I'm no hermit, but X-COM makes a strong case for the consolization debate.

Let me start off by saying that I do not play many PC games anymore. I have a 3 year old dual-bootup Macbook Pro that I use to play Minecraft, Telltale's games and not a lot else. I have not really played the X-Com games at all, however I knew them by reputation ever since I was a kid. I had friends who obsessed over X-com, and I knew that it was regarded as one of the best strategy games around, that it had a futuristic sci-fi theme with aliens, and that it was a turn-based strategy game with RPG elements. It was not quite my cup of tea, but I understood why people loved it so much and why it was so popular.

Then, 2K games comes along and turns it into a squad-based FPS set in the 1950's with Zelda: Twilght Princess monsters instead of proper aliens. The game has no resemblance with the original at all. It's like they looked at the way Bethesda adapted the Fallout series to the first person view, and said "hey, we can do that with X-com!" except that 2K is failing miserably at it. While Fallout 3 managed to capture everything that made Fallout be Fallout with the exception of having realtime Oblivion-like combat, X-com is the opposite, having virtually nothing to do with the original except for a few little things that were selectively carried over. In Angry Joe's interview with the developer, the whole thing was basically Joe asking the guy if memorable gameplay element X Y and Z were carried over, and the guy saying "we talked about it, but we don't have it at this time."

They basically hijacked the X-com brand name and slapped it onto what is a very mediocre looking paranormal-themed first person shooter set in the 1950s. There is no reason for X-com fans to be interested in this game, which is why they already hate it, and there is no reason for non-fans to be interested, because it looks like a crappy game with bad graphics and clunky gunplay that's trying desperately to ride on Fallout 3's coat tails. They want to chase after the Call of Duty crowd in hopes that they can peel them away from Xbox Live long enough to play this stupid game, and they are clearly gearing it towards the console FPS audience while alienating the strategy audience that made the original a hit, which is exactly what PC gamers have been complaining about whenever they use the term "consolization."

I have already decided that I am not going to buy this game because even though I am not an X-com fan, I despise what this game represents. I know I would be pissed if they brought back Wing Commander as a Gears of War type game where you fight Nazis in World War 2 using Tron technology (essentially, a Mass Effect knockoff, which is what X-com is except it's in first person). I am all for reviving old franchises with fresh blood, but X-com-in-name-only is about as far as it gets from what I want to see. They are simply making a shoddy FPS and trying to dupe nostalgia fans into buying it with a popular brand name, and X-com happened to be the easiest license to obtain. I hope this game bombs hard and that critics eviscerate it for what it is.

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

pretty much man

dont worry tho, XCOM has been getting more hate than you would know, hopefully it does flop

Even if the "consolized" version is better?SaltyMeatballs

True gamers hope that games suck.SaltyMeatballs

I wouldn't say X-COM is consolized. It's becoming a first person shooter, yes, but I'd define it as consolized if it was an originally complex strategy game made to work with console control limitations.

However I personally want to know why they're using the X-COM name in the first place. It just seems odd given that the series has been dead for so long, and rather than breathing new life into it with a new strategy game they're just ignoring what the series is, and sticking the name on their next FPS franchise. The X-COM name isn't going to help sell the game.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Even if the "consolized" version is better?Timstuff

So this all really comes down to "looks" and "to me"?

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

DragonfireXZ95

Maybe for you, but I think Fallout 3 is easily the best. I've beaten all of them (except the atrocity known as Brotherhood of Steel) and no other Fallout game captures a post apocalyptic fight for survival like Fallout 3, while it also stands on its own without needing to rely heavily on references to the last two.

Fallout 3 is easily the best example I can find for arguing against consoles as the cause for "casualization", and I've spent the entirety of my summer vacation when I'm not out replaying Fallout 2 (which btw has a serious crashing issue for me).

Also X-COM looked like a fun and unique little detective type game until the nixed all the detective aspects for shooting aliens. I just thinkg more people were angry that it had the X-COM name and was almost unrelated, but before the recent batch of stupid design changes it looked very promising.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Even if the "consolized" version is better?R3FURBISHED

So this all really comes down to "looks" and "to me"?

I am utterly disgusted by what they are doing with X-Com. Btw, Fallout 3 isnt exactly a good example, it failed as a Fallout game in my opinion.

Any equally bitter X-Com fans should check out Xenonauts, which is very similar to the original Xcoms.

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but if Bioshock 2 is one of your favorite games this gen, that doesn't exactly give your hype for XCINO that much credibility.Timstuff

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

DragonfireXZ95

Amen brotha!

