Deep Rising: Firaxis Tease Possible XCOM Sequel

I hate Monday mornings and this was threatening to be one of the worst. My brain is still on the pillow and my body is refusing to obey the most basic of commands. Funny how a forty second video can turn everything around. Kotaku spotted that Firaxis’ panel at PAX East contained a short video that relates to the XCOM developer’s next “big project”. I reckon it might be time to turn our attention from the skies to the seas. My brain has lurched back into my skull and begun to gibber in an excited fashion. Watch below.

Of course, even if this is a sequel tease, there’s no guarantee that the terror will be coming from the deep, but I’d be very pleased to see New XCOM’s take on Lovecraftian horror now that we’ve seen its interpretation of B-movie apocalypse.


  1. Gwyddelig says:

    This has me ever so slightly excitified. Which is quite silly. 40 seconds of virtually information-free footage. Gah.

    • BobbyDylan says:

      Yeam, me too. I loved that TBS is making a return.

      Also, RPS, no mention of the iOS port of XCOM?

      • welverin says:

        Last I checked iOS is not PC, and they are militantly PC only, so…

        • TehTR says:

          Humm, civ5 has been out of mac for ages, and they always intended for xcom to come out on ios, and that was announced yesterday at pax east, so im not sure where you got this adamant pc only stance from

          • aserraric says:

            Not Firaxis, but RPS is very PC centered (not that I’m conplaining).

          • TehTR says:

            Derp, that DOES make more sense, yeah…
            I blame my lack of coffee this morning.

        • crinkles esq. says:

          Firaxis also announced they’re bringing XCOM to the Mac soon, which is pretty great news.

          • RaiderJoe says:

            Yes, I’m excited for this too. Although if they keep porting so many good games to my preferred platform, I may never get around to setting up a windows partition :)

      • rxonarex says:

        Addison. you think Amber`s blurb is neat, last week I got a gorgeous Mitsubishi Evo since I been bringin in $4911 this – five weeks past and-a little over, $10 thousand last month. this is certainly the best-job I’ve ever done. I began this 3 months ago and almost straight away started making minimum $73 per-hr. I follow the details here… link to Fly38.COm

    • scardb says:

      Yeah I could really use more x-com but i’m kinda confused as to why this brief cutscene indicates a sequel to Adam and others and not DLC instead.

      • jmtd says:

        I’d very much like more XCOM DLC, if only because it increases the odds of the base game being part of promotions like the playstation plus give-aways, since I haven’t picked it up yet.

      • pack.wolf says:

        Some DLC and some more patches would be much more welcome than a sequel. The game still bugs out on me a little bit too often and lack of map variety keeps me from starting my 3rd playthrough. Which is a shame really, since I like the game quite a bit.

        • Serpok says:

          Similar, I wouldn’t mind to make a second playthrough, but not without some better DLC or mods. Mods that are out now don’t add/change much enough.

  2. jalf says:

    Yeah, that does look pretty TFTD’ey. (or at least, the logo looked all watery, and the sound effect when that “signal lost” dialog box popped up sounded kind of like TFTD as well)

    I’m not sure how to feel about that. I mean, TFTD was never exactly a game that brought the series forward. A cash-grab and a quick reskin of the first game, more than anything. Not really something that just screams “THIS MUST BE REMADE”.

    On the other hand, why not?

    • Drake Sigar says:

      The underwater setting is too zany and interesting, certainly not stock enough.

    • bfandreas says:

      When the original XCOM was released people immediately screamed that it wasn’t hard enough. ePeen and testosterone poisoning predates the internet.
      Then they released TFTD. It was brutal.
      In one of my very first missions I encountered a nautilus type alien heavy weapons platform. Kept smashing against the same brick wall for a couple of times and then gave up on it.
      Instead of continuing this exercise in frustration and returned to the original with little to no fuss. Because it was exactly the same game!

      If done properly a TFTD remake could give them the chance to reverse a couple of their game design decisions they made in the XCOM remake. Though there isn’t an aweful lot I’d change to be honest. I only missed base defense. The rest that was cut was endless tedium.

      • jalf says:

        I’d really have loved to see a more dynamic campaign. Let me deal with missions when they arise, rather than the far-too-convenient “The Aliens have sent us invitations to do one of these three missions within the next day. Please RSVP and tell them which one you’d like to take on”

        • bfandreas says:

          Yeah, that “pick one of three” mechanic is annyoing and needs to go. But as quibbles in absolute redesigns go this is a minor one.

          • Premium User Badge

            FhnuZoag says:

            As I’ve always said, I think that mechanism is quite important. Otherwise the player would be encouraged to fight all three battles, which will kill the pacing of the game and make it rapidly tedious and unfun.

