusWhat's the point? The X-COM brand isn't even that well known since the original game was sold as UFO in Europe.A real X-COM game with turn-by-turn gameplay, AAA graphics and done right, now that would be awesome.Actually, I would settle for real-time squad-based combat ala X-COM: Apocalypse. There's absolutely no need for yet-another-sci-fi-FPS game. Sometimes I wonder why people keep buying this drivel (Bioshock #n, Halo #m, Crysis #l, blah blah blah. Enough already!)   ;Quote:Original post by irreversibleThis is nothing new, sadly.It certainly isn't.;Quote:Original post by AntheusThe "fear" and especially the "tension" is why X-com is still remembered today. FPS or not, the kind of subtle atmosphere that came with the original is not likely to be replicated, or even come close.Not that it matters when one can just wtfpwn.Sooo true. No matter how moody or scary an FPS is in the beginning the fact that the enemy dies by the hundreds and you don't becomes a little too obvious. Of course both XCOM Apocalypse and (especially) Interceptor had the same problem. They where obviously balanced so that you would loose the game if you lost as many units as you killed. This invariably takes the "fighting a superior foe" out of it all. The first XCOM games had some of this problem too, but far less than most games, which is what gave a lot of the tension I think.Re-equipping squads after battles where really boring in all the XCOM games, one of their main drawbacks I think. If they could make a game where just loosing less troops than the enemy is a great feat and also not too detrimental to gameplay it would be awesome.   ;Quote:Original post by KekkoThis invariably takes the "fighting a superior foe" out of it all. The first XCOM games had some of this problem too, but far less than most games, which is what gave a lot of the tension I think.Yeah, the fact that enemy soldiers could pretty much instagib you was a large part of the suspense in X-COM 1 and 2. X-COM: Apocalypse toned this down quite a bit and went for a different sort of gameplay balance. The problem is that this didn't mesh well with the utterly predictable AI: while X-COM 1/2 also had predictable enemies, the foes were so deadly that it didn't really matter. X-COM: Apocalypse allowed this flaw to become more obvious (which, I think, is a large part in why it was disliked).That said, I enjoyed Apocalypse much more than the previous installments. Right now, I would dearly love to see a game similar to Apocalypse with squad-based combat and enemies that can outsmart and outflank you.Not a big chance of that happening, though.   ;  I liked Apocalypse a lot too but it didn't feel scary, as you say. You felt more like a police force gunning down heavily armed, angry but utterly untrained criminals.XCOM 1/2 where predictable in a way but also wildly unpredictable in that a lucky (for the enemy) blaster bomb could annihilate your squad. That kind of randomness is scary and provides tension. But only if the game is designed to handle it. Otherwise you'll just lose. Or reload. What I'd like to see is a game that automagically refits my squads after battles. The penalty for a battle badly fought should be loss of money, morale, trust, whatever. Not loss of gameplay minutes spent clicking on "buy 1 more ammo clip" over and over. Also I don't want to feel like humanity is pulling any punches. I want satellite images, air support and a 20 to 1 numerical superiority. Being outnumbered when attacking a UFO that has crashed on Earth is just silly. And even then the enemy should be so badass that a 1:1 casualty rate is considered a success. Of course that many soldiers probably makes the realtime+pause play of Apocalypse necessary, but that's ok with me.   ;Quote:Original post by KekkoBeing outnumbered when attacking a UFO that has crashed on Earth is just silly.Something to keep in mind - X-Com coincided with X-Files (notice the name, as well as renaming from UFO: Enemy Unknown), which caused a revival of all the UFO cliches in general populace. X-Com captured that perfectly - obscure and unknown company, funded by governments, operating in secrecy, small numbers, no popular support, missions take place in plain old world rather than some high tech futuristic utopia.For me, that was what added most to atmosphere. Rather than having some high-poly made up world, it felt authentic. Small numbers also allowed personification of certain soldiers. The nice touches of providing authentic names and faces just reinforce that, rather than just having a bunch of generic clones.Quote:I want satellite images, air support and a 20 to 1 numerical superiority.Part of charm was the underdog approach. Otherwise it would quickly turn into Independence Day. And while having an armada of fighters nuking stuff from orbit might be fun a few times, it loses that personal touch.If anything, Mass Effect series have proven that identifiable and likable characters as well as slight emotional touch do complement the experience. Even in case of a completely new IP, where they cannot fall back to some movie or comic franchise.I feel that this personal note is sorely missing in most games. Character development isn't just minmaxing stats. X-Com had surprising well placed and fitting backstory which shaped the game - and also made it almost impossible to build upon as a franchise.   