I wouldn't say X-COM is consolized. It's becoming a first person shooter, yes, but I'd define it as consolized if it was an originally complex strategy game made to work with console control limitations.

However I personally want to know why they're using the X-COM name in the first place. It just seems odd given that the series has been dead for so long, and rather than breathing new life into it with a new strategy game they're just ignoring what the series is, and sticking the name on their next FPS franchise. The X-COM name isn't going to help sell the game.

Ly_the_Fairy

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

DragonfireXZ95

As a long time Fallout fan, I would disagree with your comment a lot.

If the game were to release on pc only, what's stopping stopping them from the choices they make if they were to release on multiplatfrom?

Let me start off by saying that I do not play many PC games anymore. I have a 3 year old dual-bootup Macbook Pro that I use to play Minecraft, Telltale's games and not a lot else. I have not really played the X-Com games at all, however I knew them by reputation ever since I was a kid. I had friends who obsessed over X-com, and I knew that it was regarded as one of the best strategy games around, that it had a futuristic sci-fi theme with aliens, and that it was a turn-based strategy game with RPG elements. It was not quite my cup of tea, but I understood why people loved it so much and why it was so popular.

Then, 2K games comes along and turns it into a squad-based FPS set in the 1950's with Zelda: Twilght Princess monsters instead of proper aliens. The game has no resemblance with the original at all. It's like they looked at the way Bethesda adapted the Fallout series to the first person view, and said "hey, we can do that with X-com!" except that 2K is failing miserably at it. While Fallout 3 managed to capture everything that made Fallout be Fallout with the exception of having realtime Oblivion-like combat, X-com is the opposite, having virtually nothing to do with the original except for a few little things that were selectively carried over. In Angry Joe's interview with the developer, the whole thing was basically Joe asking the guy if memorable gameplay element X Y and Z were carried over, and the guy saying "we talked about it, but we don't have it at this time."

hey basically hijacked the X-com brand name and slapped it onto what is a very mediocre looking paranormal-themed first person shooter set in the 1950s. There is no reason for X-com fans to be interested in this game, which is why they already hate it, and there is no reason for non-fans to be interested, because it looks like a crappy game with bad graphics and clunky gunplay that's trying desperately to ride on Fallout 3's coat tails. They want to chase after the Call of Duty crowd in hopes that they can peel them away from Xbox Live long enough to play this stupid game, and they are clearly gearing it towards the console FPS audience while alienating the strategy audience that made the original a hit, which is exactly what PC gamers have been complaining about whenever they use the term "consolization."

have already decided that I am not going to buy this game because even though I am not an X-com fan, I despise what this game represents. I know I would be pissed if they brought back Wing Commander as a Gears of War type game where you fight Nazis in World War 2 using Tron technology (essentially, a Mass Effect knockoff, which is what X-com is except it's in first person). I am all for reviving old franchises with fresh blood, but X-com-in-name-only is about as far as it gets from what I want to see. They are simply making a shoddy FPS and trying to dupe nostalgia fans into buying it with a popular brand name, and X-com happened to be the easiest license to obtain. I hope this game bombs hard and that critics eviscerate it for what it is.

Timstuff

If Xcom was so great and received a decent amount of support, then it would still be around today and/or the developers would have a reason to keep the gameplay the same. Instead, chances are they figured if they were going to try and revive an ancient and not that well know game from 20 years ago, they should try and make it appeal to the modern mass audience...which tends to buy shooters more likely than not.

Instead, chances are they figured if they were going to try and revive an ancient and not that well know game from 20 years ago, they should try and make it appeal to the modern mass audience...which tends to buy shooters more likely than not.

ZIMdoom

They are not reviving it. They just slapped the x-com name on a shooter.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

Let me start off by saying that I do not play many PC games anymore. I have a 3 year old dual-bootup Macbook Pro that I use to play Minecraft, Telltale's games and not a lot else. I have not really played the X-Com games at all, however I knew them by reputation ever since I was a kid. I had friends who obsessed over X-com, and I knew that it was regarded as one of the best strategy games around, that it had a futuristic sci-fi theme with aliens, and that it was a turn-based strategy game with RPG elements. It was not quite my cup of tea, but I understood why people loved it so much and why it was so popular.