          • TehTR says:

            at the same time the one of three seems way too forced and meta.. if you have twenty soldiers rearing to go and skyrangers available to drop them, why do you have to chose ONE of the options?
            If the mission system had been a bit more dynamic instead of always “one of three” things like travel time and veterancy of squad would matter a bit more instead of just gaming the panic levels all the time.. (oh, germany is green, so I can afford to let that terror mission pass and let millions die and take this easy mission in the middle of siberia for a free scientist instead)

          • Wisq says:


            I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that you should fight all three, it’s that it shouldn’t be throwing three at you in the first place.

            What was wrong with the old X-COM mechanics? Where UFOs came to earth to do missions, and you either shot them down or they performed their mission? Where the reason countries might get pissed off is if you don’t have radar (in this case, satellite) coverage and never saw the UFO in the first place, or because all your interceptors were busy, or because the UFO was too big and you weren’t prepared to deal with it, or etc etc.?

            This arbitrary “we’ve cheated three UFOs through your otherwise perfect worldwide satellite grid, they’re attacking three places at once, and you’re not allowed to help all three” mechanic smacks of an inability to balance the basic gameplay to achieve the same sort of balance we had in X-COM. Instead of letting country support wax and wane organically based on your successes and failures, like in the first game, they reduce it down to a choice.

            The three-mission choice is the equivalent of playing singleplayer Starcraft or Half-Life or whatnot, and suddenly having a series of multiple choice questions pop up that determine the outcome of a battle, because they couldn’t be bothered to deal with pesky things like balancing the enemy AI.

          • LintMan says:

            @Wisq: Exactly.

            In the original, it all flowed naturally from your handling of the incursions. You might send several interceptors after a tough UFO, but then they might not be back at base in time to use them against the next UFO that arrives, leaving you shorthanded against it. There was a meaningful tactical decision there, and it made invasting in multiple interceptors more worthwhile than just having back-up ones if they got destroyed.

            IIRC, you could also have secondary ground teams (often underequipped/inexperienced) to send on missions (if you dared) whle your all-star team is busy coming/going on another mission on the other side of the planet. That is so much more natural and less “gamey” than the pop-up “pick A, B or C” terror missions.

      • Lemming says:

        We must have played different games, because that ‘endless’ tedium’ is clearly what’s kept me coming back to UFO and TFTD, but had me uninstall the new XCOM never to play again once I’d reached the frankly insulting end.

        Matters were not helped that I started the game over 2-3 times early on, to get the best sense of play, which showed me just how few maps and options are actually ever present to you. it was the equivalent of peaking behind the curtain to see the Wizard of Oz is just a con man.

        • Reapy says:

          Same feeling here, I lked the tactic end, but fell short in the meta game. Too many obvious choices, consistant format, never a need to use a cobbled together half team. Could also use some better weapon variations as well.

          I’d really be looking for a meta game upgrade before anything else, I wanted to want to play it through more than once.

          • mouton says:

            Weapon variation is bigger than in the first XCOM, fyi.

            Weapons used in the old game: blaster launcher, heavy plasma

            Weapons used in the new game: sniper rifle, pistol, shotgun, assault rifle, heavy weapon, blaster/rocket launcher

            Also, in the endgame people use 4 different armors (titan, archangel, stealth, psi). In the old game, there was only one viable choice.

          • MadMatty says:

            Certainly not Mouton, there were lasers, pistols, several grenades, sleep grenades, bazookas etc.
            I agree with the 3 Mission choice is bogus, and also Manual Aim is missing from the new one. No door? make a new entry point with the bazooka! where did that go? I also miss friendly fire, although it was a bit much in the original. And also, yeah extra squad times, travel time etc. the old organic style campaign was better. Kinda like the 6 man squads tho, i could never keep track of 12-16 guys anyway.

          • mouton says:


            When you got Heavy Plasma, there was no reason to use any other weapon in the Original Game. On the other hand, I used all types of weapons even in the last mission in New Game.

            You can make a new door with a bazooka in NG and there is friendly fire as well.

        • Kamos says:

          Same thing here, except I haven’t even managed to finish the game. I wish I could have my money back.

      • TsunamiWombat says:

        This was actually due to an unknown bug at the time which caused X-Coms difficulty to reset to easy on app start, so people who thought they were playing X-Com on hard were playing on easy. Que complaints about difficulty and, well… They listened.

        • LintMan says:

          The way I remember it, the difficulties were actually reversed, so Easy players got Hard difficulty and Hard players got Easy. So you had a mix of players calling the game a cakewalk while others were struggling from the start, baffled about everyone saying it was sooo easy.

      • Malibu Stacey says:

        When the original XCOM was released people immediately screamed that it wasn’t hard enough. ePeen and testosterone poisoning predates the internet.

