Twenty Minutes Of (Narrated) XCOM

2K Games have released the full twenty minutes of the XCOM E3 2011 demo, with the developers narrating what is going on. It explains some of the background and story, shows off the underground base, the agent selection process, the mission selection, the squad combat, and elements of the problem solving involved in the “battlescape” the game sets up. This is the most detail we’ve seen of the tactical elements of the game, and it’s definitely worth watching.

Thanks to everyone who sent this in.

This comment from a larger explanation by 2K Marin’s Jordan Thomas in the YouTube description is telling: “Candidly, it just wasn’t “XCOM” enough for the hardcore fans of the original games at 2K Marin, who serve as our creative conscience. So over the past year, we’ve made some pretty aggressive design changes, in pursuit of the feelings that we experienced when we played the original games. I’ll cover those in the video itself, but a quick note about story:”


  1. Pemptus says:

    Brothers in Arms with guns.

    Wait that’s not right. Brothers in Arms with hate towards the developers for turning a beloved franchise into a dime a dozen iron sights simulator. That’s better.

    • bookwormat says:

      The developers didn’t turn any franchise into anything. I don’t want to flame you, but I honestly think that the only problem here is your strange fixation on names: People somehow expect that two different games made by two different teams are somehow connected if they share the same name.

      Of course publishers buy the rights to these names and reuse them for whatever they make next. And of course journalists write in previews as if this new XCOM was in any way related to the old one. That’s because YOU put so much weight in a video game’s name and the concept of so called “franchises”.

      Please stop doing this.

      The new game “XCOM” is made by a team known for making (good) shooters. It does in no way negatively affect any of the already released X-COM games. And why would a worthy sequel of the original game need to use the same name anyway?

      If I were you, I would (politely) ask companies like Arken games or Positech if they make a sequel to the old X-COM games. After all, you don’t need a high budget to make a modern X-COM game. You just need a good team that is interested to fill a market niche while all the big sharks work for the masses. And please tell them they can name the game however they want!

    • JohnnyMaverik says:

      Have you watched the video? HOW IS THAT A DIME A DOZEN SHOOTER!? It look fking fantastic if you ask me, and while no, it isn’t XCOM as we know it, it feels like they’ve managed to get some of the spirit of the game in there.

      Seriously before watching this my general emotional reponse to XCOM (this XCOM that is) was around blah, already an improvement of the initially ARGH! But Blah all the same. Now it’s more like, Eeek, cuz that looks like one hell of a game.

      2K Marin are doing their best in difficult circumstances and I think have done more than enough. It’s got some XCOM in there, and it looks like a great game in it’s own right on top of that. Can’t really ask for much more than that….

      Edit: Ok looks like I’m largely on my own here after scanning the comments. I think it looks like a good game with some very unique touches, and you’re all guna end up with egg on your faces.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Not on your own, JohnnyMaverik. Most of the people posting here are doing so because they are motivated by disappointment, which is fair enough. Personally I think it looks pretty interesting. It’s another Guns & Conversation game, and I am keen to see where those games go.

      As for the genre-betrayal, I really hope people are aware of Xenonauts and support it. I also hope Paradox follow through on their threat of making a Syndicate clone.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I’m curious about how dynamic the out-of-mission stuff is, but the in-mission tactics and gunplay look fantastic. The design of the aliens is genuinely scary (wonder if they’re still holding some of that back for spoiler sake). I like the early 60’s Americana vibe, which I don’t believe I’ve seen in a game before. I also have supreme confidence in Jordan Thomas, based on my enjoyment of everything he’s done (that’s not to say he won’t be a terrible lead, I don’t know). That video did absolutely nothing to hurt my anticipation for XCOM, that’s for sure.

    • Kamos says:


      I’m so thrilled that this xcom game has ‘some x-com’ in it. That will totally make up for it being a wall-hugging scripted shooter. :-)

    • Commisar says:

      sight, if you want a turn based isometric alien shooter, go play this: link to it’s free :)

    • wengart says:

      I think it’s unfair to say that a consumer shouldn’t expect two games with the same name to be the similar. There’s a reason they are using the X-COM name and that is because of its brand recognition qualities. Qualities that were built upon a solid turn-based tactics game, I would expect players who were fans of the original to be saddened and possibly angry at the direction of the new game because when they think X-COM they think TBT not FPS.

      Personally this video has left me far less excited for the new X-COM game than I was previously. It seemed to play very linearly and the style of combat wasn’t what I would expect when people are battling an alien menace apparently far more powerful than ourselves. You could have just as easily replaced all of those aliens with Nazi’s and said it was 1960: Alternate WW2 timeline.

      Furthermore the destruction he stumbled upon just didn’t jive with what the aliens were capable of. He passed the burnt out hulk of at least one Sherman and apparently an entire garrison of National Guardsmen were slaughtered but he can walk on through with two other agents and be just fine.

  2. echoMateria says:

    Expect FPSs “based” on all your good old favorites, because that sells best on consoles. Who cares about anything else?

  3. thepaleking says:

    The whole Cold War and Red Scare parody was entertaining back when Kubrick did it, in 1964. It’s really gotten stale now, and adds absolutely nothing to this series.

    Edit: These aliens can’t be very intelligent; they seem to spend much of their resources constructing waist high walls for their enemies to hide behind.

    • Rii says:

      “The whole Cold War and Red Scare parody was entertaining back when Kubrick did it, in 1964. It’s really gotten stale now,”

      As compared to what, exactly?

    • poop says:

      fallout, tf2, evil genius, no one lives forever

    • Rii says:

      Fallout? See Rage, Borderlands, Stalker, Metro…
      No One Lives Forever? See NOLF 2, Goldeneye
      TF2? See XIII, Red Steel 2
      Evil Genius? Never heard of it.

      This, OTOH… I ain’t seen this before. Well, it is like NOLF in being a Cold War-era non-military FPS.

    • Archonsod says:

      Difference here being that it actually might make some clever use of the red paranoia rather than just using it as windows dressing.

      And NOLF wasn’t exactly a Cold War thing, simply a sixties homage. I suppose we’ll be comparing Austin Powers to McCarthy next.

    • Rii says:

      Hey, I’m not the one saying we’ve seen it all before here.

  4. MOKKA says:

    It would be intersting to know how people would react towards this game, if the developers wouldn’t have named it “XCOM”.

    • notjasonlee says:

      shitty-looking scifi shooter.

