Rant mode on:

I am not going to pirate this game to see if I would like it enough to buy it regardless of the fact that it is officially confirmed to not have many of the features that a game so closely named to the original X-COM should be required have. Over a decade ago I might have done that out of boredom, but now I don't even have the time to play games that I don't see as failed attempts to suck me in by poorly imitating classic games that I have played untold hours.

By naming this game as just XCOM, it should be hold against the highest standard as it will be confused with the original by new players and that will cause all kinds of idiocy on any TBS forums. Therefore it should not have the luxury to be a lesser game than the one it is trying to overthrow.

When we can't control over a two dozen soldiers on a same mission by the end while at the same time the action points have been replaced with an extremely simple two actions per turn system and the shooting now appears to be limited to detected aliens only, the game should have been at most named X-COM: Black Ops where you control a small elite recon team operating in countries that have been infiltrated and have ceased funding.
Naturally the possible lack of base defense missions would also not be an issue anymore.

Rant mode almost off...

At least I can't think of there being any other game series left anymore that I would have build strong enough feelings over the years to be nearly as bothered by any betrayal the publishers could be plotting against the gaming culture. I still would hope that for once the reviewers would hold the publishers countable for not giving us a proper remake that at least tries to improve all aspects of the original in hope to yet again have them as a whole become more than the mere sum of their parts as otherwise we will only see even more streamlined remakes instead of original ideas.

No matter what you may think about this new game, this video is pretty funny.

A game should be reviewed for what it is. It shouldn't be reviewed for what people might think it should be.
Well, if you were looking for a game to be a nice intro to turn based civ builders, Civ V is a pretty good game for that. It isn't really super comolicated compared to a lot of the alternatives, and you can take it at your own pace.

I have no idea what it might be valued at in trade.

I'm looking forward to Spoony's review of it. It's not often you see him on his knees, worshipping a developer, and trying to get the developer's forgiveness for thinking he'll mess an old favorite.

Then you accept the inevitable racing game sold as a Civilization n+1 with no problems?

Seriously though, I have no interest in ARPGs claiming to be sequels to TBRPGs or X-COM lookalikes that simplify everything. That's what the spinoffs are for.

It was 2K's choice to try fitting the X-COM's rather large shoes for this game without trying cushion it by branding it as a new spinoff series so it really should be reviewed as a remake/reboot of an almost two decades old classic and criticize any streamlining that lessen the scope of the game compared to the original instead of just making the interface easier to use.

Any X-COM fans at Google? Buy out 2K and get the rights for Silent Storm's engine so that you can integrate it with your earth application and make us a proper successor that expands rather than simplifies everything.

While i agree they do seem to have simplified some aspects of the game doesn't mean its going to be a bad game.

Would Love to here peoples thought on xenonaughts

How did the pre-existing X-Com : Interceptor and X-Com : Enforcer not ALREADY water down what an X-Com game was? Neither of those is a turn based game involving sending squads out to fight aliens while researching and producing new tech, which is what the series was originally about. That ship already sailed, dude.

The new game IS a turn based game involving sending squads out to fight aliens while researching and producing new tech. Are there differences? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that the core concept remains the same.

Besides that, what is with people wanting note for note remakes of existing properties? You already have the existing game. Give me something new.

Those were spinoffs, so they can use the setting while implementing completely different game mechanics. Preferably spinoffs can even create their own continuity and keep the core series free to go elsewhere. Imagine Expendables 3 being a romantic musical with very little action, wouldn't you want to name it a Expendables: the musical instead and hope that it is never referenced in any core sequels?

XCOM seems to be a lite version of the original with only one base (that you don't need defend?) and the max squad size is less than half of what I would ever send out to a mission in the original. I have said it before that the developers should have made a choice between either a small teams or the two actions per turn system as having them both implemented at the same time changes the mechanics too much unless they make it a spinoff.

If you want something new then why not start by not buying games that use existing IPs as they tend to either repeat the same old formulas or make them just simpler instead of adding new options?