        Alternative (and slightly based more in reality) explanation: There was a bug in the PC version of UFO:Enemy Unknown which reset the difficulty to “Beginner” as soon as you returned to the Geoscape after your first mission. The game was literally the easiest it could be even if you chose “Superhuman”.

        One of the many reasons why this PC game was best on a console (PS1).

    • Lemming says:

      TFTD is the best XCOM game there is, and sadly, probably always will be. MUCH more terrifying and interesting than the first game. It didn’t feel like a cash grab at all.

      • mouton says:

        Well, there are Xenonauts for you, then. It is mostly a reskin, just like TFTD was.

      • jalf says:

        Well, it was. The publisher wanted a sequel, and they wanted to IMMEDIATELY.

        That’s why it’s basically little more than a reskinned version of the first game.

        That doesn’t mean it was a bad game, of course. Just that it was very much the child of a “no time to make a proper sequel. We need to ship something tomorrow. Just take the first game, and replace the sprites and sounds”-kind of development process.

        • Lemming says:

          Well, by happy accident then, but it’s still the best XCOM there is, IMO. It doesn’t really matter if the game was created by sacrificing babies, it doesn’t change the end result.

      • Kamos says:

        I like X-Com Apoc. It is very different, but still a solid game, with several interesting mechanics.

  3. popedoo says:

    Well thank goodness! It seems silly *not* to make Terror From The Deep. As soon as I finished X-Com I started wishing for it.

    Let’s hope it’s not called ‘Slight Discomfort From The Shallows’…

  4. AngoraFish says:

    They’ve been giving copies of XCOM away like hotcakes with Bioshock preorders, so this doesn’t surprise me at all. It kills two birds with one stone by both driving preorders for Bioshock while drumming up some additional enthusiasm for the new IP.

  5. DrScuttles says:

    Yes please, Firaxis. Only make soldier customisation part of the base game rather than a pre-order incentive/DLC this time. Even though I would pre-order a new Terror From the Deep or plain old XCOM sequel in a heartbeat. Much to my own personal disgust.

  6. MuscleHorse says:

    This makes more sense than a traditional expansion, thinking of it. What most people are clamoring for are (semi) randomised levels, more creature/weapon variety etc. As with L4D2 a proper sequel would better serve this. Colour me excited.

    The colour of excitement is fuchsia, fact fans.

  7. Komutanb says:

    I believe Jake Solomon said somewhere that he does not like the setting of Terror from the Deep. It is not just up to him of course, but we may see something entirely different.

    • battles_atlas says:

      I’m pretty sure its considered a Law of Nature now in Hollywood that submarine films sink at the box office. I wonder if the same is true of games? Silent Hunter never escaped its niche, can’t think of anyone else trying. Have to say the idea of playing on the sea floor doesn’t thrill me – seems like a contrived B move staple too far.

      • Corporate Dog says:

        I’ll just point out that we haven’t seen Mars, yet, in NUXCOM.

        Lovecraftian horror on the red planet could be fun (or, alternately, feel like a Doom rehash).

  8. Loix says:

    Don’t care. I’m still waiting for Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri 2.

    If someone kickstarted a spiritual sequel to that game, I would literally give £150 immediately.

    • idiotapocs says:

      A hundred times, THIS

      • lordcooper says:

        You’d give £15,000?

        • Josh W says:

          He’d give the same £150 a hundred times, the miracle of cancelling your payments to kickstarter!

    • deaomen says:

      Alpha Centauri; my all-time favorite game. I wish they could remake this by just adding the modern graphics and UI… sadly this will never happen

      Anyway, there is actually one “spiritual sequel” for Alpha Centauri coming this year, called Pandora: First Contact. There is already some gameplay video and they are currently doing Beta testing.

      • Loix says:

        Good God man….

        I am not going to stop fellating until I’m in this beta test.

        • deaomen says:

          Don’t get your hopes up. I had the same kind of reaction first as well and the game might be decent, but it still no Alpha Centauri. For example, if you are waiting same kind of diplomacy options or depth AC had, you will be disappointed.

      • guygodbois00 says:

        Pandora looks like a mod for Civilization IV, which is not a bad thing at all. I’ll follow this, thanks for the information deaomen.

    • Schiraman says:

      Absolutely. I loved that game.

      I’d want more than a graphical overhaul from a sequel though – taking the culture/border and strategic resource mechanics from Civ 4 would be an excellent start IMO.

      • guygodbois00 says:

        I concur.

      • deaomen says:

        I think I have to also agree. I just wish if they would remake SMAC(X) they wouldn’t change too much (read: simplify it) the gameplay. I probably would be happy just with graphical overhaul, but if there could be something new then the features you mentioned would be great. Also unit getting XP/bonuses, limited unit stacking, good modding support and do I dare to say it: hexagons.