    • poop says:

      there wouldnt be any discussion because this game looks bland as shit

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I have to agree with the two replies. I didn’t want to, I wanted to find something to like about it so badly, but there’s nothing here! The “20 minutes of gameplay” Is actually only 10m which annoys me from the start, then the character moving seems floaty and lacking in impact – more like a hovering monitor than a person. I hope this is VERY early footage because character feel should be the first thing the developers lock down!

      The level design is boring and uninspiring – I’m not talking about the dressing, but the actual shape of the combat area’s, how linear it feels, the choke point placement etc etc. In fact I’ll be stronger than boring and uninspiring, it’s actually really poor.

      The enemies have only one point of interest, that square thing, which could have lead to some really interesting gameplay mechanics, but there’s nothing in this video to suggest they will.

      The cover system looks like a clunky mechanism to deliberately slow down play.

      I remember doing bullet-time on the pause menu when I worked on sudeki – it was a crap idea than and it’s still a crap idea now – better hurry that bio-break as you still might die when it’s paused, what a load of bullocks!

      Not impressed. And I wanted to be, I really did.

  5. blainestereo says:

    “Thanks for watching it, buddy”?


    Also the way he talks with the character all the time

    “What would Mario do? Oh it appears like Mario has decided to jump that goomba!”


    The game actually looks much more XCOM than I have expected, so probably it wont be that much of a rape of our childhood memories.

    • thepaleking says:

      Really? I could see very little of the original X-Com in that video, other than the obvious humans vs. aliens bit. The ground combat looks like Mass Effect in first person, and the “base building” is essentially just walking around a static base, looking at scripted events, and choosing from pre-determined missions.

    • JB says:

      I agree thepaleking, it looks very “Mass Effect (2?) meets 60’s Americana”.

      Don’t get me wrong, the art direction and character/equipment design is quite nice, but sheesh. It’s no X-Com.

    • blainestereo says:

      I’m talking about this feeling of looming alien threat. Original XCOMs had this vibe by the bucketful. This one kinda has it too.

      The gameplay is not XCOM at all, thats for granted though. And frankly it looks kinda bland, even with the tactical gimmick thingie. But the vibe, man!

    • Rii says:

      He said “thanks for watching everybody”.

    • LazyAssMF says:

      Man, some of you are so uptight and angry on the whole world… FUCK! He actualy said “Thanx for watching everybody.”

  6. heretic says:

    Pretty graphics.

    The only XCOM game I think I played was this isometric view shareware back in the 90s. It seemed to be set more in the future though, it used to creep me out those grey looking enemies which would bleed green goo when dead.

    It was turned based though.

    EDIT: It was UFO enemy unknown!
    EDITEDIT: I remember why it creeped me out properly! Couldn’t your men be infected by the aliens? I was only around 6 years old ok…

    • Kessaja says:

      Chryssalid was the name of that alien. And yes it could infect and take over your agents permanently.

    • mejoff says:

      Not to mention the gorram Ethereals, who ALWAYS posessed the guy with the grenade launcher while he still had line of sight to the team still in the dropship :(

    • Pamplemousse says:

      I still remember having to kill half a dozen infected civilians on a terror mission.


  7. Odiee says:

    Silly FPS with a gamepad is silly. Can I strife?

    • heretic says:

      I’ve never understood playing FPSs with gamepads… :( the genre should be banned from working with gamepads.

    • Matt says:

      Yes, something you find personally distasteful should be completely banned. Sound advice.

    • Reiver says:

      Whenever i play a shooter designed for a gamepad i always strife.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I find the gamepad really natural to play FPS’s with. I can strafe just fine and it feels much more of an extension of my will than keyboard and mouse.

  8. matnym says:

    This reminds me of Fallout 3 before release. And that game turned out pretty well despite not staying very true to the original. On its own merits this game can turn out pretty well, I think, though I am aware that it can be difficult to accept the XCOM stamp. I for one was a big fan of Ghost Recon and when Advanced Warfighter came out I wasn’t pleased. I try to enjoy it for what it is though.

    • Kessaja says:

      Fallout 3 gives you the choice to go and do whatever you want and thus stays true to the original in that regard. This “xcom” game does not give you freedom true to its predecessors.

    • Archonsod says:

      Hilarious part is like the Fallout series, there was an FPS planned which got canned when Microprose went under.

      But then you have to wonder how many people complain because it’s X-Com, and how many simply because it was a turn based tactical shooter. Sometimes I wonder if part of the problem is we still have the creaky old buggers who thought X-Com Interceptor was sacrilege. Despite being the second best game in the series …

    • d32 says:

      Fallout 3 gives you the choice to do everything you want and meet no challenge, find no better gear, pay no price for silly moves. I killed a police man at level 1, deathclaw at level 4. In this regard, it is _very_ untrue to the true Fallouts.

    • alinos says:

      The difference being that Fallout 3 embraced the world in which the franchise is based on.

      The factions still exist, the premise is generally the same

      Fallout 3 has distinct ties to the fallout series.

      This does not. Not only was their first order of business to change the gameplay(which if done right i’d have no problem. But then they made it a reboot. Set it in the 60’s 40 years before the original(which detailed the first alien encounter) and completely different aliens.

      in fact some could say that this is essentially Bioshock in 60’s america with aliens instead of genespliced lunatics.

      The game could be good great even. But 2K didn’t have the faith in their own product to give it an original name. So they found something with aliens slapped it’s name on it and said hey look come play this.

      Why couldn’t they have done what they did with bioshock, Say it’s their spiritual successor to XCOM, or somesuch.

      A FPS done right could honor the XCOM name. This game doesn’t because it ignores the fact that any of the previous games have ever existed, so 2K can do the hey we’re in the 60’s

  9. Kess says:

    (First time poster, long time reader)

    I’m saddened by how he tries to blame the older x-com games for being “to overwhelming with choices in between missions” in order to make it more linear. I used to love all the choices as that’s was what made those games enjoyable for me.

    I’m conflicted on how I should feel about this game. I dont like it at all, but if it does not sell well then I fear that we will not see another x-com game in…Ever. But if it turns into a great success then they will probably stick to the fps formula for the next game(s).

    The “knee kick to the groin” cartoon comes to mind every time I read or watch anything about this game :(.

    • thepaleking says:

      That remark made me extremely depressed as well. Why should we have to suffer the dumbing down of complex strategy, just because someone found it to be “overwhelming”?

