XCOM: The First Trailer

By Jim Rossignol on June 12th, 2010 at 10:51 am.


This looks awesome.

, , .

500 Comments »

  1. Dubious says:

    That looks… blobby.

    • Peter Radiator Full Pig says:

      I wpuld of gone with tar-y.

    • Sonic Goo says:

      Looks like the Inhibitors from the Revelation Space books by Alastair Reynolds.

    • Bret says:

      Could I join the Jim club, or is it Jim exclusive?

      Because Alec isn’t named Jim, and he’s allowed to like this.

    • Jimbo says:

      We’re pretty relaxed about the name thing, but mastery of the reply system is a non-negotiable entry requirement. Sorry.

    • R3D says:

      i must say i thought of Gish

  2. faelnor says:

    “This looks awesome.”
    It looks good, yes. But it looks boring as hell.
    It seems that Irrational want to become the worldwide specialists in generic, uninspired shooters in unusual and beautiful environments.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Boring. Right. I’m really not getting “generic shooter” from that. “Shooter”, certainly.

    • faelnor says:

      You probably liked Bioshock.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Or I could have been disappointed by it. MYSTERY TASTE CONUNDRUM!

    • DJ Phantoon says:

      Tastes like… victory. And Courtney Love’s spit. Oh god victory hooker spit why god whyyyyyyyyyyyyy

    • fnsmatt says:

      Out of curiosity, what from that trailer doesn’t give you the “generic shooter” vibe? I see nothing there that hasn’t been done before, and nothing outside the X-COM brand that would make me the slightest bit interested.

      It is hard to tell anything substantial from a trailer, but this doesn’t seem like a promising start.

    • faelnor says:

      I’m sorry, I realise I do sound like a rambling idiot.
      But for me, this and Bioshock suffer from the same syndrome of really pretentious, tedious and unforgivably shallow mechanics with an terrible “console FPS” aspect tackled on.
      It’s shiny, it’s atmospheric, it’s probably written better than most games, but I don’t trust Irrational to know what makes the core of a good game.
      If I get the time later I’ll try to explain what I mean by analysing the trailer.

    • faelnor says:

      “with an terrible”, really!

    • Tusque d'Ivoire says:

      i do understand what you mean with consol-ey flavor to an FPS game, though, we’ve been getting that a lot since someone decided you could play an FPS with an analogue stick, which i still don’t understand (honestly, how do they do it?). But even though 2K have been known to do that in the past, I’m decidedly keeping my hopes up for a smart shooter with a nice novel feel to it, maybe like Prey (that might be subjective).

    • Premium User Badge

      James G says:

      Pretentious?

      It probably doesn’t help that that is one of my least favourite words in the entire English language, but to see it applied to Bioshock is a bit disappointing.

      I also think it is a little unfair to class XCOM as generic on the basis of a few seconds of gameplay footage. Certainly, Alec’s preview suggests that the game has the potential to be nicely removed from your most generic FPSes. Maybe not necessarily mind blowingly innovative, and obviously some of the neater ideas could be implemented in the most uninspired of manners, but it does sound that we certainly aren’t talking corridor shooter.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      So what do you guys regard as the characteristics of a console-y shooter, then?

    • Larington says:

      I’d like to know the answer to that question as well, because I’m not sure myself either. The only time I think console shooter is when it looks as though the players aim is shifting in an odd way akin to how it would work when played on those damned analogue sticks and that’s a commentary on how the game is being played rather than how it’s been designed.

    • Jimbo says:

      Don’t worry, Jim, I liked it too. JIMS UNITE FOR OPTIMISM!

    • Theory says:

      Characteristics of console shooters, eh? Let me try. I’m not being specific to the XCOM trailer here.

      - Easy
      - Autoaim
      - Slow moving player/hostiles
      - Huge, chunky UI
      - Big, open environments with little cover (those which do have cover dedicate it an entire button and advertise it as a USP!)
      - Yet at the same time, combat sans sniper rifle is close-quarters
      - Regenerating health (I quite like this, actually)
      - NO DEDICATED SERVERS

    • Theory says:

      - Little/no z-axis moving or even looking

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Yeah, I’d qualify the stupid slow clunky movement as the most “console-ish” aspect of console FPSes.

      Also, I’m a bit disappointed that the blobs move the way they do. I was expecting more slithering and less fluttering.

    • Premium User Badge

      Hodge says:

      I say no to optimism! Kick out the JIMS!

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Bioshock had pretentious mechanics? My. Calling the plot of Bioshock, let alone its game mechanics, pretentious strikes me as setting a depressingly low bar.

      I haven’t actually played X-COM (cry for me, for I am young), but it did have men with guns, yes? This seems like a decent attempt at moving the series into shooter territory. As far as I can tell the defining feature of X-COM is investigating towns, finding an alien threat that is far too powerful for you, taking some pictures and running away until you can return with more powerful weapons. That seems to be what the trailer is going out of its way to promise, while also showing off some shooting.

      I also like that they seem to be going for relatively few enemy styles. It’ll be interesting to see if they can pull it off without taking the usual menagerie-of-aliens approach.

      As for the shooting, that looks a little, well, Bioshock-ey, which worries me. I didn’t think the shooting in Bioshock was up to much, and this doesn’t look to have a plasmid system to prop it up.

      All in all, though, looks good!

    • kyrieee says:

      Generic? Maybe not the right word, it has a somewhat unique setting at least.
      Uninteresting is more apt.

      I would’ve dismissed it as ‘another-shooter-I-don’t-care-about’ had I not known it was X-COM. I think that trailer made the game look about as interesting as Singularity (which nobody cares about). As for the ‘consol-y’ part I think that what makes the trailer convey that is how sluggishly they aim and move in it. BioShock was that way too though.

      Anyway, zero interest

    • MD says:

      I reckon tiny FOV qualifies as a symptom of consolitis. If it’s going to be small by default, please let us change it!

    • Don says:

      @Rossignol: So what do you guys regard as the characteristics of a console-y shooter, then?

      Well I’d say:

      1) Any necessity for button mashing, usually in the form of QTEs.
      2) Unavoidable situations, such as in Dead Space where the tentacle thing in the wall was always going to grab you when you walked past. The option to lob a grenade down the hole and sprint (or in the case of Dead Space’s protagonist, amble) past is never allowed even when previous experience should allow your character some alternative to waiting to be grabbed followed by (1).

      Neither are console exclusives of course, but games designed primarily for consoles seem to use (or overuse) these kind of things more than PC games.

    • Coded One says:

      If you thought that this and Bioshock look “generic”, then what would you say makes a game unique?

      The only links I see from Bioshock and XCOM that could make them “generic” is the fact that they both are FPS’s. Everything else is largely different. Sure the time period’s similar, but does a 50′s era shooter really come off to you as “generic”?

      Maybe the problem here is just that you don’t want XCOM to be ruined by porting it to an FPS, especially one that is consolefied. I agree that most console ports (FPS’s specifically) are terrible pieces of shit that rely too much on pandering to the common joystick. However, simply because your favorite series is being turned into an FPS is no means to instantly hate it. From other articles on XCOM, it seems that the developer does want to take this game in a strategic, investigative direction. However, the only gameplay footage we are seeing is from the shoot-y bits. Give them some time till we see some deeper gameplay footage, then we can judge them like the demanding children we are.