  9. razzafazza says:

    i liked the original a lot more – too much streamlining in the new game for my desires…

    …but at the end of the day new XCOM was still a good game and i really liked the presentation. if there was more replay value (better strategy overlay, tech trees etc.) it could even be a great game in its own right.

    i m HOPING for a (standalone?) expansion that makes the strategic layer more interesting as its main goal (and obviously many new maps, techs, aliens, etc. ).

    if its just a new campaign though i ll think i ll pass. fortunately no reason to be bitter as 2013 is shaping to be pretty awesome for TBS fans with or without xcom.

    • AshRolls says:

      Yeah a better strategic overlay is top of my list of improvements. The combat was good but the base building and world simulation of the new XCOM wasn’t a patch on the original.

      • FuriKuri says:

        I’ve seen this complaint a lot. I really wonder if people played a different game to me because (as great as it was at the time) the original UFO didn’t really offer *that* much extra in terms of the strategic layer. Certainly not that much was really lost in the new one and it seems the complaints boil down to two things: lack of multiple bases and base invasions. Neither of which were particularly well executed in the original.

        The bar to meet, ladies and gentlemen, was that set by the sublime XCOM: Apocalypse. I could write pages on how amazing* that game was but it boggles my mind that Apocalypse seems to be so completely overlooked in favour of the originals. Criminally so when TFTD gets so much love despite it being a glorified palette change.

        * Apart from whatever happened in the art direction which somehow ended up making the game look worse than its predecessors.

        • plugmonkey says:

          The main thing that got my goat was the black and white, pre-canned, choose-to-go-here-OR-here mission choices.

          In the original I would use my entire soldier roster, rather than the top available 6. You might think multiple bases was poorly implemented, but it meant deciding whether to tackle a Terror Site with your battered main squad on their way back from another mission, or with your poorly equipped rookie squad from a secondary base. This is a much more interesting meta-game decision than picking the highest priority target from a list.

          I don’t remember Apocalypse particularly well. I’ll give it another go tonight.

        • sophof says:

          I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think you are arguing the wrong thing. If most fans are anything like me, it is not nostalgia talking here, since I replay the original quite often. You rightly say that the original tactical layer is not that special, but it does somehow make for a more interesting game and above all seems to provide the general replayability ‘shell’ for the core turn based game.

          It makes more sense to find out why a lot of people feel this way and try to improve on that, than to just argue people’s feelings are wrong ;-)

          For me it is several small things actually. I don’t feel like writing a whole essay, but I’ll try to state them quickly. The panic system doesn’t work very well imo, the mission choice system is silly, one failure has too much impact (the player should fail more often) and way way more UFO’s (and skyrangers).

          Basically I feel like the game puts me in a linear, no failure possible story mode that has one optimal strategy and is always ‘suggesting’ you to do certain things. The open nature of putting your bases anywhere in the original and the emergent choices coming from random UFO sightings is much more interesting even despite all the bugs and the horrible gui imo.

          Almost all the TBS layer needs for me is 2 things. One is more maps, especially for landed/crashed UFO’s, the woods get boring quite quickly. The other is to remove the ‘groups’ of enemies that you run into and instead create an AI player controlling the aliens all at once.

        • Wisq says:

          I’m not sure where you’re seeing TFTD getting so much love. Every X-COM fan I know gripes about how TFTD was an excessively difficult glorified palette swap.

          My main gripes with the new XCOM, as opposed to the original:

          — As mentioned in a previous reply in this comments section, the “three missions, pick one” mechanic is just lazy. It’s an admission that they couldn’t balance the strategy layer and had to throw in a multiple choice question instead. It’s like <insert favourite action game of choice> releasing a sequel that removed the action-y bits and replaced them with multiple choice questions.

          — The four to six soldiers per mission limitation is annoying. It’s exactly the same sort of size limitation I hated in e.g. Dragon Age (3) compared to the old Baldur’s Gate (6). It means there’s little to no room for redundancy. (Want a second sniper? Hope you don’t mind halving your support team, or going without a heavy, or etc.) It also means that when one or two soldiers go down, unless you’re very close to the end of the mission, you’re probably looking at a retreat or a full party wipe.

          — The strategic action scales linearly, with minimal difficulty variation as you progress. The result is, if you lose a few “pro” soldiers, or even a whole squad, you may very well be screwed. In the old X-COM, you could still find smaller UFOs to raid, or you could throw a huge rookie squad at the wall (maybe with some tank support) and see who sticks. In XCOM, a rookie squad late game will just wipe, fast.

