Mega Man 11 and the Mega Man X Collection are coming to PC in 2018

Mega Man 11

Every iteration of Mega Man passed me by until I got myself a SNES Classic Mini yesterday and properly played Mega Man X for the first time. It’s quite good, so I now find myself craving more. Good news, then! All eight games in the Mega Man X series are coming to PC next year. They’ll be joined by a brand new game: Mega Man 11.

Mega Man 11 is part of the original series that kicked off with the first Mega Man in 1987. The Mega Man X series, on the other hand, started in ‘93 with the launch of the SNES and is set in a different era with a different protagonist. Including spin-offs, there are seven Mega Man series. Yeah, it’s confusing.

There was also a previous Mega Man X collection. It launched on consoles in 2006, but contained only 6 games. Most of the games in the X series are 2D action platformers like the original series, with the exception of Mega Man X7, which made the leap to 3D. It wasn’t well-received, prompting the sequel to go back to the basics.

Mega Man 11 will be the first proper Mega Man game since its predecessor, Mega Man 10, which launched in 2010. Set 30 years after the first game, it sticks to the traditional 2D running, jumping and shooting that the series is best known for, though it trades 2D sprites for 3D characters and objects on a 2D plane. Take a gander at it in action below.

The Mega Man X Collection is due out in the summer, while Mega Man 11 will launch in late 2018.


  1. TotallyUseless says:

    This is good news. I really loved the Mega Man X titles. Feels less of a kid’s game.

  2. DeFrank says:

    I feel like 20XX has already out-megamaned megaman

    • jefft1314 says:

      This is exactly what I came here to say. If you want more Mega Man X, play 20XX. It’s fantastic.

    • theapeofnaples says:

      but… it’s a roguelike?

  3. Nevard says:

    Metroid, Castlevania (well, Bloodstained), Megaman… they’re all adopting this 2.5D art style for their newest titles.
    I know it’s probably at this point cheaper to make than 2D artwork, but it makes me very sad. Something in my brain (and I’m perfectly happy to accept that it’s just a fault with my own perception, not a universal thing) just sees this perspective and gets confused, meaning that platforming physics and movement animations that would look fine in actual 2D just look fake and jarring in this video.
    None of them look better than their respective Gameboy Advance instalments :(

    • Addie says:

      No, it’s just that the animation is cheap and lousy – classic megaman leans into his run, and has a slightly slow, epic quality to the animation. That looks like they’ve speeded up a walking animation – it’s too upright, looks like Benny Hill. In addition, the art direction is all over the place, the colour balance is poor and it’s hard to discriminate details. Compare it to say, Sonic Generations, which also uses 3D models on a 2D plane, but which looks fantastic, possibly better than the hand-drawn sprites ever did, and which glows with colour and characterisation.

    • Nerdy Suit says:

      I 100% agree. I actually thought Metroid: Samus Returns looked AWESOME, but a part of that was the 3D effect of the 3DS (and it’s the only game on the 3DS that I played with the 3D on the entire time). But the other two you mentioned – Bloodstained and this new Mega Man (and MN9) look bad compared to 2D sprite work.

      Is the 2.5D aspect cheaper to produce? I guess so. But I refuse to give these developers/publishers a pass when other indies and AAA publishers are able to make games that look like Axiom Verge, Owlboy, Aquaria, Valdis Story, Ori and the Blind Forest, Dust, Cave Story, Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, Shantae, Momodora, Rogue Legacy, Child of Light, etc.

      • goodpoints says:

        Well-animated 2D isn’t inherently more expensive if you have skilled staff, but Capcom got rid of pretty much all their 2D artists after 3rd Strike. And then this happened. The gif’s from a longer article that posits a “pixel tax”, i.e. that to the broad gaming market, poorly animated 3D > good 2D. I guess Battle Network went on being 2D for a while, but the sprites were always pretty basic and animation negligible.

        But yeah, once you fire all your 2D artists and go 3D for a decade+, new 2D artists might be rarer and more expensive to hire. On the other hand, if you actually do 2.5D right, it can end up being more expensive than 2D; as in the case of really the only series that improved by going 3D: Guilty Gear. Xrd seems to be significantly more expensive for ArcSys than BlazBlue, as suggested by one of the lead artists’ GDC lecture. (essential viewing for anyone interested in game animation, cel shading, vertex painting,etc.) Highlight: “While the math in the shaders is always correct, correct is just not good enough (. . .) Everything on screen has to be an intentional choice, not just the result of a calculation.”

        Same thing with the move from FM Synth/sample bank composition to streaming audio; we go from having funky shit like this and this, to st(r)eaming turds like this and this. (yeah, the latter plays during 8 of the boss fights)

        In hindsight, it’s astounding how risky (though admittedly cheap, rehashed art and all) MM10 was. Ah well, now it just looks like MM Network Transmission.

  4. Freud says:

    So we basically live in an age where Capcom are the good guy that surprise gamers in a good way.

  5. racccoon says:

    This is so good its brilliant :)