      Also, if you think Bioshock was “generic”, then you probably just hate all FPS’s.

    • Michael says:

      @theory

      You just described Doom (except for regenerating health).

      When people say call something a console game, what they mean is that the developer has simplified some aspects of the game in order to give it more popular appeal. This has nothing to do with consoles really, except that a more popular title is more likely to get ported to the consoles.

      For example, the simplifications in Deus Ex 2 weren’t really about making the game suitable for console release – the original didn’t sell very well on the PC – they were just trying to make a game people might actually buy.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      Generic shooter? Well, it has men in it, with guns.

      But then… SO DO ALL SHOOTERS.

    • Jimbobb says:

      I’m with Jim.

    • snv says:

      The worst console FPS atrocities harbour from the inferior hardware.

      This does lead to forcing bad design decisions. Because it is not possible to be fast and precise this leads to the spray and pray mechanics.
      Typical: the player and an enemy stand (because moving increases the spray angles) and shoot at each other by the clips. Occasional hits which the player receives reduce the shield / health, but after the fight it will recharge so this is not a tactical element, but rather just a way of forcing you to wait occasionally.

      Movement almost always feels remote and sluggish – more like unreal engine games than id tech games. (Never have tried an actual id tech game on a console though)

      Also everything has to be rather huge and chunky, or else you could not really recognize it on a TV.

      Overused post-processing effects, like depth of field ( hate that one ), bloom (because it is cheaper than antialieasing).

      Also bad control schemes, because of the limited amount of controller buttons – the low user interface bandwidth, which just can not compete with simple point & click – you have lots of nested submenus. Strange bindings, usually not even changeable.

      Checkpointing istead of free saving/loading.

      I could go on and on why consoles games suck, but in here its like preaching to the choir, so…

      But (!), the problem is that this does not affect just console games. I couldn’t care less if that was the case. Instead, not just ports, every game designed to be also playable on a console gets diminished by the consoles limits. And lots of these effects can`t be corrected by some checkmark in an options screen or by increasing the resolution – the whole look & feel and balance of the game is inferior to what a PC only title could be.

    • Suprore says:

      This is NOT irrational games. It’s 2k marin, formerly 2k australia.

    • Theory says:

      You just described Doom (except for regenerating health).

      Which was designed to played with…drumroll please…a keyboard! Not a coincidence at all. :-)

    • jalf says:

      But for me, this and Bioshock suffer from the same syndrome of really pretentious, tedious and unforgivably shallow mechanics

      Really?

      Leaving Bioshock out of it (which was a major disappointment for me),
      what on Earth are pretentious mechanics? I can understand pretentious stories (cough cough braid cough, etc), but how can game mechanics be pretentious?

      And how do you, from a trailer, determine that the game is going to have tedious and shallow game mechanics? Given that it hasn’t actually shown off that much gameplay, yes, you do sound like a rambling idiot.

      It’s shiny, it’s atmospheric, it’s probably written better than most games, but I don’t trust Irrational to know what makes the core of a good game.

      Oh, I see. So you’re saying that because the trailer actually looks good, and you haven’t experienced the gameplay yet, the gameplay must suck.

      Yes. I’d say “rambling idiot” fits the bill. No offense ;)

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      I think by “mechanics”, he means the Little Sister choices, and by “pretentious”, he means “I didn’t like them”.

      I’d call them unsubtle and ham-handed, perhaps, but not pretentious.

    • WiPa says:

      Everyone is arguing about this, but nobody would care if it wasn’t called X-COM.

      So marketing win there then.

    • GameOverMan says:

      Even if I am and always have been a PC player using mouse + keyboard in FPS games, I think that the sluggish aim when using a typical console controller gives an impression of weight, in fact, when watching YouTube videos I find dissorienting the twitch aiming. One frame the player is looking towards the horizon and the next one it shows a completely different scene, without any transition, since a quick mouse movement resulted in a 180 degree turn, however, if the video shows a console game the same action seems more “realistic” and there is a trade-off every time you configure the controller’s sensitivity setting, as it should be, high sensitivity = less precise turning and/or aiming.

      When using a mouse it seems like you are controlling a weightless camera, not something attached to a body. I admit that console controllers aren’t ideal either, (I think their sensitivity should be adjustable on the fly, and apply some kind of acceleration, for example) but to me they seem more suited to “simulate” how a humanoid creature turns and aims a weapon. That’s not to say that they are the best controller for every game genre or sub-genre, far from it. A FPS game like Quake Arena is (and should be) based on twitch movements, fast reaction times and even faster aiming, ultra-quick scoping, “I have been just shot in the back but I’m going to do a lightning fast 180 degree turn while jumping at the same time and I’ll shoot that bastard in the face”, all those things only possible with a mouse. Other types of games benefit greatly from using it, too, so both controllers can complement each other, not being exclusive.

    • fnsmatt says:

      One major trait of a “console-y” shooter is the lack of a fluid movement system. With a stick that only allows for gradual changes in the camera’s PoV, console-y shooters by necessity are made to play more slowly than PC-native shooters do, and usually end up feeling clunky when ported to the PC and played with a mouse.

    • Nick says:

      “Or I could have been disappointed by it. MYSTERY TASTE CONUNDRUM!”

      I love you, Jim. All is forgiven for the MoA:AA misunderstanding. Ok, so I may have been harbouring that myself all these years, but still.

    • Bret says:

      Ah, that’s better. Now do I have what it takes, Jim team wise?

    • whalleywhat says:

      “Pretentious” has been rendered almost as meaningless as “hipster.” It’s just a blanket pejorative for people who don’t know where to direct their anger. And console shooters have arrows that tell you where to go. Also, I’d say one of the major differences between SS2 and Bioshock is that how you choose to “level up” in SS2 has profound consequences on how you’re able to play the game and choices you’re able to make, whereas in Bioshock, much like in Dead Space, it largely just affects how easy it is to kill things.

    • Shalrath says:

      “- Little/no z-axis moving or even looking”

      Interesting side-note to this – at the companies I’ve worked at that do cross platform shooters (usually PC/360, but occasionally with the PS3 ruining everything) entire levels made for the PC will be reworked for the 360. Why? Because almost all movement in 360 shooters is strafing. Because the analog stick is, what, 100 DPI? That means you can’t have things pop up behind you, or rapidly changing from left to right. Try to imagine any fight in Stalker where your left-right movement was about 1/10th that speed and precision.

      So what ends up happening is that you generally ‘guide’ the area you want to shoot at, not the actual SPOT. Picture it as the difference between sniping at someone with a big rifle, and ‘fire-hosing’ at someone with a machine gun. The techniques therein are similar to the differences between PC gaming and console gaming.

      Also, the average 360 gamer tends to ‘need’ to be lead more. There are more bright highlights showing where to go, and VERY linear paths. Even if one area has multiple entrances, they are almost always supposed to be heavily lit by level lighting, HUD arrows, etc.

      When designing for the two for multiplayer, the main theories I’ve heard/discussed/etc are: Make It Like Quake Three for PC, and Make It Like Halo for 360. That meaning: quick, fast, flowing gameplay for PC, and slow, methodic, ‘ambush’ style for 360.