          — A lot of the missions have annoying scripted events that are just BS. Disarmed that bomb? Well I hope you’re in defensible locations, because we’re going to drop a bunch of Thin Men on top of you, in ideal elevated firing positions, and set them to Overwatch. That’s not game balance, that’s just more cheap and lazy design.

          — And yes, lack of multiple bases and base invasions is still an issue. With multiple bases, you could have specialised research or manufacturing bases. You had multiple strike teams, meaning you weren’t always playing with your top veteran guys. You could deal with multiple crises around the world from each other at the same time.

          — While the base invasion mechanic wasn’t perfect, it put certain pressures on the player that didn’t otherwise exist. Things like considering carefully where you shot down UFOs to try to keep the aliens from knowing where your base was, or designing your base in a defensible way, or putting priority on UFOs that were actively attempting to scout your base, etc. It was also the one encounter in the game that the player didn’t choose to initiate, where there was no retreat, where base damage and/or battle loss would have real & major consequences. In other words, it was exciting. And yes, admittedly a bit of a shocker if you weren’t prepared for it, but games aren’t meant to be the cakewalk they usually are today.

          Really, a lot of this comes down to the notion that by giving you a bigger set of tools to work with — in terms of both variety (more options) and number (bigger team size/base count) — X-COM allowed you to fail, but in little ways that you could recover from, albeit with some temporary discomfort. Which is a good thing. Discomfort makes the player choose options they might not have picked before, and increases the gameplay variety.

          The new XCOM, by contrast, is set up in a much more linear fashion. Events always escalate the same way. Due to this escalation, you’re encouraged to develop a very tight, very pro team. If anything goes wrong with that team, you may very well have to reload or concede (ironman). There are a bunch of “set piece” missions that you have to play, in sequence, as you progress through the game, and nothing will advance until you do. (X-COM only had a single such mission, the final assault on Mars.)

          Ultimately, IMO, the new XCOM Is a pale ghost of the series’ former glory. It’s nice that Firaxis decided to try something new with it, but I hope they realise these shortcomings when they make the sequel.

          • wererogue says:

            I agree with all of your points, although I feel that “pale shadow” is a little off – new XCom has something special all its own, that doesn’t quite scratch the X-Com itch but is rather good on its own merits.

          • FuriKuri says:

            You spend a long time tearing up the new game for not offering “real” balance and placing harsh and abstract restrictions and dire consequences on you out of the blue and then you come out with this gem;

            And yes, admittedly a bit of a shocker if you weren’t prepared for it, but games aren’t meant to be the cakewalk they usually are today.

            So… uh… which is it? Is the new game a cakewalk or full of the unfairness which you now say you… liked? Or not?

            I’m not saying the strategic layer of the new XCOM couldn’t be improved but I just don’t feel that old XCOM is the template to follow. Frankly it was a lot of smoke and mirrors (I don’t think shooting down UFOs further away from your base had any appreciable effect as you say), not particularly well balanced, tedious. You could have multiple bases but they were all identikit and pointless and meant you spent more time micromanaging logistics.

            Frankly the original was lacking in consequences with the big decisions. Losing a country from the XCOM project in the original was pretty meaningless, in the new one that was a lot of funding to lose. At least the 3 mission thing caused me to stop and think about my choices. Sure I’d love the extra scientists but unless I go and save France Europe’s gonna be out at the end of the month. That sort of strategic decision was sorely lacking in the original because you could always Throw More Rookies At It. Sure it was abstract and silly, but that’s what XCOM is at the end of the day. Unless you think an alien invasion would REALLY be fought off by 20ish rookies and a drone with no indirect fire support instead of, say, fleets of gunships, strike fighters, artillery and IFVs.

            Apocalypse did all these things you want but did them a lot better. That’s what I want. I don’t want multiple bases for the sake of multiple bases. I wan’t Apocalypse’s multiple bases which have different layouts, different structural strengths from both external damage and internal invasion.

      • bfandreas says:

        There wasn’t that much of it in the original to begin with.
        Balancing what base had what in stock and if needs be transferring it is something that will not be sorely missed.
        What is missed is base defense. In my original playthroughs they were a freak occurrence. I hardly got them. But when I got them they were quite nice.
        My complaints for the remakes are the one-of-three mission trilemma and the way we had to choose what the soldiers could bring to a mission and that you couldn’t choose what they specialised in. A couple more maps wouldn’t have hurt, too.
        Loved the original and love the reboot.

    • plugmonkey says:

      Same here. I tried to get back into it at the weekend, but I can’t. There’s just too many fun sapping things wrong with the design. I do really like the simplified squad movement, mind you, but virtually every other design change is a misstep, imho.

      There was an admittedly extremely enjoyable honeymoon period, but now all I can see is the cracks.

      It’s become yet another UFO update that does nothing but make me want to play the original instead.

