I don't mean XCOM, because I actually like Enemy Unknown (though it could've been fucking glorious on SO MANY LEVELS if they hadn't been lazy assholes), it was more directed at just fucking everything right now.
Welcome to the industry.
XCOM: EU has already made some incredibly risque moves, like being a turn-based shooter in an era where most frat boys and 14-year olds (the largest consumer base for gaming industry because they love to purchase any thing that confirms their misguided idea of masculinity) buy FPSs, which means only FPSs get massive budgets and everything else gets "Broadened to appeal to a wider audience". While yes, there was definetly some broadening involved with XCOM, but that results in the game being more approachable without becoming too stupid. Unfortunatley, Ufopaedia, multiple bases and base defense has been cut out of it because twats in management had no intention of risking too big a share (let the developers say whatever they want, I am firm in my belief that most of the cuts didn't come from them) of the Frat Boy and 14-Year Old market.
But despite being an incredible risk, the game was a financial success and has opened up the X-Com franchise to many newcomers as well as (mostly) pleasing old fans who still lament the loss of some features.
I'd say the game is a step in the right direction. A shaky step made by a leper whose arms have dropped off midway through, but a step nontheless.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that is going to keep big budget titles' collective head under the water. The industry need to let games find audiences, rather than force audiences upon people. You don't need focus groups and a targeted market in order to sell video games. Games get released with absolutely outrageous and sometimes outright insane new ideas and they still sell well because why? The people that enjoy it flock to it, all by themselves. Go figure. People are pretty good at finding stuff that they like, and when a game gets made that they like, and a "sequel" is released under the same title, shouldn't it be a delivery of that same product but better?
EU is a good game, but it's not XCOM as it was originally envisioned, which is what the game should've been. It's what everyone who knew the game expected it to be and it wasn't. It's selfish, but honestly what are people supposed to expect? Sequels are supposed to be better versions of the original game. EU wasn't. And it makes me sad. Being butthurt doesn't change anything but not taking this kind of stuff lying down is the way to cause a positive change in the system.
Matey, I think you misread my post.
I'm not saying the new XCOM is better or that the shit they pulled was okay. I am simply stating that this is how it is. You do not break free of bondage by spitting in the captor's face, you do it by nicking his keys.
Also, a good sequel takes what made the original work well and builds up on that, without guarantee if it will be better or worse. See Half-Life 2. It took what made the original great and built on it.
Now, XCOM takes what made the original work well (the ground combat missions, the feeling of being in control of an organisation defending against a larger, stronger opponent) and refines it, ditching some of the stuff that didn't work in the original (the horrendous UI), adding some stuff that the original lacked (the new character customization, no matter how limited it may be is miles in front of the original) but unfortunately some things were also cut out (Ufopaedia, limited ammo on mission, Base defense and multiple bases (they said they weren't doing the last two very early on IIRC)).
In the end, what is left is an approachable X-Com with all the major elements of the original refined (ground combat, base management) and leaving out some complexity and management stuff (be it good or bad) to make it more approachable to newcomers to the genre. It's not an X-Com for the new millenium (Xenonauts takes that particular cake), it is more like baby's first X-Com, meant to get newcomers into the genre (which it did) without pissing off the fans too much (Because most of the fans already scream bloody murder if you change anything, for better or worse *cough*XComApocalypse*cough*).
Now, if you want an example of a reboot that does simplifying and broadening the audience just for the sake of making the biggest amount of money, see the new Syndicate game and The Bureau, games that have nothing to do with their original games and whose developers weren't allowed to do anything that would displease the "wider audience" and result in less sales. On top of them being absolutely generic and dull.
The way to go forward isn't to shout at games who deviate from most of he mainstream's formulas for not being exactly what you wanted them to be (like XCOM), the way forward is to shout at games who follow the formulas and calling them out on their apparent lack of foresight and stupidity (like Syndicate and The Bureau).
In words of some guy from the internet:
if people want GoW, they'll buy themselves the newest GoW. People do not buy an X-Com game to play a third-person shooter, they buy an X-Com game to play as humanity's last line of defense against an enemy far greater. So stop making X-Com into GoW.
And XCOM definetly feels like an X-Com game, despite it being more approachable.
I will say though Hugo that there are signs of the obvious rushed development of our current Xcom and it shows. Especially with the lack of a base defense.
I think that the reason there isn't a base defense is simple... they didn't finish the map in time.
IIRC they said very early on that there won't be a base defense mission. Why, I don't know.
Author
Topic: XCOM: Enemy Unknown (New by Firaxis) (Read 972987 times)