      Hope that helps some.

    • Merc says:

      Console controller joysticks are now analog, but have a massive dead zone, so they’re almost impossible to aim precisely.

      To me, this game doesn’t look like all that much fun, but I’m not a huge shooter fan either. It just gives me hope that the franchise will be given a bit more life, and we might see a turn-based strategy X-Com (or at least a RTS XCOM).

  3. Baka says:

    To be honest, this trailer didn’t impress me very much.
    I’m still keeping my hopes up though!

  4. Krimson says:

    When did X-com become the X-files? Where are the greys?

    to be honest, I was never the biggest fan of X-com to begin with, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the series. Why not call it something else? If this isn’t an attempt to cash in on a beloved IP then I’m Mahatma Gandhi.

    Despite that, yeah, it does look pretty good.

    • bananaphone says:

      My guess is Irrational had this game in the works for a while and someone figured it would sell better if it had a recognisable name, hence the reason it doesn’t really seem to have much to do with the XCOM of old (from what I know, anyway, never really played ‘em).

  5. Tusque d'Ivoire says:

    looks like incredible fun!

  6. Alabaster Crippens says:

    That does look incredible.

    It doesn’t look like X-Com, natch, but it looks pretty gorgeous and exciting and like a shoot em up. I think it’ll be a rock solid shoot em up. Perhaps even the one FPS every two years I consider buying, but still, that’s something, right?

  7. fallingmagpie says:

    zomg the blob totally went in that guys face and ate him

    • DJ Phantoon says:

      That right there is what got me interested in the game. However, I’m gonna wait on it.

      It’s very likely this is all just of the first “level”.

  8. Conlaen says:

    The trailer suggests that all you’ll be doing is fight black blobs.

    • fnsmatt says:

      I think it’s supposed to be a social commentary on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    • Jimbo says:

      Huh, that was my first thought too. At the very least a metaphor for US dependence on oil.

      (I’m serious)

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Haven’t the devs indicated that there are a lot of different kinds of alien, but that they’re trying not to give all of them away? Maybe I’m imagining that.

    • Taillefer says:

      Jason, as though they don’t want to give everything away and leave some surprises for when one actually plays the game?

      What a strange idea.

    • Conlaen says:

      I get that there probably will be different aliens too. But just saying that the trailer doesn’t really suggest that. I have high hopes for this being a good game, even worthy of the name XCOM. But the trailer needed a bit more diversity for me.

    • Taillefer says:

      Well, I’m not sure seemingly instinct-driven blobs could construct and fly a giant, shape-changing, inter-dimensional monolith of awesome power.

    • Conlaen says:

      @Taillefer: You don’t give seemingly instinct-driven blobs enough credit :)

    • Tei says:

      Give genetic engineering some time, and we (humans) we will start adding technology concepts to our own genetic heritage, so people will born with enough science to build things at 2 years old. This could be usefull, nowdays our first 20/30 years are wasted, because we have to learn a lot of things. Is ineficient. So embeding all our science and technology on our genes will able for productive civilians very quickly. Also, in case of a war, is pretty much a need to have a more powerful industry than the enemy (human or alien). We will probably need that gigantic engineering push, so people start helping in the industry of building letal militar drones at 4 years old.

    • Nick says:

      hmm, oddly prescient of them.

    • jsdn says:

      @Tei No idea where that came from, but I’m pretty sure that’s still science fiction at this point in time. We barely even know how the brain works. It may not be possible to put a complex thought into a gene.

  9. Thiefsie says:

    Hmmmm average trailer but they get kudos for gameplay… only 1 enemy type shown?? hmmm.

    Will wait for more info on this one. Looks happily a fair bit like Swat 4 tho so that could be good.

    • Rinox says:

      Actally, the obelisk in the sky is also a sort of ‘enemy’.

      It looks amazing, and I must admit that my earlier scepticism has been completely overcome. From this trailer and the extensive previews I’ve read so far, it looks pretty damn amazing.

    • Sonic Goo says:

      Yeah, people go on about the blobs and the shooting but the floating ….things seem much more intrigueing.

  10. Sam Crisp says:

    I liked the trailer. I can’t wait to see more from this game. I want to see some of the other enemies and locations.

  11. DrugCrazed says:

    Holy hell that looks like fun.

  12. Greg Wild says:

    As I’ve said elsewhere, the style looks awesome, but the shooty-bangs looks like it plays like console fps shit. Could just be down to it being a console it was taken from, and that more detailed combat hasn’t been implemented yet, but frankly I can see the combat being a major let down compared with the rest of the game… which is frankly a misuse of the xcom license. Switching to a new death ray while you squad mate is melted isn’t enough depth in the next episode of one of gaming’s greatest tactics game series.

  13. Zaphid says:

    Killing it with fire has to be enough, because you can’t nuke it from orbit (yet).

  14. tunnel says:

    OK, I’m excited about the game now. I’m also going to stop complaining about it using the X-Com name. Although I really wish it didn’t use the X-Com name.

  15. Premium User Badge

    tikey says:

    With everything they’ve shown I just don’t understand the need to attach de X-Com ip to this project.
    It seems interesting in its own right but it doesn’t seem to be am X-Com at all.
    And I’m not saying it because of the art style or the theme. X-Com could have been about a werewolf organization fighting mummies that travel in parapent but if it kept the gameplay it could still be an X-Com.
    This seems to be an FPS with some management elements.

    And I just don’t understand why the X-Com franchise. Is it really that popular/known/relevant that it could have an influence in the sales of the game? Because it seems to me that X-Com despite being awesome games, they are more of a cult following.

    (I’m sorry if there are any grammatical mistakes, it’s 7am, didn’t sleep and english is not my native language)

    • robrob says:

      @tikey

      Sorry, didn’t notice your post before venting so I said pretty much the same thing as you. But I totally agree, it seems like a bizarre choice of licence for something which seems a lot closer to Bioshock than X-COM.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Possibly the same logic that gave us Fallout 3? The devs are fans, but aren’t going to get paid to make an X-Com game, so they’re taking the name and making the game they’re allowed to make?

    • Premium User Badge

      tikey says:

      I was thinking that maybe it was actually a requirement from the publisher. Like the game was attached to a known IP so it would be “less risky”.

      I just wish they would give us a new IP that has its own merits, rather than clinging to an older ip just to play it safe . I’m really tired of remakes/reimagining/reboot. Not only in games, but in movies too.

  16. Ybfelix says:

    Someone write to BP tell them cleaning up oil spill with shotgun is super effective

    • DJ Phantoon says:

      Do you REALIZE how much ammo that would take?

      Probably like 5% of our (us Americans) supply!

      Then WHO would fight the zombies?

      Actually the WHO would probably be adept at eliminating zombies since they’re unhealthy. (Not The Who.)

    • kyynis says:

      @DJ Phantoon
      That’s it, your pun licence is officially revoked as of this moment. I hope it was worth it.

    • Frankie The Patrician[PF] says:

      @DJ Phantoon
      Knock, knock
      “Who’s there?”
      “Yes!” (Or alternatively: “No, Yes!”)