    • GT3000 says:

      At the risk of being impartial here, I know I for one let several countries go to the wayside and skipped any and all missions that weren’t in my main territories at the time. It was overwhelming at times and I made it to Cydonia. Your glasses have formed some sort of rose-tinted memory loss. I can’t see how limiting your options and giving you more enjoyable missions instead of avoiding night and anything near a beach for the sake of “limitless options.”

    • sneetch says:

      That was saddening alright. I’m not sure I remember the overwhelming choices really, maybe I forget them? As I remember between missions you built your bases, hired people, researched techs and built equipment and then accelerated time as you waited for UFOs to shoot down for the missions. Was any of that overwhelming? I don’t think so.

      I’m normally not that convinced by claims that everything is being dumbed down but here it seems appropriate he actually means the game didn’t just lead you by the hand into the next set of firefights. With simple “Should we research red or blue?” questions as a nod towards complexity and interaction.

      Edit: to be clear, I am looking forward to this game, that reason just didn’t sit well is all.

    • thepaleking says:

      GT3000: As you say, you were still able to complete the game even while faced with the abundance of options; and what you did is something I have done as well, sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice those areas to be able to save everyone else. I would much rather have that option than to be taken along a linear path to completion. It was because of the multitude of complexities and choices that I was able to play the game just like week and have a singularly different experience than in the countless other playthroughs of the game I have had.

      To be brief: it is always better to have the options, even if you do not explore them, than to be completely stripped of them.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      At the risk of being impartial here

      And humble, too.

      I know I for one let several countries go to the wayside and skipped any and all missions that weren’t in my main territories at the time.

      Why? Not enough time? Get a second Skyranger.

      Your glasses have formed some sort of rose-tinted memory loss.

      I played through UFO last year, but thanks for asking. I especially liked that it was expressed in the form of a boring, insulting cliche.

      I can’t see how limiting your options and giving you more enjoyable missions instead of avoiding night

      Why is that bad? It was a great strategic decision you could make – can the mission wait until morning? If not, you’ve got a tough one on your hands.

    • Cinnamon says:

      I wish that I could be impartial and have a view of games that was unclouded by rose tinted glasses like GT3000. He’s so dreamy.

    • Hatman says:

      Last year was a good year for me, so I guess I might look back on my first X-Com playthrough that February through rose-tinted glasses? Maybe? The alternative is that I actually have a different opinion to GT3000, and that’s just impossible.

    • SparroHawc says:

      GT3000: I introduced my wife to the original X-Com a few years back. She got hooked on it. No rose-tinted nostalgia there. Part of the fun? The lack of linearity and paucity of choices. Sometimes you take those night missions ’cause you can’t afford to miss out on the Elerium and that landed UFO might take off in the next half an hour. Sometimes you take the loss of a high-ranking officer instead of loading from a save, ’cause you captured that alien you needed to get the next step and you don’t know when the next opportunity for that is going to come around.

      In this game, the choices seem to amount to which gun to research, who to take with you, and how you’re going to shoot that alien mook in the face.

      Nice try though.

      That said, the 2K team seems to be making an effort to turn this into a much more cerebral shooter, and for that I’m probably going to pick it up and give it a shot. I’m sure it’ll be better than Enforcer.

    • Commisar says:

      well, if you have to hate this for not being a turn based isometric shooter, go play this : link to

    • Kessaja says:

      As for rose tinted glasses.

      No the game(s) were hard as nails and incredibly annoying/frustrating at times. But it is one of those games where having a plan and executing it well pays off so much. I still do a yearly play through of either Ufo 1 or X-com apoc. In my last one with Ufo 1 I beat it on the second hardest difficulty without losing a single country. Sure I lost a base and lost all of my crew at the first etheral battleship (I hate it with a passion when they chain MC you and find your blaster launcher guys.) But at the same time I was really tearing the aliens a new one and I had 8 bases all with Avengers. Its vital that you put your first base in or close to Spain and the next one in the US or Asia, pref both places at the same time.

      I LIKE to be challenged by games and lately whenever I bring that up on a forum I get more or less jumped by people who doesn’t get or want to get that. What happened to the average gamer?

      I’m currently trying to beat Civ5 on Immortal as it is the next difficulty in line and it is hard. I’m failing, but I learn something new every time I do.

      It is ok that games are challenging and this new X-com game is not that. And if people want an easy game that they can play with one hand and beat in a night, then sure that is ok. But can you please not demand to be able to do that with the few games that the likes of me have left? (“had” left as this one is already a goner)

  10. Rii says:

    Looks great, definitely one of my more anticipated games. Hopefully the tactical system is fleshed out enough to be satisfying throughout the course of the game and that it’s actually possible to fail by making choices poorly adapted to the situation. Some of those abilities – ‘disrupt’ in particular – seem a little too Swiss Army Knife to be truly interesting.

    • Subject 706 says:

      “possible to fail”

      Don’t you know that sentence is heresy to current publishers? And just wow, when they go on to say how the original XCOM was “overwhelming” between missions…way to insult your audience. It sure was overwhelming if you hated strategy, but anyone who didn’t and had a normal attention span, wouldn’t at all find it overwhelming.

    • mejoff says:

      I have a pisspoor attention span and I loved the original when I was 15 FFS.

      That said, on a totally different level, I’m still looking forward to this a little.

    • JohnnyMaverik says:

      The original XCOM games were overwhelming between missions. Sorry but it’s true, I liked em but fk were they a chore at times.

      I’m not saying this is better, just different.

    • Kadayi says:

      I like the look of this tbh, particularly the art stylings and the aliens are fairly unique looking as well.

  11. Lakshmi says:

    I’d been a little on the fence, hoping they’d kept some of the complexity. At least now I know. No thanks.

  12. karthink says:

    Say what you want about 2K dumbing down our beloved 90s titles, they sure know how to put on a demo. Seemed more like a variant of Mass Effect with more player freedom than UFO: Enemy Unknown, though.

    The alien designs are fantastic, and actually a little alien. Intrigued.

    • poop says:

      fighting evil space cubes would be moderately cool but then they gotta mess it up by making all the enemies bipedal space cube people with guns

    • Archonsod says:

      Maybe it’s a side bet so if the X-Com thing falls through they can apply a ton of AA and rename it “Yog Sothoth”.

    • d32 says:

      Fantastic? Alien? There are just a little bit more alien than extraterrestials in Star Trek, where all of them are just human with wrinkled forehead.

