Am I only one sick with comparasion to XCOM?

[XenoMask]

I mean, I get it, this is fan remake of first game.

But I fricking hate it when people are like "FINALLY true successor to XCOM series!", "I've been disappointed with XCOM fan games, but this one looks like it will actually be good" and "Finally good XCOM game after TFFD!"

First point because of two reasons 1) Nothing can replace XCOM to me, to me only true XCOM game is good XCOM game with the name XCOM ( New game coming by Firaxis does change some features causing me being annoyed, but still better than FPS one and it does show promise in some respects) 2) I don't want to play XCOM clone games and comparing to original game, did everyone compare FPS when they were called "Doom clones" to Doom all the time? I want XCOM type games to be good on their own and not just because people are feeling nostalgic.

Third point because my first and favourite XCOM game is XCOM Apocalypse(I still love original one, TFFD not so much because I don't feel like its true sequel) It feels kind of lonely with people hating it simply because they have nostalgia for first game, probably no helped by the fact that first sequel is basically expansion pack with all original weapon reskinned and slightly altered along with altered enemies to make game unbalancedly hard because developers didn't know about difficulty bug in original game.

I've played other XCOM spiritual successors/fan remakes. I played UFO: Afterwhateverfirstgamewascalled and UFO: Alien Invasion. And I liked those. But not because I considered them "Worthy successors" but because they stand out as their own games. UFO: Afterwhatever series is essentially XCOM with Realtime with pause gameplay and conquering areas and such. UFO: Alien Invasion is freeware remake of first game(and its still in development), but with some many things changed/upgraded that it doesn't feel like its copy of original, it feels distinct enough that I don't feel annoyed.

Though admittedly, if someone did remake of XCOM Apocalypse with all originally intended features in, I'd probably start worshiping that guy too

Anyway, my point is that I feel like this game is ruined for me by people who keep claiming its "true/worthy/only successor" to XCOM series. Though people do that to UFO: Alien Invasion too so I'll probably get over it. There is that I haven't played Xenonauts much yet because loading times are too long at least last time I played. Also, game needs to be able to hold on as its own game, not just because fans want to play original game again. But considering that all XCOM fan games have so far felt like their own game(with exception of maybe Open Xcom and such games that are visually identical to first game I got no good words at those, if I want to play original XCOM, I play original XCOM.)

BTW, why is it that all XCOM fan games have more realistic military style than original game? Original game was pretty much playing as G.I.Joes only with high casualty rate.

[Gorlom]

I kinda want to know what the gameplay is like and if it has the functions I know I like. And I also want to know the game doesn't contain those awful awful mutated humans and critters in the After- series. ( I didn't think thy were fun at all, they were just a waste of time... like an extended prologue before the game begun.)

[licker]

My two favorite squad based tactical combat games are XCom:Apoc and JA2 (including Wildfire here...).

Mostly I like these games because of the squad based combat and the 'advancement' of the troops. Throwing in research and air combat and other stuff is fine, it doesn't detract from anything when done well, but ultimately to me, if the missions suck, I won't bother with the game.

I don't much care if you're shooting other mercs or aliens or animals or hello kitties.

Now it's nice to have a good setting and story and all of that, even if it's not strictly necessary (to me). I don't mind the comparisons to XCom though, I mean what else do you compare it to? It's not a completely novel game in terms of either mechanics or basic story/setting.

[The New Romance]

Also, game needs to be able to hold on as its own game, not just because fans want to play original game again.

I don't know. If all that people want is a graphically revamped UFO:EU with some new features and a better interface, why not give it to them? Especially seeing as the holders of the original license don't bother with that.

[licker]

Well...

It really isn't about the mechanics, it's about the IP related to the story/background/universe/...

Clones still 'copy' a ton from their source material, but they (rarely?) borrow any of the actual background. Then again there's really only so many ways you can make story for games of this ilk, so there are bound to be similarities, but the names will be different, and there will be other tweeks.

All of that is pretty immaterial in my opinion, what matters is the actual game play. Whether I'm on Earth, Mars, somewhere else doesn't matter, just give me intelligent bugs to shoot on interesting maps and I'll forgive just about any sci fi cliche.

[Chris]

It's also a very handy marketing tool for us. Try explaining Xenonauts to somebody in less than ten words without using the word "X-Com" and you'll see what I mean. The game should be able to stand on its own feet though.

