Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 3 Jun 2011.
Was initially excited about this game, having watched that video i'm now not so sure...
I really, really want this to be good but the XCOM name (well, the first three games anyway) is a prestigious heritage to live up to.
errr. No thanks, no if that's what the game will be like.
This.. Syndicate.. it's clearly just catering purely for the multi-platform market as strategy games do not work on consoles.. not impressed
they remind me of the replicators in Stargate
It's an FPS!? I used to love the turn based games on my Amiga as a kid.
Wow that sounds like a cool and totally original plot</sarcasm>
I love how these aliens can jet across the galaxy and land on our planet with an awesome arsenal, but are then thwarted by a bunch of guys with tommyguns.
Speaking of Syndicate..where's a reboot of that classic I ask? And I mean as a strategy game.
"Reimagines", I hate that word, it rarely describes somthing good.
Those posessed people look like the husks from Mass Effect
Badly animated and with graphics maybe 5 - 10 years out of date. Should do well on consoles.
Was this a foreign game? I've been gaming for well over 10 years and I've never heard of XCOM.
No. It's been about 10 years since the last one I think, so you probably just missed it. Think Amiga and Dos. UFO: Enemy Unknown ring any bells? That was the first.
Was about to say that. I thought it looked very much like HL2 did (well almost, characters looked real in HL).
My thoughts exactly!!
This doesn't have any visual or thematic cues from any of the early XCOM games at all. In fact, I can't see any kind of connection to the XCOM games.
Except that it has aliens in it. Which has, you know, not been done very often already.
Why even bother to call it 'XCOM'?
Why do people have to "re imagine" stuff like this? It is a much loved classic because it was a near perfect game, not some ok idea that needed reworking... I just don't understand the logic in taking such a classic and totally changing it? Why did they think it needed to be changed? This just looks like just another FPS to me.
Why does every "reboot/reimagining/reinventedword" of a classic game actually mean "we've turned it into a FPS"?
We seem to have so little variety and innovation nowadays. The XCOM IP was about squad based strategy and it was great. What, exactly, does this IP have to do with shooters?
Maybe it's just me but I'm sick and tired of nearly every game moving towards becoming an FPS. The way things are going, in 10 years we'll have:
Manic Miner kicks Ass - Jet Set Willy goes all FPS and clears his mansion of mental furniture with a selection of "real life" weaponry including a full recreation of a classic AK47.
Street Fighter VII - The guys and Gals of Streetfighter take eachother on in multiplayer FPS mayhem around the world armed with futuristic and "real life" weaponry including a full recreation of a classic AK47.
Iraq: Total War - Get down and dirty with the soldiers with this groundbreaking strategy/FPS crossover featuring "real life" weaponry including a full recreation of a classic AK47.
Return to Monkey Island (Armed Edition) - Give those pirates a taste of "real life" weaponry including a full recreation of a classic AK47!
FIFA 2020 - Win the world cup using "real life" weaponry including a full recreation of a classic AK47.
I loved the original XCOM games.
Oh but of course it does. This is a console game. This is 2011. What other formats are there? Strategy? What? In a modern computer game? You expect people to use intelligence to win? Wait, wait, this is a console game!
Insert world-weary sigh.
I suppose this really only leaves the chicken-and-egg question: are console owners incapable of thinking, or do the games just not encourage them to think, so they eventually lose the ability? Jesus, we're going to have a generation of kids who are extremely good at putting a crosshair over a target using their twitching, overdeveloped thumbs and chewing enthusiastically on their own tongues, but they're not going to be good for much else.
I was going to write up several paragraphs of intemperate, asterisk-strewn ranting about this, but frankly, what's the point? It'd be bad enough but sites like bit-tech just report news like this as if it's normal, as if it's perfectly OK for absolutely all games to be first-person shooters without an ounce of intrigue, interest, originality, challenge, intelligence or wit. Why do the journalists simply report awfulness as normal, while it's left to us poor punters to point out the huge, glaring, obvious, elephant-in-the-corner issue here?
And I bet they complain about soft PC sales, too. What a bunch of asterisks.
(Also - what Whirly said)
Separate names with a comma.