    • karthink says:

      Not the bipeds, duh.

  13. poop says:

    are there any walls that arent the exact same bloody 3/4 chest height? this is the laziest level design I have ever seen

  14. Quilty says:

    Oh wow. Even as lousy copy-paste shooters go, this one looks utterly tedious. Oh, but wait, you can flank in it! Well then It’s obviously a tactical game, my mistake.

  15. feda says:

    That woman needs a haircut.

    Also, if you’re looking for a TRUE X-Com sequel/remake, look at Xenonauts.

    • Icarus says:

      “1962 in the United States was kind of a political hotbed. You had civil rights and issues of gender, all of these marginalised voices”

      The first two CIA agents you meet in this video are a black man and a woman. Historical accuracy, hooooooo!

    • razgon says:

      Well, the first black FBI agent was appointed in 1919, or Bureau of investigation as it was called back then, so while the game may indeed be crap, historical inaccuracies isnt the reason.
      In November 1924, Lenore Houston, an employee in Philadelphia, became the first and only female special agent hired by Director Hoover

    • Icarus says:

      Huh, wow. Okay, sarcasm restracted. I honestly wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for enlightening me :) It just seemed very incongruous.

    • TsunamiWombat says:

      And now you see the true value of nuX-Com. It teaches us things. About ourselves. About America.

    • Bret says:

      And, as I’ve had told before, the CIA, being a descendant of the OSS, was a lot more anything goes than the FBI. No Hoover to keep racial biases interfering with hiring the best.

  16. UTL says:

    I think the value of XCOM as a game will be decided by the games story. I can accept that they do not make it a turn-based strategy and the researching of enemy technology goes in the right direction. I also like the tactical bullettime. But this demo just made me question a lot of things.
    What exactly is that dark gray area on the map? Is that what the aliens have already invaded? If so what is the interest in the Cold War, we have an alien invasion and he honestly thinks that womens rights or the red threat will have any impact on the situation?
    Then during the actual mission how did the soldiers get slaughtered like that? The aliens seem vulnerable enough to bullets, did they sneak in with disguises? Then why aren’t they trying that against you? Why was that one guy disguised and why didn’t the oh so experienced field officer shoot the guy standing in the middle of a pile of corpses immediately?
    That distraction power also seems completely ridiculous, why would the aliens focus completely on one guy? And why couldn’t those two agents shoot the shield generator themselves? Finally why can I revive that agent blasted by the giant laser? In the originals when an agent is killed he is dead, period. Probably because you can only take two agents with you. So three people can slaughter about two dozen aliens and their toys and they are supposed to be a threat?

    I just hope they have a damn good story that is just not that visible in the trailer.

    • Quilty says:

      Letting a player or an NPC die in a game? You must be stuck in the 90s. We’ve moved on since then, into a bold new era in which challenge is completely removed and complexity is boiled down to pressing the Win button. So stop complaining and hug that chest-high wall, agent!

    • Rii says:

      “I just hope they have a damn good story that is just not that visible in the trailer.”

      Yes. I am particularly hoping for some intertwining of the Alien and Cold War side of things. Maybe someone wants to use this alien tech against the Soviets, maybe the KGB raids your facility to pre-empt them, and you ending up siding with the aliens against the humans to prevent the latter from acquiring the tools to kill each other because after all MAN IS THE REAL MONSTER.

    • UTL says:

      Maybe the technobabble aliens are secretly communists who have come to turn the capitalist technology against them,
      Also, I hope they have some 60s style anti-alien propaganda.

    • Aedrill says:

      My thought as well. If we have Revive technology and guns powerful enough to kill pretty much any alien it means we’re invincible and as soon as we develop space travel technology we should be invading them! Also, chest-high walls everywhere. Seriously.

  17. qptain Nemo says:

    Why this offensive crap is “worth watching” is beyond me, dear sir.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      So that you can have informed opinion as to whether it “offensive crap” or not, dear sir.

    • Dozer says:

      Thanks for informing my opinion, RPS!

      nu-XCOM looks like it’s made by people who maybe saw screenshots of the original X-Com once. I’ll await Xenonaughts!

  18. ckpk says:

    as someone who didn’t play much of the original X-COM, I’m quite liking the look of this game. The shooting mechanics don’t look particularly original, but the design and style of the game are what make it interesting for me. Seeing the geometric design of the alien world brought a smile to my face.

    I get the feeling that being what looks like a major story mission, the mission they show is probably more scripted and linear that what might possibly be available from an average mission.

    • Aedrill says:

      The problem is that this game may look decent/playable/great/crap/whatever to people who didn’t play X-COM but to those who did it’s destruction of property mixed with breaking and entering. For us X-COM is a tactical game, not a shooter, and adding “commander powahs” is not fixing the issue at all.

  19. JackDandy says:

    There really isn’t a reason to be calling this “X-COM”. And saying Turn-based tactics doesn’t sell today is pretty dumb.
    IIRC, Valkyria Chronicles pulled off that genre REALLY well.

    I’m not sure who the devs are trying to appeal to with this title.

    • Archonsod says:

      Probably those of us who loved X-Com and couldn’t give a damn about turn based gaming.

    • Mavvvy says:

      This doesnt even have anything about being turn based versus realtime. If done right a realtime X-Com fps could be amazing….this is not doing it right.

    • mejoff says:

      Damn right. Here’s what should have happened:

      Original Xcom near future setting
      Very similar geoscape to the original,
      ‘Pick a project’ research
      Recruitment and base building, maybe a bit streamlined but not overly so.
      Optional dumbed down flight sim intercept sequences.
      Procedural or random generated locales from ‘urban’ ‘farm’ ‘desert’ ‘arctic’ and ‘jungle’ tilesets, plus your bases as designed, UFOs etc.
      Up to 3x 3 man fireteams deployable, player leads one and can set objectives and ROI for the other 2 from simple map interface.

      Nothing overwhelming there, and not at all difficult for a AAA studio to churn out in 6 months on a premade engine like Unreal or Crytek.

  20. skyturnedred says:

    I never played X-Com as a kid, so not too offended by this. But I what I do find very offensive, is that bringing up iron sights actually brings up a crosshair too. What on Earth is that about? I thought iron sights were supposed to get rid of the crosshairs!

  21. RedCraig says:

    I loved XCOM – I’m not going to whine about this new game not being tactical enough. I would agree with others that this game seems like another bland shooter.