Also, I can't think of any commercial X-Com clones that had a realistic military setting. They all had a kinda kitsch future sci-fi style that just seemed a bit lazy and generic to me.

[Moonie]

X-com and Xenonauts both start with the letter 'X' which is a dead give-away.

[XenoMask]

Yesterday, 22:00

Gorlom

I kinda want to know what the gameplay is like and if it has the functions I know I like. And I also want to know the game doesn't contain those awful awful mutated humans and critters in the After- series. ( I didn't think thy were fun at all, they were just a waste of time... like an extended prologue before the game begun.)

Thats my point about why I liked UFO: Aftermath. It was clearly inspired by XCOM and it had some elements from it, but it was its own game. Really, thats only reason why XCOM fans call it horrible game, they played the game expecting XCOM game instead of another game that happens to be about combating aliens and researching them. Really, thats same reason why people dislike Apocalypse, they don't like art style change nor change to city focus instead of whole earth.

Yesterday, 23:11

licker

My two favorite squad based tactical combat games are XCom:Apoc and JA2 (including Wildfire here...).

Mostly I like these games because of the squad based combat and the 'advancement' of the troops. Throwing in research and air combat and other stuff is fine, it doesn't detract from anything when done well, but ultimately to me, if the missions suck, I won't bother with the game.

I don't much care if you're shooting other mercs or aliens or animals or hello kitties.

Now it's nice to have a good setting and story and all of that, even if it's not strictly necessary (to me). I don't mind the comparisons to XCom though, I mean what else do you compare it to? It's not a completely novel game in terms of either mechanics or basic story/setting.

Research, air combat and other stuff ARE part of gameplay of XCOM series. Without them they would be just another turn based strategy game where you happen to be fighting aliens.

BTW, kind of funny that they ended up doing remake of JA 2 with Frozen Synapse style "Make moves then yours and enemy's turns are played same time" thing. Why developers think that turn based strategy games won't sell?.... At least they ended up doing XCOM: Enemy Unknown because of complainers at 2K's botched attempt to sell completely unrelated game as XCOM game

I don't know. If all that people want is a graphically revamped UFO:EU with some new features and a better interface, why not give it to them? Especially seeing as the holders of the original license don't bother with that.

Because if game is identical to first game with only few differences, what is the point? I mean, sure they could add gatling laser and alien reproduction items and half human hybrids, but if its original XCOM but few extra features that were cut from original game, couldn't you just as play the original game?

Today, 01:27

Chris

It's also a very handy marketing tool for us. Try explaining Xenonauts to somebody in less than ten words without using the word "X-Com" and you'll see what I mean. The game should be able to stand on its own feet though.

Also, I can't think of any commercial X-Com clones that had a realistic military setting. They all had a kinda kitsch future sci-fi style that just seemed a bit lazy and generic to me.

"Strategy game in which you defend earth from alien invasion." Though admittedly, everyone who knows of XCOM will think "Wait a sec, isn't that basically XCOM?"

And well, you haven't checked hard enough. UFO: Aftermath has pretty realistic ones.(You start with (http://www.gamershell.com/pc/ufo_aftermath/screenshots.html?id=61670) regular helmets and military armor(http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/ufo-aftermath/screenshots/gameShotId,51664/), though later you can get these weird armor with visors(http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/ufo-aftermath/screenshots/gameShotId,51926/) and later you will get alien version of armor(things that UFO series version of Grey use all the time in covers) and can develop your own heavy armor.(http://img.blesk.cz/static/old_abc/tistene_ABC/2008/23/30-sloupec01.jpg) I can't talk about UFO: Extraterrestrials(which is different series than Afterwhatever series to everyone who didn't know) because I haven't played it, but UFO: Alien Invasion(yeah, its not commercial, but still) has this(http://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/52000/52681/ufo-alien-invasion-8.jpg) style and first you get from alien research looks like this (http://i25.tinypic.com/2s9ynuo.jpg). And Xenonauts uses too pretty realistic looking style considering that original XCOM had default be your agents wearing just jumpsuit then later getting skintight armor(Like Muton's one) with shoulder pads.

Anyway, I agree with you that majority of XCOM clones are aesthetic(third UFO: Afterwhatever game does change style to more cartoonish looking oddly) wise generic and boring. Really, I cringe every time someone says they should make XCOM remake in 3d graphics/better graphics. People don't realize that its not graphics what are important, most important thing is aesthetics. Realistic aesthetic is kind of generic and boring anyway...