    • Frankie The Patrician[PF] says:

      I fail (at life):
      The first Who should’ve been WHO
      :)

  17. salasq says:

    The juxtaposition of bland retro setting and uncommonly alien aliens might very well pay off.

  18. Skinlo says:

    I imagine this will be one of the game, probably like the new Deux Ex, that all the people with rose tinted glasses who played the original when it came out will think is rubbish, whilst all those who have never played it before will like it. I’m predicting 70-80% in the magazines for this.

    I personally think it looks quite entertaining, but I’m too young to have played the original!

    • robrob says:

      “Rose tinted glasses” is a term that comes out every time there’s a discussion of a venerable series but in the case of X-COM it’s complete nonsense. I played it for the first time just recently with no experience of it at a younger age and it still stands on its own as a powerfully compelling strategy game. Deus Ex is similarly just as good today as it was at release. It’s a baseless pejorative to throw around, implying that the only reason people enjoy these games is because of misplaced nostalgia.

    • poop says:

      dont forget that the term is also a very useful way to indirectly call people who are not excited for old franchise FPS reboot #6598 Dumb Nerds Who Are Living In The Past

    • Premium User Badge

      Fede says:

      X-COM is still valid today. I played it for the first time this year, and I would only improve pathfinding (at times the movements aren’t optimal, but it’s just a small fix), the UI and add some more tooltips.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      This “rose-tinted spectacles” argument is most often used by people who argue that you’re not allowed to like an old game if there’s a newer sequel/remake out. It’s pants-on-head retarded. I’ve had it spouted at me non-stop for the last two days because apparently, Fallout 3 is inherently better at everything than Fallout 1/2 (including being Fallout 1/2, apparently) and Fallout 3′s existence immediately makes Fallout 1/2 irrelevant and shit.

      No. Some games still have all of their legs to stand on, regardless of age. Some games are even better than their remakes/decade-late-sequels because they were made in an age where the primary market wasn’t teenaged console players (it was teenaged PC players instead). Yes, the sequelmakes sometimes have their own merits, but they’re never any good at being sequels or remakes because they’re so far from the originals.

    • Bret says:

      Rose glasses do not apply too much to the first X-Com. Had flaws, but it is an all time classic.

      Does apply to TFTD. Geesh.

    • Nick says:

      “Does apply to TFTD”

      Not really, its brilliant. I still play it today and its bastard hardness is a great appeal. That and I much prefer its alien design and general asthetics to UFO’s.

      Could do without the two part terror missions on the ships though, jesus.. an alien hiding in a toilet is extremely unfun.

  19. robrob says:

    This looks like it could be an interesting game but what does it have to do with X-COM? It has a surface similarity to Apocalypse in the 50s aesthetic but that is pretty much it. Couldn’t they have called it Kennedyshock or something and saved themselves a lot of trouble? Just watching the trailer it looks like 2K are trying to do something different and original but the association with X-COM makes it very difficult to appreciate it on its own merits. I think a lot of people would have even been fine with it being called Enforther 2 since it at least sets expectations at a more reasonable level and is more representative of the kind of game it is.

    • Ybfelix says:

      Well, to people who knew the XCOM name, they did get your attention; for those who didn’t, what’s the harm? It’s not like the former crowd would go out and tell the latter to boycott the game.

    • robrob says:

      @Ybfelix: I would guess that fans of the series, already burned by Enforther, wouldn’t be much interested in it. So who are they trying to appeal to? People unfamiliar with the series? In which case, why not just use a different name altogether? I just don’t see the sense in it. They’re setting expectations unreasonably high just to target the few people who will buy anything with the X-COM name attached.

    • Ybfelix says:

      Ah I think in this case its intention is likely to catch the attention of videogame journalists, a lot of whom probably recognize the franchise due to professional osmosis, but not actually played the old games. So it has a bullet point other than “from the creator of Bioshock 2″

    • Jimbo says:

      A handful of people bitching about it on RPS is hardly “a lot of trouble” though is it? They only use these brands for recognition and the extra attention it brings. Why should they care if a few old-timers don’t approve? They aren’t asking for our permission. We (you) aren’t that important.

    • robrob says:

      @Jimbo

      I think there’s a crossover between people who enjoyed the original and potential customers of this game and that many of them will feel the brand is being exploited. The reaction in these comments threads certainly supports that idea. It’s not going to be a huge amount of sales but at the same time there aren’t a great number of people who are going to recognise the brand. It is not a huge amount of trouble but it does seem to be unnecessarily generating ill will. Ybefelix’s suggestion that they’re doing it to appeal to journos is a little too cynical, I think it’s more likely being done to generate discussion like you suggest. Still I think they need to be aware that generating a lot of negative responses from fans of the series is not necessarily a positive activity.

    • Jimbo says:

      Yeah there is a crossover, but as I said it’s a tiny number of people compared to how many copies these guys will be aiming to sell. And even most of that small group will end up buying it out of curiosity anyway.

      Sad to say, but I don’t think ‘that’ audience (the big one) really cares about negative buzz from ‘this’ audience. Chances are, if your intention is to sell multi-million copies and you find yourself pissing off the fanbase of an old game along the way, then you’re probably doing something right.

      The exact same thing happened prior to Fallout 3 coming out and that was a massive success, outselling all previous Fallout games combined. Deus Ex 3 will comfortably surpass Deus Ex sales, etc. etc.

      Branding just works, whether they take the original fanbase with them or not.

  20. madU says:

    I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!

  21. fnsmatt says:

    I’m no graphics snob, but did anyone else think the animations looked a little stilted (particularly the woman chopping towards the beginning) and the character models look a little low on the polygon count?

    Looks like No One Lives Forever-era graphics coated in a massive sheen of bloom.

    • Bob Bobson says:

      While a number of the animations lacked polish, I think that the woman at the beginning was supposed to look a little not quite right in the movements on account of being a blob in human shape.

    • Sonic Goo says:

      That might also explain why she’s shopping vegetables in the sink.

    • alway says:

      It has to run on a console with hardware from 2006, remember?

    • admanb says:

      The fact that games actually have to run is one of the few things I don’t dislike about console-dominated game development.

  22. Premium User Badge

    Tinus says:

    XCOM: Shoot Blobs.

    That was depressingly shit.

    • Azradesh says:

      I’m sure that blobs are not the only thing you fight. -_-

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Well, you only fight Head Crabs in Half-Life, right?

    • HidesHisEyes says:

      Jim; these were the people who, years ago, were saying:

      HALF LIFE 2: USE GRAVITY GUN TO SHOOT THINGS AT COMBINE

      “Well, that looked remarkably shit. Why even call it half life, if it’s not going to be about a theoretical physicist trapped in a science facility shooting aliens? Who are these combine guys, what happened to the headcrab zombies? Where are the marines?

      Just looks like a console port built around a gimmicky gun that lets you fire toilets.”

    • Tei says:

      “Just looks like a console port built around a gimmicky gun that lets you fire toilets.”

      I don’t remember people calling HL2 a console port because it whas not.

      This one (XCOM) don’t feel particulary consoley to me, but probably It will be.

    • Pew says:

      Trailer made it look like a fun shooter to me. Looks like a game that has little to do with the original (why not show any strategic impact in the trailer?) with a different feel, weapons, and level design. Probably the younger audience will think it’s the best thing ever, while old farts go “why isn’t this weapon in the game” or “the atmosphere in the original was far better’. Name-wise, I think it won’t come close to its predecessors.