    I think one of the main reasons is that you kill enemies by the dozen (or by the wave, waves are worse imho) without too much danger to you. Why don’t they make every encounter lethal, make aliens tougher and the player weaker, then the player would _have_ to be tactical to proceed. Of course, the game would have to provide the ability to _be_ tactical.
    That danger was a large part of the original, sure you killed a lot of aliens, but they could kill any of your team just as easily.

    • Rii says:

      Yeah I had a laugh when Jordan Thomas talked about borrowing alien tech to negate their combat edge. What combat edge?

      But then it seems most demonstrations like this get hit with the easy stick a few times so that the presenter doesn’t run the risk of dying and messing up the script. Fingers crossed that the game proper is a little more Rainbow Six-esque.

    • GT3000 says:

      Ya’ll are incomprehensible. First you complain it’s the most awesome thing since sliced bread (Space Marine Demo) when it’s on Normal (Which all trailers up until the demo’s release was) and then bitch and groan when it looks too easy. For all we know this is on Normal or Easy and not the hardest setting. How about you leave your sour grapes at the door until you play it.

    • Warlokk says:

      Actually that’s a very good point… one of the best things about the original was the tension of the unknown, and the sheer lethality of the aliens, knowing you could lose a guy you spent 15 missions building up through one instant of carelessness. In this one, it looks like there is the usual regenerating health and ability to revive any team members that falls… the simple idea of letting your teammates get killed in action if you put them in a bad spot would raise the tension considerably, and would really be something new in the FPS genre.

      On another note, almost all of these media demos are run with “God” mode on, so the presenter doesn’t get his ass handed to him… so it’s kinda hard to judge the actual combat difficulty, for all we know he may have actually died 10 times over sticking his head up like that… hard to say.

    • Kamos says:


      If there is no reason to form an opinion before buying the game, why are you even here? Just keep quiet if you’re going to dismiss perfectly reasonable comments with “you’re being too negative” bs.

    • Uthred says:

      @GT3000 Yeah, its almost as if people have different expectations for games which feature genetically engineered supermen set 40,000 years in the future and games which are supposed to be a semi-realistic take on human FBI Agents in the 1960’s..THE MADNESS

  22. Arona Daal says:

    The Xcom Brand has been milked before with Xcom:Intercepter and Xcom:Inforcer.
    Both at best average games with little relation to the Classic.
    Following this timehonored Tradition ,maybe they should rename it into Xcom:Realgamenamehere.

    I propose Xcom:Mars affect.

    Somehow that sounds fitting.


    • Archonsod says:

      Pish, Interceptor was one of the best games in the series after Apocalypse. Enforcer was unmitigated crap though. Makes me wonder how the original plan for an FPS would have went.

  23. Zarunil says:

    Fuck. Looks like another bland, uninspiring FPS where you slaughter hordes of NPCs with ease.

  24. Obc says:

    so its mass effect 2 set in the 60’s ? they didn’t remake their own game but someone elses….

  25. LazyAssMF says:

    Why all the hate children? You haven’t even played the game and you already criticize it. You’ve seen the whole fuckin’ 20 minutes of it and you shit around like you’ve played it. Grow up!

    • Dozer says:

      Well if the rest of the game is not scripted, linear, and full of chest-high walls, then you’re right.

    • Kamos says:

      Ok, so let me get this straight. 20 minutes of in game footage is not enough to form an opinion?

      It is perfectly clear what kind of game this is: a game about pointing at things with your mouse to kill them. What is so complicated that you need more time to understand?

  26. Tatourmi says:

    Oh, come on, this is getting worse by the minute. (I deleted my explanation, no need for it, truly…)

    • Moni says:

      I totally agree with your non-explanation, there’s no way I can argue with that logic.

  27. TechRogue says:

    I’ve never played XCOM, but this video really encapsulated everything I hate about modern games.

    Iron sights in single player*
    Similarly, no shooting while running in single player*
    No crosshair when shooting from hip
    Levels designed by Wally McChestHigh
    UI obviously designed around consoles ( Did anyone else rage when he said “bind commands…to the d-pad” ?)
    Scripted events everywhere
    Scripted interaction with enemies (in the beginning of the mission when your gun is disabled)
    Taking away camera control from the player for the purpose of showing off scenery

    I’m sure there are some things I’ve left out.

    * I see the need for iron sights in a multiplayer environment. Same with sprint disabling your weapon. But as far as I can tell this is a single player game…

  28. BobbleHat says:

    I’d never played the original games, so coming from a non-bias perspective this game looks like a muddle of ideas taken from Bioshock, the Fallouts, Crysis 2 and Brothers In Arms, crammed into one big flabby mess of blandness.

  29. MrThingy says:

    i am dissappoint

  30. Sunjammer says:

    So i guess this is 2K Marin’s Bioshock 3? Not complaining though. If anything it looks like its own thing.

    Sold me a copy, demo guy!

  31. Whelp says:


    I hate you all and I hope you die… fanboys.

    • Aedrill says:

      I don’t mind it’s not XCOM. I do mind though they decided to call it this way. It’s the same issue I have with newest Brothers in Arms: Inglorious Basterds Ripoff. They should feel free to make any game they want, I really don’t think everything in the world should fit my taste. It’s just the issue of naming, that’s it. Also, the looks crap but that’s just a side note.

    • Teddy Leach says:

      OP: Diddums.

    • poop says:

      heres another thing this game also isn’t : good.

    • JohnnyMaverik says:

      Glad to know you’ve played it poop so you can give us this definitive opinion. So how much worse does it get after he goes through that portal?

      Wait a second…

  32. Stick says:

    Apart from the fact this thing obviously goes back in time and completely removes all the fun you ever had in a similarly named game (possibly by touching you in inappropriate places), I’d venture it looks like a bit Mass Effect with Bioshock-esque retro chic and an unusual setting.

    Which hardly seems cause enough for torches and pitchforks.

  33. Cinnamon says:

    Still isn’t anywhere near enough like UFO to satisfy my desire for something like that. All the emphasis on immersion, talking heads and RPG nerdyness just tells me that the team simply don’t get it. Why bother pretending?

  34. Moni says:

    I like Brothers in Arms, I like Mass Effect, and I like X-COM. They’ve thrown in elements of all of those and I can’t find anything wrong with that.