Anyway, can I create a thread on suggestions section where I analyze XCOM games and XCOM clones I've played and suggest something new from what I've played?

Edited April 24, 2012 by XenoMask
Grammar

[The New Romance]

Because if game is identical to first game with only few differences, what is the point? I mean, sure they could add gatling laser and alien reproduction items and half human hybrids, but if its original XCOM but few extra features that were cut from original game, couldn't you just as play the original game?

Well, I could. And, in fact, I do. But I'm still tempted to say the answer is "no", as the original game is buggy, has a cumbersome interface, is unbalanced toward the endgame and induces eye cancer. I do get what you're trying to say, but I believe there is room for both premium remakes and "inspired by"-standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants-but-still-its-own-thing games. I don't see why one thing is necessarily better than the other, they both have advantages and disadvantages. And it's not like Xenonauts hasn't got its own style and unique features, and I don't think most other "remakes" are straight retreads either.

[XenoMask]

Thing is, you can't just spend lots of money to create exact remake of original game just for fans. I like remakes myself, but thats because most remakes I've played are remakes of games I didn't have chance to play because I wasn't born or something. Thats one good thing about remakes, they give new players chance to experience original game again. But remakes with nothing new added don't really create reason for you to buy it again unless you are just THAT big fan that you are willing to buy same game again at high price.

Also, it wouldn't really be commercially viable, if they would create exact remake of first game with few features added and if they failed to attract new audience, they could say afterwards "Well, clearly XCOM series has only cult fan base and won't print money for us so why bother with it?", publishers are interested in money only after all.

Though yeah, I guess HD remake that is exactly the same as old game won't cost that much, but I doubt they see much of a point of doing that.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown is remake of original game, but it mixes things up so that players of original game will have new experience and it will be more accessible for new audience. Though admitedly, original XCOM isn't THAT hard game to play no matter what people say and I prefer sprite graphics to 3D graphics ;P

[Gorlom]

Thats my point about why I liked UFO: Aftermath. It was clearly inspired by XCOM and it had some elements from it, but it was its own game. Really, thats only reason why XCOM fans call it horrible game, they played the game expecting XCOM game instead of another game that happens to be about combating aliens and researching them. Really, thats same reason why people dislike Apocalypse, they don't like art style change nor change to city focus instead of whole earth.

Nah the whole reason I hate Aftermath is the wannabe zombies, the unerwhelming devlivery of the promised "special scripted missions" and the hornyspacewalnut story. I'm also going to list 3D even though I know many people disagree with me on that particular point. (apparantly 3D is the same as progress)

Afterlight also has dissapointing aestethics and fucked up soldier recruitment system.

And well, you haven't checked hard enough. UFO: Aftermath has pretty realistic ones.(You start with (http://www.gamershell.com/pc/ufo_aftermath/screenshots.html?id=61670) regular helmets and military armor(http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/ufo-aftermath/screenshots/gameShotId,51664/), though later you can get these weird armor with visors(http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/ufo-aftermath/screenshots/gameShotId,51926/) and later you will get alien version of armor(things that UFO series version of Grey use all the time in covers) and can develop your own heavy armor.(http://img.blesk.cz/static/old_abc/tistene_ABC/2008/23/30-sloupec01.jpg) I can't talk about UFO: Extraterrestrials(which is different series than Afterwhatever series to everyone who didn't know) because I haven't played it, but UFO: Alien Invasion(yeah, its not commercial, but still) has this(http://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/52000/52681/ufo-alien-invasion-8.jpg) style and first you get from alien research looks like this (http://i25.tinypic.com/2s9ynuo.jpg). And Xenonauts uses too pretty realistic looking style considering that original XCOM had default be your agents wearing just jumpsuit then later getting skintight armor(Like Muton's one) with shoulder pads.

What do you mean by realistic style? that they have the looks and names of real life weapons? Or how it plays out? I think I have missunderstood what you meant by realistic military style.

[XenoMask]

I'm kind of amazed that you apparently played all three games despite liking none of them O-o Anyhoo, I personally like setting of first game(haven't played two sequels yet) though I agree that its aesthetically boring and generic and not even close to being as good as XCOM. I also agree on 3D graphics being boring compared to sprite graphics.