      So, kind of like Half Life 2 then! Ho ho ho.

    • Premium User Badge

      Tinus says:

      Alright, alright. I was obviously overreacting to something that contains so little actual information. I’m not actually as shallow as you’re all hurrying to point out. ;)

      Here’s the thing: I’m disappointed that while they create such a lovely mysterious and genuinely alien context, the only way they show the player interacting with it is through a shotgun. There’s just so much they can do with this, and thus I sincerely hope that what we get is not a mere corridor shooter. “But what if you could talk to the monsters”, and all that.

    • Premium User Badge

      drewski says:

      @ Pew – for the same reason Dragon Age trailers were full of sex, violence and heavy metal music, because inventory management is boring.

      Trailers are designed to hype a game, not give you a realistic overview of the gameplay. Nobody wants to watch someone wander around a base talking to people and clicking menu screens in a trailer.

    • Pew says:

      @Drewski: I can understand it from a marketing perspective, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t disappoint me personally :)

      Also, it speaks volumes on the target audience. Or the one they think they will get the most profit from? Hmmm! Who I am kidding though, I’ll get it anyway to see how it turned out in the end…

    • Rive says:

      I still remember the first Half-Life trailer. Thought the same thing. With the trailer only showing head-crabs. Not.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Looked gash to me. Awful, awful graphics in my opinion. And the gameplay did seem Bioshocky, which while I enjoyed I don’t really want to play again.

  23. TheApologist says:

    That did look fun. I like the slow, deliberate looking pace of the shooting-carefully-to-save-people-from-the-blobby-things play.

    Maybe this is a weird connection, but did anyone else get a Zelda Twilight Princess vibe from the bad guys. Shadowy type thing and big black flat vortexy things in the sky.

    Tops.

  24. Larington says:

    I do wish these trailers would stop focusing on one aspect of the friggin game.
    I know it has a base element, and you can do research at the base, and presumably some other things like getting new gear built, but HOW CAN I TELL IF YOU FAIL TO SHOW IT IN THE TRAILER?
    Huh?
    By failing to show the game in full, you’re going to give people the wrong impression about your game and by doing so potentially fall into the trap where everyone will assume it’s just a game about shooting.

    This is something that’s really starting to wind me up, to be honest.

    • D says:

      Shooters sell well. There’s more than a year to release. It wasn’t all CGI, and I’m thankful enough for that.
      Can’t blame the commenters here who go “Generic shooter!” but they should do themselves a favor and read up on it instead of writing. Trailers will be trailers.

    • Wulf says:

      I agree with this completely, they really need to show short clips of all aspects of the game, even if they’re just mock-ups (and they could warn us of such), just to give us an idea of what the full game is about.

      To be honest, all I got from that was a retro-future B-movie where blobs are shot, so I can’t say I’m interested, but I would have been more interested if they’d told us a bit about all elements of the game, like, as you say, gear, and procedural content, and so on.

      I mean, if I want my retro-future B-movie fix I’ll just play Stubbs the Zombie, as nothing could really do it better.

    • laikapants says:

      @Larington

      What the deuce, it has ONE sodding trailer so far. We are two days away from E3 during which we are sure to get a flood of trailers. If after next week we have no visual information other than that which is provided here, get uppity. I was unaware game companies needed to represent every aspect of their upcoming game in their very first trailer for it. The more you know, I guess.

    • Larington says:

      Yes, I expect a trailer for a game to give a good overview of the whole game, not one element. I don’t care if it’s the first trailer or the last, I wouldn’t want to say, play the first part of Brutal Legend only to find the rest of the game is completely different (Not that I’ve had a chance to play Brutal Legend, but it’s a brilliant example of how a trailer should get across how the whole game plays, not just how it looks & sounds).

    • Lilliput King says:

      Trailers are marketing tools, not public service broadcasts. Readjust your expectations!

    • Patrick says:

      Then as a marketing tool, this made it look like a shitty game where you shoot at oil then something blows up and kills you.

      Even the graphics sucked, with the same damn UE3 plastic faces, quivering shadows, and retarded bloom lighting on everything.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Brutal Legend is a bad example. Because it was wise to not show how the rest of the game played as it was quite lame.

    • I'm with Jim says:

      I assume there may be more than 1 trailer. Some people are NEVER happy

  25. Mitza says:

    I’m sorry, but no. Jim, you go out of your way to promote this game. I got it, you love it. You know stuff that we don’t know. But please, let us know what this has to do with X-COM?

    It looks like an interesting X-FILES shooter, with a bit too much Bioshock in it (there’s a scene where you see the shadow of a lady being attacked by aliens or something, which would be cool if it wasn’t done to death in Bioshock already), but there’s nothing here that indicates DEPTH. Maybe they are trying hard to appeal to the shooter crowd, so they come out with a trailer where you mow down alien blobs and creepy ladies, keeping the research/team/management elements out of sight until launch. But I find it worrying that NONE of the elements specific to the X-COM series are present in the first trailer for the game. If they really were in touch with their fan base, they would at least have shown a glimpse of the Geoscope, research or team play.

    That they choose to ignore all these (“RESEARCH THEM” says the trailer, immediately followed by footage of the player killing the aliens – now that’s comedy!) makes me think we probably have another Fallout3 in the making. An OKish game, but one that sh*ts all over it’s own heritage.

    I’m eagerly waiting to see what other old games I’m very fond of will get the same treatment in the following years, because it sure seems this is the new way to do things in the video game industry (maybe a Transport Tycoon where you play an up and coming transport mogul that takes over rival companies BY SHOOTING THEIR EMPLOYEES IN THE HEAD).

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      It has nothing to do with the original X-Com, clearly. But for some reason I’m able to not get hung up on branding exercises.

    • D says:

      It’s funny to me, the importance people allow trailers to have on their lives. Compare with the Deus Ex 3 trailer, which was complete CGI, and got the RPS comment thread filled with cautious optimist and varying degrees of ‘meh’ – versus this trailer, which completely freaks people out because there is shooting

      The trailer could easily have done the same trick as DX3. Show a couple half cutscenes. Blend them together with some effects. I say, finally a trailer that isn’t afraid of showing some gameplay. Of course, it’s going to be the most actiony gameplay they focus on. The rest of the features, you can read about, or wait until later. There’s no rush.

      tl;dr: Trailer.

    • Mojo says:

      But for some reason I’m able to not get hung up on branding exercises.

      What I don’t get is: Why are they trolling us with the XCOM brand, then? Seriously. This game seems to be aimed at:

      a) People who love XCOM but are able to forget everything it stands for, gameplay-wise, in order to turn a same-named game into a horror FPS with “strategy elements” (maybe an excellent horror FPS with “strategy elements”, I can’t tell yet).

      b) People who never heard of XCOM (and that, it seems, is the most important group).

      Why bother with the branding? Why not make “Alien Invasion: Operation Black Blob” (or a more seriously good sounding name). Why “XCOM” if it doesn’t take anything from the original game but… the brand.