    I wasn’t too sure about how the art style would work, but it looks much better in action. I really like how it goes from bold, pastel colours, to the a really bleak, dark blue.

  35. Pharos says:

    Well that was stupid. Is this “XCOM” branch of the US government that can have the US Army set up a military checkpoint in the middle of a town at the drop of a hat so badly underfunded that they can only afford to send three people on a mission to protect the scientist responsible for most of their technology?!

    Maybe if they’d brought a… a “squad” – y’know, them things the military likes to put groups of eight people into – then Agent WhateverHisNameIs might not have failed to rescue the scientist in time. Could they just not afford a helicopter that can hold eight people?

    Congratulations, 2K, forget dumbing down XCOM, you actually gave it a bona fide idiot plot.

  36. Phinor says:

    Love the concept and the world (to a degree), absolutely hate the cover based shooting mechanics. In 2011, it just looks silly when there’s exactly right sized cover all along your path. Also the aliens must have pretty damn weak weapons when they can’t penetrate cover made out of wood.

  37. mondomau says:

    Hmmm. Nope. Still not interested. Thanks for the video though!

  38. Antares says:

    I am amazed. Somehow, this is even worse than I expected it to be.

    • jackshuster says:

      Hmm, looks better than the original X-Com to be honest. Turn-based combat is overrated anyway.

    • Dozer says:

      I think of the original X-Com as squad-based combat. You’d roll up with eight goons and a tank, or twelve goons, and send them round in little groups to clear up the map. The three blokes here is equivalent to one of my old little groups, but wandering through a town-shaped linear corridor full of scripted events instead of a semi-arbitrary procedurally generated map.

      True, I don’t know if it’s possible to have old-XCOM-style leading-a-squad-of-twelve combat without using a turn-based engine, but I think the important difference is in the old game you had a formidable squad of 12-ish trained and equipped goons, while here it’s just you and two lobotomised bulletchuckers.

    • Bret says:

      As fair as the point may be, it always bugs me when people complaining about other things getting “it” wrong mess up the details themselves.

      14, or ten and a tank. 12 was for the lightning, but you didn’t get tanks.

      (Or six and two tanks. Of course, later craft allowed up to 26 soldiers, or ten and four tanks. And in Apoc, a strike team could have up to 36 humans, mutants, or robots.)

      This concludes Pedantic Theater.

    • Dozer says:

      12-ish. I said 12-ish. Ten and fourteen are both twelve-ish!

      Anyway the point is that ten, twelve or fourteen are a lot more than three.

  39. Misnomer says:

    Eh. Reading these comments is depressing. If I had listened to all of you I would likely never have played Bioshock and that was a pretty great gameplay experience for me. Was it as good as System Shock 2? Well I have no idea as I never played that game. Unfortunately video games are a visual medium that is constantly progressing in a way unlike 2D arts. Unless you do something really fantastic to stylize your graphics will make the game iffier to play in just a few years. Think about just how silly mediocre use of CG looks in movies from the 1980s now if the direction failed to hide it properly.

    Lots of you will disagree, but you have to admit you are in the minority and people like playing new games. You could give me a list 100 games long of things I have never played that all of you loved, but I would still likely be interested in buying new games. So why not have those new games actually do something interesting?

    This interests me the way Bioshock did. Interesting art style, interesting story, and a clear artistic vision from the creators. Is the combat just Mass Effect 2? Likely… But Borderlands and Bioshock both had iffy combat yet enough artistic umph to overcome that. Lately 2K has been making some very enjoyable games. Maybe they not so as “deep” as the games of old, but there are always a whole lot of advancements that gamers just flit by because they are not the “core experience.” (ex: quality voice work, operating physics, soundtrack, etc.) These things are part of the “dumbed down” yet more refined experience you get out of some new games too.

    I’ll leave you to your nose thumbing and snide remarks about how things were so much better back in your day.

    • poop says:

      I played the original X-Com for the first time last year and it is now one of my favorite games, you are missing out on tons of good games by turning them down in favor of new games as if they are some how intrinsically better

    • Dozer says:

      Comparing this game to the old X-Com (or XCOM or X-COM or I can’t remember and don’t care anymore) is literally comparing apples and oranges. This is a complete list of the points the two games have in common:

      1) Aliens are coming!
      2) You have to stop them!
      3) The title has the letters ‘x’, ‘c’, ‘o’, ‘m’ in that order in some combination of case and punctuation

      vodka prevents me from remembering what else you were writing about that I intended to respond to. I can’t see your Page 2 comment from the Reply box.

      edit: aha! I can see your comment again now!

      The artistry isn’t what I think is important about the X-Com games. The old games had you responsible for defending the entire planet from aliens, pretty much single-handedly, and you had personal control over the entire human response to the alien threat. You would buy and equip and order the interceptors to shoot down the threat, you would put the troops on the transport along with your choice of guns, you would make the decision to attack straightaway or wait until daylight for an easier fight, at the risk of upsetting the nation the UFO was shot down onto.

      You would hire the scientists and direct their research projects. You would design and purchase the bases they would work in. You would plan their research, picking from dozens of possible options.

      You would eventually design and manage a globe-spanning network of radar sites, interceptors, and troopships that could protect the entire planet.

      It is a far richer experience than wandering down a corridor with two lobotomised bullet-luggers shooting over a chest-high wall, then choosing whether to use the mcguffin or feed it to the researchers. Even if the corridor is very beautifully painted and the head of research has a talented voice actor and motion-captured animation. The new game is heavily scripted. The old game offers a far richer experience.

    • Dozer says:

      I don’t mean that 2011 XCOM is a bad game by 2011 standards. (I haven’t played any recent games that XCOM might be similar to.) But it’s a very different game to the game I want to play, which is 1994 X-Com with a modern interface and at least an equal amount of scope to command and decide stuff. (So I’ll await Xenonauts.) (And play Dwarf Fortress in the meantime.)

    • Kamos says:

      ‘I’ll leave you to your nose thumbing and snide remarks about how things were so much better back in your day.”

      GAH! For the 100th time! How is it possible for a style of GAMEPLAY to be old?

      You know what? This is stupid. I’m not even going tto argue about this anymore. I’ll just sentence you to a lifetime of playing ‘modern’ health regenerating, wall-hugging, scripted first person shooters clones. You, sir, will never touch any kind of game again. Not RPG’s, not cardboard games, nothing. 50 years from now you’ll still be playing a very modern FPs, since apparently any other kind of game is intrinsically WRONG. I hope you’re happy.