Then, 2K games comes along and turns it into a squad-based FPS set in the 1950's with Zelda: Twilght Princess monsters instead of proper aliens. The game has no resemblance with the original at all. It's like they looked at the way Bethesda adapted the Fallout series to the first person view, and said "hey, we can do that with X-com!" except that 2K is failing miserably at it. While Fallout 3 managed to capture everything that made Fallout be Fallout with the exception of having realtime Oblivion-like combat, X-com is the opposite, having virtually nothing to do with the original except for a few little things that were selectively carried over. In Angry Joe's interview with the developer, the whole thing was basically Joe asking the guy if memorable gameplay element X Y and Z were carried over, and the guy saying "we talked about it, but we don't have it at this time."

hey basically hijacked the X-com brand name and slapped it onto what is a very mediocre looking paranormal-themed first person shooter set in the 1950s. There is no reason for X-com fans to be interested in this game, which is why they already hate it, and there is no reason for non-fans to be interested, because it looks like a crappy game with bad graphics and clunky gunplay that's trying desperately to ride on Fallout 3's coat tails. They want to chase after the Call of Duty crowd in hopes that they can peel them away from Xbox Live long enough to play this stupid game, and they are clearly gearing it towards the console FPS audience while alienating the strategy audience that made the original a hit, which is exactly what PC gamers have been complaining about whenever they use the term "consolization."

have already decided that I am not going to buy this game because even though I am not an X-com fan, I despise what this game represents. I know I would be pissed if they brought back Wing Commander as a Gears of War type game where you fight Nazis in World War 2 using Tron technology (essentially, a Mass Effect knockoff, which is what X-com is except it's in first person). I am all for reviving old franchises with fresh blood, but X-com-in-name-only is about as far as it gets from what I want to see. They are simply making a shoddy FPS and trying to dupe nostalgia fans into buying it with a popular brand name, and X-com happened to be the easiest license to obtain. I hope this game bombs hard and that critics eviscerate it for what it is.

ZIMdoom

If Xcom was so great and received a decent amount of support, then it would still be around today and/or the developers would have a reason to keep the gameplay the same. Instead, chances are they figured if they were going to try and revive an ancient and not that well know game from 20 years ago, they should try and make it appeal to the modern mass audience...which tends to buy shooters more likely than not.

I never heard that game before I surf on gamespot.

If Xcom was so great and received a decent amount of support, then it would still be around today and/or the developers would have a reason to keep the gameplay the same. Instead, chances are they figured if they were going to try and revive an ancient and not that well know game from 20 years ago, they should try and make it appeal to the modern mass audience...which tends to buy shooters more likely than not.ZIMdoom

EA could have done the same thing with Wing Commander. Space shooters and combat sims in general are not big business right now, so from a business perspective it would be tempting to turn Wing Commander into an FPS or TPS where you go around on foot shooting aliens in a 1950s Roswellian setting rather than flying space ships in the deep future. They could do what 2K is doing and argue that they are keeping important aspects, like issuing comands to squadmates, insulting enemies to draw their fire, having a base where you can talk to your crew members in between missions, but it would still not be Wing Commander.

If Xcom was so great and received a decent amount of support, then it would still be around today and/or the developers would have a reason to keep the gameplay the same. Instead, chances are they figured if they were going to try and revive an ancient and not that well know game from 20 years ago, they should try and make it appeal to the modern mass audience...which tends to buy shooters more likely than not.

ZIMdoom

XCOM is a well known and respected title amongst the PC community, it's not ancient, nor is it from 20 years ago. (ever heard about the concept of math ?) Secondly, gamers aren't mentally challenged to only like one single mediocre genre, i suppose humans can broaden their horizons a bit.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

If Xcom was so great and received a decent amount of support, then it would still be around today and/or the developers would have a reason to keep the gameplay the same. Instead, chances are they figured if they were going to try and revive an ancient and not that well know game from 20 years ago, they should try and make it appeal to the modern mass audience...which tends to buy shooters more likely than not.

Lucianu

XCOM is a well known and respected title amongst the PC community, it's not ancient, nor is it from 20 years ago. (ever heard about the concept of math ?) Secondly, gamers aren't mentally challenged to only like one single mediocre genre, i suppose humans can broaden their horizons a bit.

A pc community that has small group of members. Seriously it's unpopular.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

ZIMdoom

As a long time Fallout fan, I would disagree with your comment a lot.

Because there's such a clamoring for tactical turn-based RPGs from the PC gaming crowd, right?

Consolization refers to ****ty multiplats/ports that fail to take into account PC-centric features, not the fact gamers like to delude themselves into thinking they're bastions of the hardcore old-guard between hyping the flavour of the month bro-shooters as the second coming.