    • D says:

      I apologize in advance, because I missed the chance that alot of people may not have known about the XCOM re-franchiseing (aka. ‘shitting on’) before seeing this. The dig above is not meant for those people. No, it’s not X-COM, it’s a shooter’ish game.

    • HidesHisEyes says:

      Mojo- existing successful IPs make it easier to present ideas to publishers and get funding. The X-com series was a successful bunch of strategy games about a military organisation trying to save humanity from a mysterious alien threat; this looks like an FPS in which an FBI like organisation is trying to save humanity from a mysterious alien threat.

      What do you care? The games industry is a business, not a church to keep your favourite IPs of the 90s ‘holy’.

    • Wulf says:

      I’m going to be as cynical as I possibly could here, and say that I realise exactly why they’ve gone with the branding, that it’s even perhaps a little bit too obvious, but a reason that no one would really want to face.

      If this game really has nothing to do with X-COM, and if it’s just a retro-future B-Movie shooter that stole the name of X-COM, then therefore there must be a reason for calling the game X-COM that has nothing to do with its contents.

      So let’s stack up the possibilities.

      - Faithful Remake
      - Faithful Reboot
      - Unfaithful Reboot
      - Marketing

      So, it’s not a faithful remake, we can get that out of the way right away.

      It’s not a reboot, either, is it? You can’t call it a reboot if it doesn’t contain any of the core elements, not even an unfaithful reboot. Enterprise would be an unfaithful reboot, but it’s still Star Trek at the core. This, however, is not X-COM at the core, no matter what angle one looks at it from, or how much one squints, so it can’t really be considered a reboot. I mean, whether reading about it or watching the trailer, it sounds like a good game, but it doesn’t sound… X-COMy.

      That leaves marketing.

      Let’s say you have a good game, a retro-future B-Movie shooter, one with some strategic elements, and you don’t know what to call it? What would sell best?

      X-COM is one of those names that perforates the gaming consciousness, that percolates in the minds of even young gamers, they heard of it from older gamers, family, they see it as a game they recognise, and they know it to be something good, but just not for them, it was gaming from a different time. So even young gamers recognise X-COM as something quality.

      Now what if a game was being marketed as X-COM for them? An X-COM for the console-shooty young hipsters who couldn’t get into the PC version? It’s X-COM, so it has to be quality, and it has to stand for all the great things the PC version did, right?

      To draw this to a conclusion, attaching the X-COM name to it seems like a bit of a marketing stunt, and, not so coincidentally, this is why I have a seething hatred for marketing, because marketing will pull just about any stunt to sell me their questionable wares, even if the stunt involves social engineering.

      I’m not saying it’s not a good game, but from what I’ve been exposed to thus far, I feel it might have been a better game if they hadn’t gotten their hands dirty with marketing.

    • Wilson says:

      The way they’ve called it X-Com bothers me somewhat too. I understand that it’s only a ‘branding exercise’ and ‘business’, but it’s still a little disappointing. Just because something is the way of the world doesn’t mean you have to like it, right? I suppose in a way it’s kind of like some individual you idolize ‘selling out’.

      People know that they can get burned when stuff they like is used purely from a business/branding perspective, and they don’t like that. It’s also like you’ve been tricked into paying attention to something that isn’t really relevant to you, and nobody likes being tricked.

      I don’t think people should be complaining about it quite as much as some have, but I can sympathize with why they do it. People get hung up on this branding exercise because it involves something they care about, and because of how they view branding exercises. Maybe journalists are somewhat more used to this kind of thing, so they don’t care so much anymore. I don’t know.

    • Mitza says:

      It has nothing to do with the original X-Com, clearly.
      Thank you.

      Look, I’m not against this game, per se. Please, we do need FPS games with a little bit more substance, it’s a good way to advance the genre. One more macho post-apocalyptic shooter and I’ll tear my eyes out.

      But I can’t accept the way legendary video game brands are treated these days. There is more to X-COM than the name, and that’s something publishers like 2K (or Bethesda) seem to not get. By slapping a known brand on a totally different product, you basically throw away all the great ideas brought forth by the original game. What do you think Fallout will be known for in 5 years time? For the freedom of choices, deep gameplay and branched storyline? No, it will be remembered for slow-motion carnage. That’s something that saddens me deeply, because it feels like a step backwards. Why can’t we build on something already exceptional and help this industry move forward? We prefer using whatever type of bland gameplay seems to be working at the moment, slap a known name onto it and release it as the next big thing. That’s lying to ourselves.

      We have lost faith in our own ideas and capabilities, so instead we focus on recycling anything that seems to appeal to the mass market at that particular moment. It’s a vicious circle that we will eventually kill any kind of originality in the games industry and we will end up together with other soulless blockbuster industries. And that’s a damn shame!

    • Mojo says:

      No offense (well, actually, OFFENSE!!!), but why the f*** are gamers so self-deprecating that we bow to corporate bullshitting to the point of actually defending companies for doing things we hate to make more money? When did that start? There’s a movie “industry”. But there are also guys like Darren Aronofsky, Charlie Kaufman and Quantin Tarantino who actually get major press, budget and mainstream appeal without totally selling out to “the industry as a business”. Why can’t we have at least a bit of that? Some dignity of treating good ideas (even if they’re for a silly medium like those “digital playing stations”) with respect?

      Ironically, my point wasn’t even aimed at that. What I’m asking is, what’s a “big name” (was XCom ever seriously “big” for today’s standard?) worth, if the people who actually know the big name and the gameplay the “big name” stands for aren’t even considered? Isn’t that even, from a business standpoint, a waste of a brand? You got a total niche brand and market it at pretty much everyone except the niche?

      The only way I can see this helping is that the games press, consisting mainly of gaming nerds who actually remember good games, tells people who never heard of the game before that the original was good, then show the remake next to it and maybe even offer a front cover out of nostalgia. It just really bothers me how little of a role the actual new game plays in this setup. On top of that, I now saw the kind of footage that was praised as “really feeling like XCom!” in the previews and it is, anticlimactically, just as dull in gameplay as it sounded. And that’s the kind of pattern I’ve seen repeated over and over again since Deus Ex: Invisible War. Sorry, but I hate artificial hype and calculated optimism. Kill me.

    • Robert says:

      I can only disagree and say that gamers need to grow up. Centuries ago there was this discussion about intertextuality and how it lacks originality. Nowadays, intertextuality is one of literature’s biggest “pro’s”.

      Even beside that. Taking a brand and ‘claiming’ it. E.g. saying X-Com is TURN-based or one of the other so-called defining traits and complaining when this one is not is quite ironic. Blame ‘marketing’ for ‘mis-using’ the name is amazing because the name in itself is a brand, the cornerstone of ‘marketing’. The identity of a brand is PURE marketing. So complaining it’s not like the old brand is like complaining that coke should come in bottles instead of cans. You might be right, but either way.. you fell for marketing.

    • Mojo says:

      It’s funny that you mention intertextuality, because, the logical extension of it to games would be to set the same gameplay in a different theme, since gameplay is what a game is all about. My main gripe with developers not “getting” the power of an original game they are making a sequel to, is that they take the background story and superficial stuff and add arbitrary gameplay on top of it. What does XCOM 2011 take from XCom 1994? Aliens invading earth? Guys fighting them with high tech gadgets? Well, that’s not the strength of XCom. It’s a management/build-up/tactical combat game. Known for it’s incredible depth.