While I would not turn down a less buggy version of the original game with just a little better graphics, I would rather have more features like:

- crawling
- climbing over fences and through windows
- jumping over holes
- unconscious aliens either stay unconscious or seek out the soldiers even if bare handed
- a way to keep track of which soldiers have died during the mission
- any improvement that XCOMutil adds to the game
- more diversity on the maps
- moon missions and/or bases
- autoresolve option could be handy, if usually not a wise option
- blast doors and fixed weapon platforms on the bases
- air support from the local countries
- black market
- multiple endings, like selling weapons to black market may not end well or too self sufficient operation having high collateral damage makes you a ruthless tyrant
- PSI blockers
- option to turn these features on and off to give us the ability to try playing the game as close to the original as possible
- iron man mode with different score counters to challenge the players

Does that sound like a note for note remake for you?

Sure. Come discuss the game here, especially if you wish to know more about the latest alpha.
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/xenonauts/page6

< Sad panda. Yeah, turns out I actually just sold the one thing that could play the game because I'm moving out of town soon, and any extra ballast is being sold or given away. My lappie can't handle UE3. Oh well.

Guess I'll look into Xenonauts whenever that will be released. I'm unwilling to be an alpha/beta tester though; not to mention, I wouldn't be much help not having a whole lot of experience with these type of games. Do you think there'll be a demo? I hope so.

Implemented as cover, though you probably don't like it
Already possible
Not sure I've seen holes yet
They stay unconcious
During the mission, you can't see the dead. After the mission, you do have a "Wall of Fallen"
And even more, UE3 is highly moddable, just see what is possible with the demo files
Give it some time, we will (hopefully) get a map editor at some point. Not that I recall that much diversity on UFO: Enemy Unknown though
Alien bases are ingame, there should be at least one moon mission, but since it is story based, not that much info is out
No. This aren't the faceless soldiers of the first X-Com, these are the mercs of JA2. And even though JA2 had autoresolve, it was only used (at least by me) for when there were no mercs in the sector.
Until we see an assault on an alien base, we can't say for sure if there are any or not. Were there any in the originals?
We don't get air support from them. Their military can't survive. We do get strategic support though (again, same as in the original)
Already in, with that name
Same as the original, 2 possible outcomes. You win, or you lose. How can you lose? Probably the same ways as in the original.
Not much info on psionics yet. Quite possible that we do get access to PSI blockers
Which options?
Ironman mode (one save) already in.

As I've said before, I don't want a note for note remake of the original. If I want to play the original, I'd play the original. If you want a clone, get Xenonauts.

But let me ask a bit more. Did you see any of the gameplay videos, or only the screenshots? See the PC UI and one mission, see [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VP4YmExQAE&amp;feature=plcp]here 2 missions and a lot more info.

So far, it does seem I'll enjoy the new XCOM more than the old one, especially since I don't miss the features they've taken out. Your mileage may vary though.

Haven't I told you not to use reason in here?

I'm sorry, my lack of scotch (or vodka, or any other alcoholic beverage) manifests as reason. I'll try to be drunk next time I post ;)

Excellent!

XCOM may have implemented some of the features in my list, but I have no interest in playing it until the modders add four times or more the number of soldiers per mission, base defense missions, action points, ability to carry multiple grenades per soldier and target walls, floors etc, as this game is named like it is a remake/reboot of the original. That is though job to fulfill even if it has all the basic ingredients for it to even hope try to recreate the magic that enables X-COM to be more than the sum of it's parts. XCOM is like getting a new sequel to a 4X game that turns out to focus on exploration while not letting you to expand your empire because the developers didn't find that fun and you can only hit planets with your weapons by missing shots aimed at the the hostile ships. Or like Mech Warrior 5 that lets you pilot only Elementals.

As I need to prioritize what games I have time to play the next group of games to be dismissed after the ones that are just bad in every way, or belong in one of the few genres that I actively dislike, are the remakes that I feel to be too different to be related so closely to the originals. It is as good metric as any, as I get to experience more diverse games in different settings when I skip the ones that can't honestly call themselves as spinoffs instead of sequels.

I am not claiming that this game should not be allowed to exist or played by anyone, but why does it need to be named "XCOM" instead of "X[-]COM: [insert some clever word(s) to describe the emphasis on faster play]"? What is so illogical at wishing that a game franchises would split off to new sub-series when the new game changes from isometric TBRPG to FPS/RPG hybrid or focuses on quick small scale encounters instead of the core series massive battles? Clear naming conventions and advance information about the direction where the new games are being headed would be better for everyone, or if the marketing departments disagree, we could take that as a confirmation that it is definitively better for the consumers and we should demand it even more!