      • bfandreas says:

        I had replayed the original one in anticipation of the release of the new one.
        May I remind you of the mind boggeling tedium that missions could devolve to? The joy of hunting the last lone sectoid in what fealt like the whole of rural Arizona? The endless juggling of stuff between bases? The minutes spent before each mission picking up all the equipment that’s on the floor of your Skyranger? The non-interactive aerial combat?
        There was a lot of tedium and they did away with that. They introduced a couple of things I don’t like but getting rid of the tedium is not amongst that.

        • Nova says:

          Only there is much more tedium in XCOM on difficulties above normal + hardcore. Since soldiers are much more irreplaceable you have to approach every level very carefully. If you lost a soldier or even a handful in X-Com it wasn’t that bad because you could just hire a bunch, and even a rookie could kill a Muton or Ethereal. Not to mention that you had 14 of them in a level.
          If you lost a few good soldiers in XCOM you can just stop playing.
          Also, just recently I had to search for a lone alien in the “remake”, too.

        • plugmonkey says:

          Yes, they did get rid of that final alien tedium. However, they replaced it with enemies that only ‘activate’ when I get near to them (unless they warp into the middle of my squad…)

          This introduces a new type of tedium where I know threats will only occur as set-piece encounters of multiple enemies, where I know the only strategy is to keep my tiny squad together at all times, where I know that I don’t need to think about my flanks, or want to attempt a flanking manoeuvre myself for fear of artificially spawning extra enemies into the world.

          Overall, it’s not a net gain, imho. Every mission ends up boiling down to the same small encounter repeated 5 times.

          (A lot of the tedious searches in the original were for enemies you’d downed but not killed, who then get back up and hide. They could frequently be avoided by checking hostiles were definitely dead – both a sensible and perfectly believable thing to be doing in the circumstance.)

          Edit @ Nova: I miss the expendability of my soldiers too. I think the 6 man squad limit was the greatest of their missteps. It puts far too much focus on my individual soldiers. Before if a veteran died, I would replace them with 4 rookies. One of them would live long enough to become a new veteran. The whole problem with the approach of the new game is that there is basically one way to win. That’s not a good thing in a strategy game.

          • wererogue says:

            Are you playing on Normal? On Classic and up there are mobile enemies as well, and some will respond to loud events. It ups the threat a lot.

  10. Grey Poupon says:

    I’d prefer Xenonauts over more of that, still kind of feel XCOM was simplified too much from what it was. Xenonauts just feels like a bit too much for the team making it. Seems like they’re having a lot of trouble with a myriad of bugs. But then again, XCOM was damn bugged when it came out and I think it still is.

    I just wouldn’t want to succumb to mediocrity when it comes to games. I used to enjoy them so much. The world has changed, not me. It’s someone elses fault! What was all that about pills again..

    • Arkh says:

      I share the same feel, friend, although I still have hope on Xenonauts. The new XCOM felt too limited. They took away your freedom, then forced you to choose things and called that tactical decisions. Not to mention enemies spawning in the middle of your squad. It’s a good game, but it felts more like XCOM on rails.

      Anyway, at least it’s a good year to TBS (although I’d like to see real time in game. I played APOC entirely on real time. Pausable realtime was a somewhat good experience).

  11. Cross says:

    I find it mostly likely that this is some kind of DLC, given that the Council guy is talking about the war “continuing”. Sounds very expansiony to me, given that we rather nipped the alien presence in the bud at the end of the game. #NoSpoiler

    • gingerpembers says:

      Hopefully, they’ve listened to criticism of the last DLC, and decided to do a full on expansion pack, which I would totally love to bits.

      Heck, do Terror from the Deep as an expansion which plugs into the main campaign, either way, more xcom plx!

  12. karry says:

    So, will they ever admit that the game actually runs fine on XP, they just deliberately “forgot” to include one tiny dll ? Lying bastards.

    • lordcooper says:

      It’s 2013!

    • MuscleHorse says:

      Christ, get Windows 7. It runs games much better and isn’t ancient.

    • jalf says:

      More like, they decided not to spend the resources it would require to *test* and *support* the game on a 12 year old OS.

      Can’t say I blame them. It takes a surprising amount of resources to test a higher number of platform configurations. And when one of them is a truly ancient OS which exists in so many flavors (it has 3 service packs and an ungodly number of updates, and a completely different driver model than Vista/W7), then yes, it makes a lot of sense to cut that out of your test matrix.

      There’s a huge difference between “people who tried to run it on XP generally had no problem doing so”, and “We officially support XP and actually promise that it’ll work”.

      Anyway, why do you care? You got it running on XP, didn’t you? So why does it matter what Firaxis said?

    • Milky1985 says:

      Erm one little DLL?