A pc community that has small group of members. Seriously it's unpopular.

alexside1

I said well known and respected title, there are different forms of popularity.. and XCOM is well known. You should check the internet and see how many are frustrated over this horrible nightmare.

Umm... you do know that Xcom was a Playstation game, too; right?

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

As a long time Fallout fan, I would disagree with your comment a lot.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

A pc community that has small group of members. Seriously it's unpopular.

Lucianu

I said well known and respected title, there are different forms of popularity.. and XCOM is well known. You should check the internet and see how many are frustrated over this horrible nightmare.

lol.. 'horrible nightmare'. some of you guys sure do like to overreact

Vinegar_Strokes

How the *** am i overreacting wen i'm seeing a tactical game turning into a first person shooter?

Get real.

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

lol.. 'horrible nightmare'. some of you guys sure do like to overreact

Lucianu

How the *** am i overreacting wen i'm seeing a tactical game turning into a first person shooter?

Get real.

Is it bad that I had never heard of X-COM until this happened? I feel bad for fans of the series though.

I'm with you OP, consolization has too many casualties under its belt. Unfortunately shooter on console == instant best seller; so it probably won't flop *to* bad.ehussein1379

Shadowrun anyone?

Not all FPS is a best seller. The developer can always make a mess of the game.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Fallout 3 did not capture anything that made Fallout 1 and 2 so great.

That was a horrible example.

DragonfireXZ95

As a long time Fallout fan, I would disagree with your comment a lot.

Ummm.... did you playFallout 2 by any chance?

That was a game with a 4th wall bending bridge keeper, a talking giant stone head, a shaman who could tell you things through your dreams, a vibrant and dirty New Reno full of corny sex jokes, aliens and a cafe of broken dreams full of unused Fallout heroes making jokes as well as not that great pacing and various persistent bugs.

I love all Fallout, but I think people hating on Fallout 3 should go back and take off their nostalgiagoggles because New Vegas was pretty damn disappointing.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

As a long time Fallout fan, I would disagree with your comment a lot.

SPYDER0416

Ummm.... did you playFallout 2 by any chance?

That was a game with a 4th wall bending bridge keeper, a talking giant stone head, a shaman who could tell you things through your dreams, a vibrant and dirty New Reno full of corny sex jokes, aliens and a cafe of broken dreams full of unused Fallout heroes making jokes as well as not that great pacing and various persistent bugs.

I love all Fallout, but I think people hating on Fallout 3 should go back and take off their nostalgiagoggles because New Vegas was pretty damn disappointing.

Unless you can demonstrate to me the strong popularity of turn based strategy games in the PC communityI am going to have to call BS on this one.

Consolization is supposed to mean dumbing down/changes based upon the limitations of consoles vs PCs either in controls, visuals, scale etc.

Completely change the genre and what not has nothing to do with consolization. It has to do with there being no market for the original type of game. VC on the PS3 is an excellent example of this. It is a great game and IMO one the best PS3 games. It was also a dismal sales failure.

You could make an argument for casualization. You cannot make a sound argument for consolization.

I'm not a big X-COM fan, I messed with it a bit back in the day, it was mostly my brothers thing. But even I could hear the distant crying of X-COM fans when I saw that pathetic milking attempt.

Pathetic milking attempt. As in, let's stick a recognised name with a dedicated fanbase on a game that is "nothing" like the original. Grave robbing developers, opening caskets in an attempt to find a few grains of originality; and bastardizing it with some modern "remake" that makes the original fans rage.

It's something that has become all too common this generation, and people like this...

Even if the "consolized" version is better?SaltyMeatballs

Make it all the worse... because they have no understanding or care for what exactly is going on. You do realize that this game they have slapped XCOM on has little to nothing, no resemblance at all, to the original games? The theme, the time period, even the game genre are all different.

It's like if they released a new Mass Effect, and it was a cowboy FPS. In fact a Cowboy FPS would have more to do with Mass Effect than this XCOM game with XCOM, because at least they both have shooter elements.

Unless you can demonstrate to me the strong popularity of turn based strategy games in the PC communityI am going to have to call BS on this one.

SUD123456

Uh ... total war?

Even if the "consolized" version is better?SaltyMeatballs

Because there's such a clamoring for tactical turn-based RPGs from the PC gaming crowd, right?

PBSnipes

[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Even if the "consolized" version is better?R3FURBISHED

So this all really comes down to "looks" and "to me"?

Just like every other SW thread :)