next »

[Mipe]

Eh... I'll stick to the open source X-Com game.

[Dragonmaw]

Firaxis confirmed to be working on XCOM remake.

My pants are now soaking wet. With jizz.

Also, this is what is called an "acceptable necro" for those who are confused

[Christian Knudsen]

I though they'd sold the rights and that's why we're getting the 2K game? Color me confused. So there are now two new official, but unconnected, X-COM remakes/reimaginings in the works? Weird.

What's the over/under on Fireaxis' reimagining being an RTS?

[Dragonmaw]

2K owns the rights, and both Firaxis and 2K Marin are owned by 2K.

Edit: And apparently it is retaining the same division as the original X-COM. Pausable real-time world interface, turn-based tactical interface

[Tanner]

FUCK FUCK FUCK YES

[C.A. Sinner]

great news!

[handCraftedRadio]

ok this is something that I'm really frustrated with.

XCom is one of my favorite games ever, but why are there so many remakes of it? There is something really unique that the game has that I think was completely passed over by game developers. Why not examine the game and take the aspects that are good and copy the fundamental elements instead of just copying the game again. I think it's because people like the game but don't completely understand why (myself included.) Here are the things that I think are important to making it such a great game besides just being a 'fun strategy game.'

-Story development: There is a very in-depth story to the game that seems to come about organically through the gameplay instead of being thrown in your face via cutscenes etc. I went into the game with no idea what it was about (I played it for the first time last year). Almost all of the information presented to you comes about from your research into alien technology, interrogating alien captives, etc. To me this is a very effective way of presenting a story in a game because it feels completely intertwined with the gameplay, because how you play effects how the story unfolds. I'm still not completely sure about what I like about the way they handle this, but it feels like a very 'right' way to handle story telling in a video game.

-Context of individual battles: The individual battles are my favorite part about this game, because you have a sense of context to the bigger picture. Since the other part of the game is a simulator where you have to manage your bases, ships, soldiers, research, etc you can see how every action you take within one battle affects the other aspects of the game. The battles seem more intense because you have an exterior goal outside of just finishing this screen. You know about all the events that occurred leading up to this battle, and you understand the consequences of winning or losing the battle. It is far more effective from just being told this information via text or cutscene because you completely understand everything about it because you were directly involved. You were the one that had to purchase the soldiers you are using. You are the one that had to construct their equipment. You had to control everything leading up to the point where this conflict occurs. You are the one who has to deal with the consequences of the outcome, good or bad.

-No babying around: The game does not care if you win or lose. If you do well, you will win. If you make mistakes and do poorly you will lose. A few mistakes have the ability to ruin everything you worked for. A soldier you've been using and training can die with one wrong move, or even if you didn't do anything wrong at all. I think having this kind of strictness is very important for keeping the game fun. It makes you feel like your actions actually have consequences and you have some sort of real free will in the game. I think this is somewhat ruined by the fact that you can save the game and load at any point. Though I was able to fix it for myself by adopting a whatever happens happens policy and not using save states to fix mistakes I made, like replaying a battle or a turn or something. I think taking out the option to save at every point would make the game better, because even having the option to replay a battle ruins the feel, I think. Some people would say "well some people want to play it that way", but I would say that they don't actually know what they want and would enjoy it more if they were forced to deal with the consequences of their actions. I find some of the most enjoyable moments working my way out of mistakes that I made (see 'comebacks' in a sports dictionary.)

-Unique Generation: Procedure or random generation or whatever. The game is different every time to a certain degree. I am actually starting to believe that a fundamental element of video games is having some sort of random generation involved. This is something that I think newer games are doing very well now (ex Spelunky, Binding of Isaac.) But the entire game isn't completely randomly generated, which can easily be seen from repeated blocks of terrain and that type of thing. There is a balance between hand designed portions of the generation and randomly generated portions. I think the key to making a good game is to find the correct balance for the given game, which I am not sure how it can be done besides intuition + trial and error.

If anybody else has any thoughts on this I would love to hear them. I'm at the point where I'm about to start a new game and I've been thinking about this kind of thing a lot lately.

[handCraftedRadio]

This just in: The X-Com games are all on sale for 66% off today on steam.

[Gimym TILBERT]

ok this is something that I'm really frustrated with.

XCom is one of my favorite games ever, but why are there so many remakes of it? There is something really unique that the game has that I think was completely passed over by game developers. Why not examine the game and take the aspects that are good and copy the fundamental elements instead of just copying the game again. I think it's because people like the game but don't completely understand why (myself included.) Here are the things that I think are important to making it such a great game besides just being a 'fun strategy game.'

*managing interactive stake*

Fixed

[C.A. Sinner]

i prefer interactive steaks

[J. R. Hill]

If they're presenting the same game with a different story and different graphics and different sound etc. doesn't that mean it's a sequel, and not the same game?  lol

[iffi]

If they're presenting the same game with a different story and different graphics and different sound etc. doesn't that mean it's a sequel, and not the same game?  lol

Unless it's a prequel!

[Fegon]

I think this is realy good. X-Com has alot of room for improvment. Hopefully Firaxis can bring out the best in the game. I personly realy like what they did with Civ 5 so I have my hopes up.

[soap]

X-Com has alot of room for improvment.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT XCOM IS BEST GAME EVER SHUT UP

joking aside, this should be really awesome. Of course I think it's commercial success depends on if they make it more... fast paced than the original, because in this climate most people would choose the fast paced shooter over a turn-based strategy game.

of course, I honestly wouldn't care if they just made UFO: enemy unknown in 3d. I would still buy it.

[Christian Knudsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bywbA7oTyCQ

I want this game. Now.