      Do you mean this one?

      link to

      You mean that fix that requires you to redirect kernel calls and effectively have a fake windows kernel dll (otherwise known at the most important bit of the operating system)?

      Yeah its because they used the vista file API rather than the XP one (as they should have, use the newer versions), but XP is basically dead and will be out of support in a short time.

      Its not them lying, the thing as programmed will not work on XP, simple fact. They could make it work but then they would have to provide support for something that Microsoft are going to stop supporting soon anyway!

      [EDIT] Steam software survey – link to – you are looking at about 80% windows vista and up, less than 9% XP, that’s why its not supported. Not worth them modifying it for a OS whos usage will only go down from now on.

  13. SkittleDiddler says:

    So I suppose if we can expect a new XCOM sequel, we can also expect that the only way to personalize our soldiers is to buy a $5 DLC pack? As much as I like 2K/Firaxis games, they need to stop that nickel-and-dime shit.

  14. AbyssUK says:

    I’d rather keep away from TFTD and become the aggressor, perhaps invading an alien homeworld that would be a decent twist.

  15. DarkLiberator says:

    I loved the game, only problem was I wish the tech trees were a lot more varied and the maps more randomized.

  16. Jams O'Donnell says:

    I am not man enough to play TFTD. Maybe a more accessible take on it is what I need!

    • bfandreas says:

      Yep. Me too. I chickened out of TFTD very early in the game. Got my bottom handed to me within the first few turns of the first mission and gave up on it.

      TFTD is for manly men with hair on their chest and genitals that look like they were nicked from Stonehenge.

      • plugmonkey says:

        I keep going back. I get as far as the multi-level cruise ship terror sites, and then slink away again in shame. :(

        • Malibu Stacey says:

          Those things are a right pain but when you have to go do artifact sites (think Cydonia but with landed UFO timelimits before they disappear and are crucial to progress) it’s a whole other level of pain.

  17. PatrickSwayze says:

    I’m all but certain it was previously stated that we are due another pack of DLC.

    I just hope we get official mod support after that because as it stands the new X-Com just doesn’t seem capable of drawing me back in.

    Don’t get me wrong I got a wonderful 40 hours out of the game but the poor map variation does nothing for replays.

  18. MeestaNob says:

    I’d prefer an expansion first, the game is crying out for more terrain tile sets, and maybe some more varied missions.

  19. Grey_Ghost says:

    I liked XCOM, but they couldn’t persuade me to purchase any of the DLC for it. I’m still a bit annoyed by all the bugs it had / has. Still, I’m cautiously optimistic about whatever this is.

  20. GeminiathXL says:

    Dear Firaxis. Remove storytelling, insert sandbox. You’ve had your fun, now give us what we want :).

    • Strangerator says:


      Make the strategic map more of a simulation this time, instead of a multiple choice quiz. Things should happen in the world regardless of what the player is doing at any given time, it is up to the player to prepare and respond accordingly.

      Make elerium matter again. All the new fancy technology should run on elerium, but since fuel and ammo became abstracted away from the player, elerium is about as precious as weapon fragments and alien alloys.

      Also, they seriously need random maps. No more paintball arenas please! Sometimes you need to have shootouts across open desert maps. It would give a reason to use those cover-tanks.

      Increase unit cap.

      How about true line of sight targeting and bullet pathing with free targeting system? Ha, that one would never happen. It’s simply too awesome.

  21. Heliocentric says:

    “My brain has lurched back into my skull and begun to gibberish in an excited fashion. Watch below.”

    Why no brain video? I’m only just getting into XCOM curtosy of a gift from a friend who ordered infinite, it’s not ‘your fathers’ strategy game, but it’s fun.

    I half want “my fathers” strategy game with modern graphics. Stuff like allowing a more sensible number of soldiers if I want to field 20 rookies why not let me, or give scarcely trained idiots with rocket launchers if I want them.

    • Strangerator says:

      But who will protect you from yourself and make sure you are still having fun? Developers need to put more trust in players, they need to trust that we can make our own fun. Hell, Minecraft jumps to mind. People are desperate for games which give them freedom to play how they want.

      • Kestilla says:

        You are so right.

      • Banana_Republic says:

        Agreed. You have no idea the delight I had (and a friend of mine as well), just being able to rename our troops. Sending our friends, family and favorite celebrities into the alien meat grinder every night was endlessly entertaining.

        They gave us the tools and we did the rest.

  22. Mekhazzio says:

    Because having trios of enemies just randomly spawning in the middle of your squad isn’t enough of a game-breaking bug on its own, no, those enemies have to be Lobstermen too. Huzzah.

    • sinister agent says:

      A true remake of TFTD would simply be a lobsterboot stamping on a human face, forever.