I meant aesthetics. What did you people think I was talking about? .-.

[Jean-Luc]

Just like Master of Magic, or Baldurs Gate or HoM&M 1/2, X-Com:EU is a beloved classic and with good reason. Comparisons with such games sequels/remakes (official or otherwise) are unavoidable and it shouldn't be unexpected that people would want more of that which gave them such pleasure the first time around.

You seem merely upset that it's not your favorite game that's being referenced (Apocalypse) which is just a different side of the same coin.

"Strategy game in which you defend earth from alien invasion."

This can mean anything. It could be a C&C type RTS. It could be something like Fallen Heaven . When one says "X-Com", everyone knows what kind of gameplay one has in mind (unless they've never played/heard of it). These comparisons doesn't mean that the remakes aren't their own games or that every change is frowned upon.

Heck, almost everything in life gets compared to something that's similar in nature. If nothing else, it greatly eases communication as opposed to explaining everything from scratch.

[Nuttss]

When its so good it "defines" the game play, comparison are unavoidable. Doom is still referenced now and then to modern FPS. Two good points Jean-Luc, people are going to want more of what they enjoyed (even if mutually contradictory between fans) and a reference so well know is going to be used as a short cut. It is how we speak, unavoidable.

To XenoMask comment, this game has to be fun on its own regardless of how much it copy's or strays from x-com formula. Personally I'm less interested in this game as a x-com successor than I am in a game that is fun and uses elements that I greatly enjoyed and that are not that well done among its recent competitors.

[XenoMask]

To XenoMask comment, this game has to be fun on its own regardless of how much it copy's or strays from x-com formula. Personally I'm less interested in this game as a x-com successor than I am in a game that is fun and uses elements that I greatly enjoyed and that are not that well done among its recent competitors.

Thats pretty much my view on this matter, except I'm still annoyed by the "True successor" thing. It has nothing to do with XCOM Apocalypse(though I admit that it might be part of it as same people usually claim Apocalypse isn't true XCOM game.), its just that I can't see there being "true successor" to XCOM at all. Good games based on same idea yes, but not something that replaces XCOM.

Anyway, its kind of funny how many XCOM clones there exist, yet not enough to count as its own subgenre.

BTW, UFO: Alien Invasion is pretty great one, but it has problems resulting from the fact that its not finished game, hopefully by the time it is done problems that it currently have are fixed.

[The New Romance]

Thats pretty much my view on this matter, except I'm still annoyed by the "True successor" thing. It has nothing to do with XCOM Apocalypse(though I admit that it might be part of it as same people usually claim Apocalypse isn't true XCOM game.), its just that I can't see there being "true successor" to XCOM at all. Good games based on same idea yes, but not something that replaces XCOM.

Anyway, its kind of funny how many XCOM clones there exist, yet not enough to count as its own subgenre.

Yeah, but how many of them are really finished? UFO: Extraterrestrials 1, but I suspect that's about it. The X-COM-genre has a nasty habit of swallowing developers.

A question: Which game claims to be the true successor to X-COM? Also, I believe many people want a specific follow-up to UFO: Enemy Unknown, not to the X-COM series per se (and even then, Apocalypse wouldn't be the last installment of that series, or would it?).

[Gorlom]

TNR: the After-math/-shock/-light are finished games. (btw do they have UFO interception? I don't recall any of that atm... how were missions generated?)

the X-com series had an spaceflightsimulator shooter (interceptor) and a third person shooter (enforcer).

[XenoMask]

Yeah, but how many of them are really finished? UFO: Extraterrestrials 1, but I suspect that's about it. The X-COM-genre has a nasty habit of swallowing developers.

A question: Which game claims to be the true successor to X-COM? Also, I believe many people want a specific follow-up to UFO: Enemy Unknown, not to the X-COM series per se (and even then, Apocalypse wouldn't be the last installment of that series, or would it?).

No actual game does that, thankfully, but XCOM fans does. I mean, just check Desura review section for both Xenonauts and UFO: Alien Invasion, there are lots of players comparing them to original game.

TNR: the After-math/-shock/-light are finished games. (btw do they have UFO interception? I don't recall any of that atm... how were missions generated?)

the X-com series had an spaceflightsimulator shooter (interceptor) and a third person shooter (enforcer).