      You know what game I found to be closest to the original XCom in recent years? Mount & Blade. A medieval war simulation. It generally has no obvious connection (even in gameplay). Yet I found it to play very similarly, to really capture the same feeling. Just as I found Portal to be closer to Half-Life 1 than Half-Life 2.

      I really don’t buy the argument about “just wanting the same game with new graphics”. Hell no. Actually, this new XCOM game feels a lot like “the same game with new graphics”… and several features cut (with no significant replacements for gameplay depth). I’d love to see a completely re-imagined XCom with hundreds crazy new ideas that have nothing to do with the 1994 original. Make it an FPS, too! But don’t sell me pretty 1950 art direction with dull shooter gameplay and then call me anti-innovation for disliking that…

    • Robert says:

      I would disagree with your ‘logical extension’. Your analogy would mean “Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters” while it might be more “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead”.

      That aside, in your last paragraph you do seem to agree. XCompletely different and “Make it an FPS, too!” however does contradict with your statement about what you think X-com was about. There is no single term, no single characteristic that defines it. For me, it’s the feel, the setting, the discovery of more, the increasing pressure, the feeling you don’t have enough time to get what you need. As little as I know of this XCOM, that is in it. Maybe there’s more, I don’t know, even fancy mechanics you dreamt about.. but you won’t find that in trailers. Hell, have you ever read the summary on the back of novels? I don’t believe that has ever done justice to a -good- book.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      It has aliens, terrifying aliens, secret organisations dedicated to fighting the aforementioned aliens, alien-fighting, nameless mooks on your side and according to the super-early previews, it has you taking pictures of victims to get more funding and capturing alien specimens to research new technologies.

      That sounds a lot like X-COM to me.

    • Lilliput King says:

      What I don’t understand is why everyone is getting upset at big business dragging X-Com’s name through the mud now. If you were worried, well, you’re about 12 years too late.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Lilliput King

      I’m not one of the people that’s upset, for the record, but isn’t this considerably more hype and attention than any of those shitty X-Com sequels and spin-offs got? I agree with you, but I think the reaction is being driven by having this particular “corruption of the franchise” shoved in their faces on a regular basis.

    • Marar Patrunjica says:

      This has more to do with Bioshock then with X-COM. And since Bioshock was an average shooter at best I fail to see why I should get excited by something that looks like it will be even worse then the aforementioned game.

      We had the taking of pictures and doing research in Bioshock, that was not fun, we had the clunky first person shooting of bullets in that one too, and again it was not much fun, the ONLY, and I do mean only redeeming factor of that game (yes, I considered the story awful) was the setting, and that got quite repetitive rather fast, this game (judging by the previews/ss/trailer) doesn’t even have a good setting/atmosphere.

      The reason why I’m against this game is because they have given no reason why I should think otherwise, if they really want to show us that they care about the original game, well… I am waiting.

      (btw, Mitza, fancy meeting you here :p)

    • Uhm says:

      The trailer makes it look more like Bioshock, admittedly. But we have more information than that, and it’s not Bioshock.

      You know you have a base, right? You don’t have a researchometer in your inventory.

  26. Brumisator says:

    I want SWAT 5

  27. Jimmeh says:

    This looks awful, I don’t see why everyone’s saying this looks good.

    What’s actually exciting about this? Based on the trailer it’s a completely generic FPS with nothing new about it. Oh look, he’s shooting at… black blobs! How exciting.

  28. terry says:

    This looks excitingly Bioshock-y, but not terribly X-Com-y.

  29. Sobric says:

    The comments in this thread make me fully understand Alec’s post on the X-COM fiasco. RPS usually restores faith in PC gaming, but some of you tossers on here really put a dent in that.

    • MD says:

      Your mum’s a tosser.

    • Sobric says:

      muh. wrote this when hung-over. I’m now even more hungover, but slightly more awake. Ignore/delete as applicable.

  30. Dominic White says:

    This is a pretty poor trailer, but it also only shows off what seems to be stuff from the very start of the game, so the people trying to pass judgement and use this as proof that they should go and firebomb the developers offices are really stretching here. Not that they aren’t always, but, honestly, Stretch Armstrong would be impressed at the wild clutching-at-straws going on around the internet.

    Nerds seem to be getting a lot angrier lately. Anyone else get that feeling?

    • archonsod says:

      It’s because the guys old enough to remember the original (all ten of them) now have job and offspring related stress.

    • DiamondDog says:

      I definitley feel the need to post more often, to balance out the increasing levels of nerdy entitlement on display in most RPS comments. It’s getting quite depressing.

      How about, you know, waiting to try the game before marching out to burn the developers building to ground?

      “console FPS”
      “generic shooter”
      “it isn’t xcom”
      “why isn’t it still the 90′s”
      “they’ve ruined my life”

      blah blah blah

    • Mojo says:

      >How about, you know, waiting to try the game before marching out to burn the developers building to ground?

      Oh boy, how often I tried that. And always felt dumb for defending the sequels to classic games that looked dull in previews… because they always were exactly as good or bad as the previews suggested. Believe it or not, they choose the parts that best represent the game for previews.

      This is a blog for (and may I suggest… by) nerdy nerds with a sense of entitlement to their nerdy opinions on games. It’s a gaming blog, FFS, what do you expect except for gaming criticism and discussion? What do you expect for a sequel to one of the most famous PC games of all times? That people don’t compare the sequel to the original? Of course we do. If you just want to hear how awesome the game is and how everyone will love it, I have a site you’ll love: http://www.2kgames.com/#/

    • DiamondDog says:

      Well, that’s a lot of questions. I’ll just say now I’m one of those weird people that has never actually played an XCOM game and I’m not greatly bothered about this new one. I suppose it just gets on my nerves that people are so quick to judge and sometimes for no reason other than to come out with a snarky quip. I mean, you yourself said “Doom 3 in the 60′s” which if meant in jest I apologise but, I suspect it was a pointless insult.

      Of course I want to see interesting critical discussion rather than blind optimism, but a discussion based on more evidence than is shown in a short preview trailer. These days people will go fucking nuts over a screenshot. That’s why I say wait, because really we still don’t know much about it.

      As for the whole XCOM thing, well I can undertand it and have felt the same about some thing I love being changed in a way I didn’t like. All I’d say is why not forget about the game? If it’s that repulsive (as it seems to be, judging on some of these comments) just ignore it and pretend there is no new XCOM game. The developers aren’t going back and changing the originals, they still exist as they are.

  31. Taillefer says:

    This post contains Apocalypse spoilers in the second paragraph.

    I’d agree the trailer doesn’t elevate the game much above a shooter, but we know other information about the game to suggest it’s more than that. The combat didn’t look very tactical, though, and, unless I missed it, had no hints of ordering your squad mates around. Not even a “Cover me!”. From what we know, I suspect that’s not going to feature. I don’t mind the fact they’re using FPS style combat at all, even with the XCOM name. But stripping it down too much is disappointing.