    • colw00t says:

      What’s strange to me is that I’ve seen that bug complained about a thousand times, and it NEVER happened to me across two and a half playthroughs.

  23. gulag says:

    Dear Jake,

    Please include mod support as a corner stone of future xcom development.

    That is all.

  24. BooleanBob says:


    [sips drink in disgust]

    Psionics are fantasy. If there’s mind control or ESP, or infallible grenades, or fucking crazy, not-realistic Line of Sight, all these basic things that break the laws of reality; that shit’s all fantasy. I’m into hard sci-fi; fantasy is all bullshit.

    • welverin says:

      I find this funny, talk to a most D&D players and they’ll tell you psionics is scifi and doesn’t fit into a fantasy setting.

  25. Spoon Of Doom says:

    Despite some flaws here and there, I loved the game to bits and I will happily buy this in a heartbeat if it’s a sequel or a properly sized expansion. If it’s another small and more or less useless DLC… Well, maybe in a Steam sale if I can’t find anything else.

  26. The Sombrero Kid says:

    They’re going to fix everything that wasn’t quite fleshed out and it will be amazing!

  27. Moraven says:

    Seemed more of an expansion announcement than a real sequel. Seeing how Firaxis likes to add onto Civ 4 and 5, I would expect that first.

    Now for a sequel they need to let us be in control of the aliens invading Earth. Manage exploration, cow harvesting, human probing, defend alien crash sites then move onto alien bases, terrorist missions to end with creating some big monolith that subdues all humans to a food population.

  28. -Spooky- says:

    No Sandbox – no buy. I don´t need a “story” in XCom. Just bashing few aliens.

  29. Kestilla says:

    If I say Random Maps three times, will that impossible to duplicate feature from 1994 that kept the game fresh and endlessly entertaining suddenly materialize?

    Probably not.

  30. Sardonic says:

    Why oh why could they not release DLC map packs for Xcom? They released DLC map packs for Civ 5 for god’s sake.

    I would be more than happy to pay $10 for an “Arctic and Desert” pack with 4 maps of each variety.

    I mean sure they would have to create new art assets but come on, the game needs more map variety.

  31. Bobtree says:

    XCOM still has game-breaking alien teleportation bugs. Don’t give Firaxis your money!

  32. Banana_Republic says:

    Unless this makes substantial changes to the base game, I couldn’t care less what they do with it. Yeah, I’m a crotchety, old school fan of X-COM, although it was called UFO: Enemy Unknown when I bought it for the Amiga. The game that’s been released recently is a sickly, weak pretender to this IP’s throne. The last thing I want to see is a sequel to it.

    Perhaps if they put back some of the meat they stripped off those old bones, I’ll reconsider. But for now, as far as I’m concerned, XCOM remains dead — the resuscitated corpse brought to us by Firaxis, notwithstanding.

    • Vander says:

      Yep, same here. But i don’t have much hope, with Firaxis recent production…

    • Arkh says:

      I’m with you, kind sir. Your words are the most venerable truth, and should be heard in all the continents of this earth.

  33. guygodbois00 says:

    This teaser did noting for me. I found XCom to suffer of too much consolitis – graphics, menus, ui, maps, everything. So, just no. Woe is me, or some such trite.

    • MadMatty says:

      A bit, but atleast you dont have to rekit EVERY SINGLE UNIT EVERY SINGLE MISSION WITH EVERY SINGLE CLIP. All 12 of them. …but yeah, Consolitis, wheres free aim?

      • Kamos says:

        Actually, in X-Com Apocalypse you had a loadout, so there was no need to manually rearm each soldier.

  34. Totally heterosexual says:

    Well that’s nice. Really enjoyed EU.

  35. Lagwolf says:

    X-Com w/Lovecraft mythos… what is there not to like? And I have never even played Xcom.

  36. Lambchops says:

    Just noticed the Te22or tag. Well played, sir, well played.

  37. 11temporal says:

    Ufo: enemy unknown is one of my all time favorite games, the new xcom shite I didn’t even bother pirating it’s so dumbed down and butchered.

  38. MadMatty says:

    i might play Xcom Apocalypse again. Its pig-ugly, the ugliest in the series, but the gameplay mechanics are fairly solid…. i play the (Gasp! Traaaaaaitoooooor!) Real-time mode, which works quite well.

  39. Kamos says:

    They have butchered the game with teleporting aliens, bizarre line of sight algorithms, wall hugging, “pick one out of three missions” strategy layer, etc. I couldn’t care less what they do next with this “franchise”.

  40. wererogue says:

    XCOM:EU was a great proof-of-concept of the tactical game to me, and I’m still playing it from time to time. I’d love a sequel with some more depth in any or all of the levels of the game.