Well, Aftermath at least has interception.(When your fighter toucher ufo, it goes to pre rendered cutscene that either ends with your craft getting shot down or alien craft getting shot down. It gets kind of repetitive even though music is nice) And how were missions generated? Well, I'm not sure... I think they were random... But then again, so many things are seemingly random until you realize they aren't actually random. Anyway, there are multiple kinds of missions(like rescuing your pilot from fighter that got shot down) but... I need to play Aftermath again because I'm forgetting details

Edited April 24, 2012 by XenoMask

[The New Romance]

TNR: the After-math/-shock/-light are finished games. (btw do they have UFO interception? I don't recall any of that atm... how were missions generated?)

the X-com series had an spaceflightsimulator shooter (interceptor) and a third person shooter (enforcer).

Yes, of course, but I thought those were somewhat official games. With the word "clone" that XenoMask used I was more on the trail of fan projects, indie development and unofficial stuff. And I believe those don't get finished too often.

[Gorlom]

I havent heard of the studio that did UFO: After- series. Some czech studio i think?

What makes them official, what makes them not "indie"? Does getting a publisher make you non indie?

[pack.wolf]

Because if game is identical to first game with only few differences, what is the point? I mean, sure they could add gatling laser and alien reproduction items and half human hybrids, but if its original XCOM but few extra features that were cut from original game, couldn't you just as play the original game?

Some of your points I can agree on, some I don't get, but the above one I strongly disagree. Civilization 3 was worse than 4, but still extremely similar. Medieval 2 beats Medieval 1 outright. Evolution in games happens all the time and for the most part it's good. A game doesn't have to be completely original and innovative, often it's more than enough to get rid of the kinks of it's predecessor. Heck, I doubt it's even possible any more to develop a completely new and innovative game today because everything has been done already if you break them down to their most basic components.

Sure, I'll probably still play XCOM one time or another even after Xenonauts is finished. But it'll be a lot less often and mainly because of nostalgia.

[XenoMask]

I do normally actually hate "If remake is same as original with few new things, whats the point" argument, but XCOM is series that was while ago thought to be "dead" because of crappy sequels that have nothing to do with original three. Those kind of series need new games instead of old games remade. Series can't survive if it doesn't get new fans and its hard to get new fans by just remaking old game for old fans.

[licker]

I do normally actually hate "If remake is same as original with few new things, whats the point" argument, but XCOM is series that was while ago thought to be "dead" because of crappy sequels that have nothing to do with original three. Those kind of series need new games instead of old games remade. Series can't survive if it doesn't get new fans and its hard to get new fans by just remaking old game for old fans.

I don't quite follow your logic.

A new game will attract new fans simply because it's a new game. Whether it borrows heavily from something in the past or strikes out on its own direction.

What we are talking about in this genre is limited in just how far it can go before it's no longer 'Strategic Management and Tactical Squad Battles' anymore. The name and the story are the least important aspects (unless the story is simply horrible). The game mechanics and the look are what will ultimately sell copies *and* keep the community playing it and pimping it. A name can carry a lot of initial sales though, but look at what happened with MoO3, and MoO was the gold standard for space based 4x, but that is no longer true because MoO3 took the name and the IP and then proceeded to shit all over them with broken mechanics and uncompelling game play^1.

Xenonauts is *not* XCom, but it is a spiritual successor. It will attract new fans to the genre (hopefully), but would probably have attracted even more if it could be branded as XCom. UFO: ET2 is also *not* XCom, but it too will bring new fans to the genre, just as the latest actual XCom game will. None of them are direct remakes though, but most fans probably don't want a direct remake anyway.

^1 for the record, I enjoyed MoO3 with the fan patch and some of the mods, it became quite a nice game, but the facts remain that its launch and subsequent mishandling by Atari and Quicksilver pretty much killed that franchise for the present. And that was a decade ago...

[XenoMask]

I was talking about official XCOM remakes, some people express opinion that XOM: Enemy Unknown should be same as original XCOM but with prettier graphics.

Really, some people are suggesting that Xenonauts should be as close to original as possible, why else one question in FAQ is "Will this game have Chrysalids?" That and there is 1:1 remake thread by that guy who wants underwater missions for some reason.

[Gorlom]

I think the guy asking about chrysalids just wanted the type of monster that charges your soldiers and make them into enemies because he liked the mechanic. Not that he wanted there to be carbon copies with the same graphics and name.