    Why people would want to see all the enemies you’ll be facing in a trailer, I don’t know. Seems like it would ruin the surprise. The blobs may even be linked to Apocalypse as SPOILERS: it was intelligent microbes controlling the inter-dimensional aliens that initiated the invasion and not the aliens themselves. /spoilers

    As a whole, I’m still looking forward to it. The management mixed with FPS missions is something that hasn’t been done before (has it?). The approach to how they’re handling the missions themselves is promising too.

  32. Eiskalt says:

    “don’t trust Irrational to know ”
    What does this game have to do with Irrational?

  33. Mojo says:

    So it’s Doom 3 set in the 60ies?

  34. Dracogeno says:

    Apparently you study aliens by shooting them pointblank with a shotgun.

    I don’t know about the game, but the trailer is more of the same.

  35. Seol says:

    No, I don’t see how shooting oily blobs under a borrowed (defiled, even) name is awesome. The Scott Pilgrim game, on the other hand, does look totally sweet, I hope it will be coming to PC at some point. This E3 is looking good.

  36. Tei says:

    This is looking great. I don’t look like a strategic game with tactical elements, but It looks like magically fun, terrorfull. These ….things, are the Horror. While may not be a XCOM game, I think will be a game to be proud to have the XCOM title.

  37. Turin Turambar says:

    Looks ok. The most interesting part is the art style, the 50s half-cartoon look with the abstract (shapeless blobs, monoliths) aliens.

  38. Zinic says:

    Curse you Jim, what do you know that we don’t?

    All I have to say other than that is: It looks interesting, but they’ve yet to prove it’s XCOM.

  39. I don't remember says:

    looks uninteresting.

    What’s the point in calling this xcom anyway

  40. Flaringo says:

    Hey look, it’s Bioshock with blobs.

  41. Rond says:

    Some cartoonish guys fight black homicidal blobs, and then get attacked by a mysterious levitating obelisk. The game is called X-COM. Riiiiiight

    • Premium User Badge

      James G says:

      Yes. Its not X-COM, we get that. We got that when it was first announced. If people can just shrug and move on, then perhaps they might be able to begin judging the game on its own merits/faults rather than complaining that it isn’t similar to the game that shares its name. If it makes things easier for you, just pretend its an entirely new license, after all, it is lacking a hyphen.

      Note, I am not saying that this means people should automatically like the game. I’m not a huge FPS fan, but this has piqued my interest enough that I might end up picking it up if reviews are decent enough.

    • pupsikaso says:

      @ James G

      If we simply just shrug and move every time these corporations decide to take what we hold dear and s**t on it for the sake of making a buck, then we gamers will never be treated with any respect by them. How long do you think we can take this abuse?

    • Premium User Badge

      James G says:

      Sorry, but shit on it? Abuse? You don’t think that you might be displaying a bit of hyperbole? The originals are there unchanged, and the new version is so far removed that you can’t even complain about retconning disagreeable elements into the originals.

    • Rond says:

      I just don’t get it. Judging from what we’ve seen, the game looks like yet another console shooter, therefore it’s target audience must be casual console gamers, who, most likely, have never heard anything about XCOM and don’t care what the title is. On the other hand, if they were trying to attract people who played the old XCOM, this game would have some resemblance, wouldn’t it? I just don’t see how developers would get that “extra buck” from using the franchise. To my opinion, this title is pointless.

    • Jimbo says:

      The game will receive extra coverage *with* the XCOM name than without it. I guarantee it. Even on console-focused sites.

      That’s where the extra buck is.

    • Jason says:

      Ugggh, the X-Com franchise ALREADY contains a shooter, people! One where you’re a robot, of all things! There is no purity in it left to defend. It’s like saying “Dr. Pepper cherry flavor is an abomination, it doesn’t even have any real Phos-Ferrates in it!”

  42. Jason Moyer says:

    Hardcore PC gamer madlibs.

    That looks like [current gen console shooter]. Whatever happened to [plural noun] like [game from 1998] when games made you [verb] with your [body part]. I don’t know how anyone can think this looks [adjective] – it’s just another [noun] where you [verb] [plural noun] with your [verb]. Another [noun] that’s dumbed down for the [adjective] [plural noun].

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Also, [crappy 4-chan meme].

    • Dominic White says:

      Brutal, yet completely on the money. Well done – you’re one of the few people who can play PC games without actually going insane.

    • poop says:

      Videogame defender madlib:

      Honestly, I just dont understand all the hate for [upcoming game], I mean, sure it is not [actually good game] or [other actually good game], but what is?. I think you hardcore types need to [Take off your rose coloured glasses/stop living in the past/ stop being so picky] and stop thinking that [promotional material] is a reasonable indicator of the quality of a game.

  43. Margenal says:

    Hmmm…. as a prequel of themodern X-Com this game sounds perfect, honnestly if you follow the evolution of the team to real alien fighters specialist this will be trully awesome…

    And hell just seeing team mates dying or getting absorbed by aliens remin me the weakling we were in the first X-Coms… So if they put the chrysalis back…..

  44. Andy says:

    X-com always came across as a secret military organization rather than some secret investigation bureau of 1950′s USA.

    I guess if you’re used to making games set in that 50′s kind of style you should carry on, but like others have said, don’t slap the x-com label on it just because you have the rights to it.

    I’m sure I remember reading that the guys developing this “understood” the x-com IP and are fans of it (I’m sure someone will correct me if I dreamt this!) So far I’ve not seen any sign of that understanding, but hey this is only the first trailer right?

  45. Antsy says:

    It does look good. Kind of a Dark Skies vibe to it. I’ll be interested to see some evidence of other aspects of the game than just the shooting though.

  46. Grey! says:

    Where’s Scully and Mulder?

  47. Pmeie says:

    That looked terrible. If terrible means awesome!!!

  48. protobob says:

    Nice style. Looks boring. Would love to see a high quality turn-based x-com though. sigh.

  49. Alexandros says:

    So this is the game that Alec said “we can start believing” in? And apparently we have to like it because it is “awesome”, or else we’ll be accused of wearing rose-tinted glasses, of being stuck in the past and other such nonsense.

    Apparently it doesn’t matter that this game has absolutely nothing in common with X-Com in terms of gameplay, story, style or genre, we should just be happy that the developers “who are fans of the original” came up with this because “that’s the game they were allowed to make”.

    So it doesn’t matter at all that they just make a Bioshock-style shooter and just slap the name XCOM on it in order to gain some free publicity.

    Great job guys, keep it up.

    • Hmm says:

      My thoughts exactly.
      That’s not X-COM. I’ll stay away from it, just as I stayed away from Oblivion with Guns 3.

    • RogB says:

      agree. There wasn’t a single second of that trailer that had anything to do with XCOM. it might be okay, but it is wearing the wrong name

  50. Jakkar says:

    Very strange split of opinion here.

    I see several comments echoing my immediate reaction, namely; ‘Ooh, but the enemies are from Mario and the movement and shooting are slow-paced, unresponsive and look incredibly Bioshock/Boring.’, but mostly people say that looks ‘lots of fun’. The character could barely move, appeared to be on rollerskates and the weapon had no audio or kick, while the enemies seemed immune. I’m fine with immune, but if they really were, why would the player still be shooting or the gameplay involve that?

    Perhaps this trailer is too early. It looked like a very rough build, in some ways.