    • karry says:

      “Lots of you will disagree, but you have to admit you are in the minority and people like playing new games.”

      Yep. Know what else people like ? New mass-produced food. Meat grown on hormones and stuffed with preservatives, vegetables that are ripened artificially and infused with pesticides (i swear, the only way to get a decent tomato nowadays is to grow it yourself), all kinds of garbage. And people eat that shit up. What that says about our collective intelligence is…

  40. BreadBitten says:

    The shooting didn’t look to be the most exciting in the world and the “tactical view” was practically bare of any tactical choices. Still have some faith in this though, I always appreciate a developer trying to take some liberties with a storied franchise. Also, I have a distinct feeling that the end result will be something more than the sum of its, apparently mundane, parts…

  41. Saiko Kila says:

    I feel offended by this thing. It’s like offering from a street vendor, who promises heroine and gives a powdered talk. This has nothing taken from the original X-COM, including the namesake agency, which was international and independent in the original, not a yet another lame US DoD division. Actually, the original had the hyphen in its name, maybe they have omitted it for a reason in that reboot…

  42. Strange_guy says:

    I was somewhat willing to believe maybe it would be a decent first person x-com like game, but when they got to stuff like impervious energy shields as a skill, not technology or physic ability, it became perfectly clear it is Mass Effect Com.

    EDIT: Should have watched the full video first really. The equipment characters had is supposedly related to their abilities, but it is still handled like skills instead of inventory. Player flanks aliens, distracting them, but allies don’t use opportunity to shoot shield generator, get ally to distract and you can easily. Either allies are dumb, or the energy shield can cover 2 sides so why did the aliens drop a side exactly? Later aliens focus on the guy inside the energy field. Also people not dying except when scripted, and agent abilities appear to be things the aliens can’t actually do.

    • Saiko Kila says:

      I wonder whether turning captured items into omni-gels is a skill or a psychic ability ;) I suppose it’s a thing that can be learned when raised in a scrapyard.

  43. Lemming says:

    Kudos to them for making a gay character where his sexuality has relevance to his character but isn’t forced down our throats in non sequiturs a la Russel T Davis’ Doctor Who (I assume).

    Also, I think the game looks pretty, not bland at all. I do long for a ‘proper’ XCOM game but this looks like a thinking man’s FPS, which is no bad thing. At least it’s not Interceptor. More Bioshock-style narrative driven FPS is a good thing guys.

    • Quilty says:

      That thinking man sure is one dumb dude.

    • Bret says:

      I hate the thinking man.

      He’s an arse.

      Give me the Action Man any day. EDF 2017 is the action man’s X-Com, and it’s brilliant.

      Stupid, but brilliant.

      (As opposed to X-Com, which is brilliant but brilliant)

  44. Carter says:

    Honestly, rose tinted glasses some of you

    • poop says:

      my favorite part of talking about games like this is that I somehow can’t not like this game because it looks generic, boring and stupid. Apparently, I have to hate it because I’m a Nostalgic Nerd Who Is Living In The Past.

    • Lemming says:

      Poop, if you can point out what is generic and boring about this, that’d be nice. Because I can’t see it as either.

    • Nick says:

      In what way? Nothing old can be good because its old so it MUST be nostalgia?

    • Prime says:

      Oh, I’m sorry. I’ll stop preferring the old Star Wars trilogy then, because the new ones are newer therefore must be better. Damned Rose Tinted specs! Thanks for the save, Carter!

  45. Soon says:

    Do all those houses at the side of the road have invincible, locked doors? Open them up and it’s suddenly much more XCom.

    • Saiko Kila says:

      My X-COM way would be to flatten them completely, and then burn the bodies :)

  46. fenriz says:

    as much as i hate FPS, this looks promising.

    Never played the original games, even if i did i wouldn’t whine like you people are.

    Needs more interaction with the environment, less centred around fighting, more about building and breaking and unscrew strange machines and fridges. Cause, you know, Im not a violent person so i don’t have to vent rage into a PC

  47. kuran says:

    Shame that the beautiful styling and setting seems to be wasted on this turgid gameplay. I tuned out after a few minutes of the boring cover/shooting mechanism.. its a shame they don’t get it.

  48. TheGameSquid says:

    Pretty much everything I’m going to say will probably have been said before, but as an X-Com fan (They’re not games from my youth, I’m too young for that) I feel like I have to comment a little on it.

    For the record, my impression of this demo was largely negative, but I’m not judging the final game, just the demo. I’m not criticising because of nostalgia or because I feel cool. I want this game to be cool.

    First of all, I’m really, REALLY displeased about this terribly clichéd 60’s setting. It’s been done so many times before in games/movies/novels/toilet paper that I really don’t care about all this any more. Political turmoil, red threat, THE ALIENS ARE ACTUALLY SYMBOLISING THE AMERICAN FEAR OF THAT WHICH THEY NOT KNOW AKA THE SOVIET UNION AND THE ALIENS ARE OFTEN A HIVE MIND BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVED COMMUNISM AS AN IDEOLOGY WHERE THE PERSONAL DOES NOT EXIST yada-yada-yada. The art style doesn’t do a whole lot to me either. Cigarettes and hats. I like both of those (even if I peruse neither), but it’s all delivered in such a stale matter that it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The aliens themselves have some very lame design as well if you ask me. For me, they totally don’t go with the theme of the game, and I hope we’ll see some that have some better design later on. They also seem to make very little to absolutely no use of their blending ability. Bit of a waste, don’t you think?

    It’s pretty chocking that you can only take 2 agents with you. I realize that it’s only an FPS, but only two agents for what should be a squad-based game is pretty chocking to be honest. I’m hoping this limit will increase when you get further into the game.

    The biggest crime I’ve seen so far is the fact that the game is basically driven by scripted missions. I had NO idea that they were going to do this. Yes, the original X-Com had “mission types” and some essential missions that had to be done before you could progress, but this is really a different story. It’s now a mission-driven FPS. The relation with the original X-Com, a turn-based strategy game with a DYNAMIC base/world management system, is becoming ridiculously thin.
    On top of that the mission was littered with a large amount of scripted sequences and cinematics that just oozed a sense of Deja-Vu. And a very bad one at that.

