LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
I think the real thing that led everyone into flipping out isn't just the divergence from the turn based shooter. It's that after years and years of zero use of the license, for the first use of it, they pull out an FPS. So they're using this old license, that means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of gamers, and they turn it into something totally non-traditional. What audience are they trying to appeal to? The older games are wondering where there turns are, while the newer ones have no reason to care about this old license. It just seems like an odd situation.
And not just that, because I'm even curious to see what they do with it, but I just wish they would have pulled a Bionic Commando or Dark Void and also announced a smaller throwback game in the classic XCom style. I mean, Poor Yurik was sitting here saying that he didn't see anyone pulling out XCom to play it. Well, that's not true for me. I do keep digging out X-Com, but it's a really old game. It could use a coat of 2010 polish, and I think there could be a really great modern game there. I mean why else should the 2010 world have an interest in this old license?
Plus, to be honest, I had heard the rumors and had gotten worked up on what I thought they would do (ie turn based), and likely I wasn't the only one.
So, XCom FPS. I'll watch what happens, I'm sure it'll do at least some neat things, but it'll be like re-meeting your childhood crush and finding out they took a 90' turn and now they're someone totally different. Nice to see them, but not what you were hoping for. But perhaps it's the folly of our expectations as gamers. :\ Hope people don't mind me rehashing this topic, if it's obnoxious I'll can the post.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 171 replies.
Contrast the handling of Fallout 3 and Shadowrun. Both IPs had (prior to the latest games) small cult followings.
Bethesda took the Fallout IP and, yes, changed a lot of mechanics to make them fit Bethesda's strengths better and make the game more widely appealing. However, Bethesda also preserved much of the lore and atmosphere associated with the IP. They used and built upon the existing IP and introduced it to a much wider audience.
Microsoft took the Shadowrun IP and discarded most of the lore, preserving only some of the gross concepts. The name "Shadowrun" at that point was only that: a name. The rest of the IP was unused and ignored. If you're going to do that, why even use the name? The only conclusion I can come up with is that someone is unwisely trying to capitalize on the existence of the cult following.
XCOM seems more akin to Shadowrun in that respect than Fallout 3. The difference is that XCOM really was all about the gameplay with the lore taking a backseat. They're discarding what made the game (and possibly the lore as well, sparse as it was), yet still using the name. I don't see the point except as an ill-conceived attempt to capitalize on the name.
I'm not some kind of XCOM junkie, either. I've barely played the game, and then only recently. I'm just comparing patterns of behavior.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.