    A number of technical issues also popped up, such as some extreme frame-rate drops at both sensical and nonsensical moments. Granted, this was the 360 version, so the PC version has the potential of being vastly superior, but how many times has such a thing happened in the past years? Oh, and slapping a cross-hair on an iron sight? Who’s idea was that? He should be fired. Right now. The combat doesn’t look terribly exciting either. True, the game still has to grow a lot and it may be that it will become much more interesting at a later state. But as I said, I’m judging the demo, and the combat in the demo looked weak. It never seemed like any of the abilities that were used were very crucial to winning battles, and when they were used it almost seems puzzle like. Whenever the player had captured an alien devise it was deployed almost instantly afterwards, like it was placed there so you could use it in the upcoming fight. Lame.

    Another very, very big problem: there seems to be no tension whatsoever. Everyone who played the original X-Com (and Apocalypse too IMO) will testify that it’s a prime example that showcases that Turn-Based games game definitely convey a sense of danger and tension. This game seems to completely undermine this by seemingly relying entirely on scripted enemy spawn-ins, a regenerating health-bar, a main character that you KNOW is going to survive the battle and, worst of all, the ability to REVIVE teammates in a very easy manner. Just a little press of the ‘X’ button and he’s back! Why should I be scared of these aliens anyway? The go down with a few bullets of my lame-ass machine gun and even though they’re a mega-advanced race of techno-aliens they seem to be very keen on dying of a 60’s shotgun blast. And apparently that “Titan” near the end of the demo (which I thought had some pretty good art design, it was hard to pinpoint what it actually WAS) was the “strongest warmachine” the aliens had. Well that thing was taken down by two bums with Ghostbuster-packs strapped to their backs. Doesn’t seem all that dangerous to me! And here’s an interesting question to the developers: is it even possible to FAIL a mission? Or is this checkpoint based?

    Last, but not least: we’ve seen very little signs of base-management. Yes, the demo started out in what seemed to be your base, but we didn’t get to see a whole lot. What we saw was a room where you could select your (two…) squadmates and advance their skills, and a room where we could select a mission. We also saw what seemed to be a research lab, but no sign of actual use in the game. What a shame! And, judging by all this, I’m sincerely doubting there will be more than one base. Clearly, there won’t be any intercepting either (which I pretty much figured, but it was just such an awesome feature of the original). To be honest this doesn’t bode all that well for the base-management in the final product.

    So there, enough reasons for me to seriously worry about the final game. As I said, I absolutely want the final game to be good, but this demo just doesn’t bode well. In fact, it reaffirms most of my initial fears unfortunately.

    And for those who are going to say the inevitable “I wonder how you would react if it wasn’t called XCOM?”, I already said that I don’t have that many nostalgic feeling connected to the original. If it was called Hatmen: Race Across America it still would have looked like a relatively mediocre FPS with some base management to me. In that sense it really reminds me of Mass Effect 2. A shooter with some minor base-management and RPG features sprinkled around in it, but the shooting was very much the core of the game. And like ME2, the shooting doesn’t seem particularly good in this game.

    So as for now, Angry Internet Man does not support This Game!

    • Kamos says:

      I like this comment. Let me add a few things.

      The health bars above the aliens do not help the mood of the game. Gunning down aliens to make the green health bar go empty is not scary.

      Also, what is the deal with this health-regenerating Rambo main character running around and shooting aliens with a shotgun? I fail to see the strategy elements they mention. As op said, it either looks like scripted scene puzzle solving (in the sense that the situation was put there specifically to have you use an agent’s new ‘power’), or either like the powers are completely superfluous. Either way, there is no depth to this, no deeply meaningful choice.

      I’m overwhelmed by the lack of complexity of the situations portrayed in that video.

    • Hematite says:

      I also like this comment. It is a well justified and considered wall of text – my favourite kind of wall of text.

      I would also like to say that the art design looks very nice (although I do miss the B-movie aliens from The Real XCOM) and the game Narrator Dude’s talking about sounds promising.

      Unfortunately the level design is atrocious, and the game Narrator Dude’s playing looks like an insipid Mass Effect 2 wannabe.

    • GBoyzJay says:

      Angry Game Reviewer also does not support this game. Not with that name, anyways. The early trailer (y’know, back when they first announced) had some interesting concepts: A slime thing that was pretty nasty, Bioshock style research (hey, at least it’s research!), which led to interesting hypothetical dilemmas (how do you properly research how to defend against blob-alien? photograph your mate getting orifice-invaded by blob-alien!). It had potential, and the “Greatest weapon” (the Cube Thing) really seemed, not only to wreck your shiz, but that of large portions of US countryside. It was the “Oh, sod, let’s just RUN!” idea, and that would have kept the original tension.

      Identical chest high walls. Hrm. Cubey humanoids (that turned up in the second “actual” trailer… EDIT: Oh, wait, *sort* of shown in the first.)… and they seem to be the aliens seen during the majority of the game… hrm. Linear, as opposed to PCG areas… Hrrrrrrrrmmmm… And little base management. Yeahno.

      See, if the game were a little less “Corridor Shooter McCodBlops”, or “Mass Effect: 60s Budget Edition”, and had some of the features originally promised (especially the original “CUBE OF DEATH”, not this watered down substitute, and the creepy ass slime thing), I’d be happier… but as a game reviewer, if this game gets released as it’s currently demoed, you can guarantee the first words out of my electronic mouth are gonna be “It’s not the XCom you knew.”, and then judge it as fairly as possible, finishing with “So, while this game is a Generic Butch McManShoot/Poor Mass Effect And Bioshock Clone/Okay Game/Excellent Game, it ain’t X-Com, and never should have been called X-Com. Don’t buy if you were expecting X-Com.”

      But hey, maybe they’ll be at some con, and lots of reviewers (at least 30% of whom will at least know what XCom *was*), will all be asking… “Sooooooooo…. er…. what’s this *actually* got to do with X-Com?”

  49. Narretz says:

    It seems you will see these standard aliens quite a lot, which is extremely boring. Where are all the awesome alien types from the earlier games?

    • Zenicetus says:

      Right, and remember the creepy black goo? What happened with that? This latest preview looks like someone took a generic WWII manshooter and re-skinned it with Mass Effect “husks” as bad guys.

      I loved the original X-Com, but I’m not automatically against an FPS version in that setting. I want to give this game a chance. But they have to do better than this, before I’ll be interested enough to pick it up as anything other than a bargain basement Steam sale.

  50. DrGruu says:

    I think this is one to buy when it becomes cheap