Release Dates

[Danial]

I've been in a very reminiscent mood lately, going through movie, music, and game release dates and thinking of where I was and what I was doing when they came out, which lead me to wonder when all of the X-COM games came out. This is the list as Gamespot tells it:

 

Dec 31, 1993 -- X-COM: UFO Defense

Feb 28, 1995 -- X-COM: Terror From The Deep

Jun 30, 1997 -- X-COM Apocalypse

May 31, 1998 -- X-COM: Interceptor

Sep 30, 1999 -- Email X-COM

Apr 18, 2001 -- X-COM: Enforcer

 

(This shows we haven't had an X-COM game in 5-and-a-half years!)

 

Does anyone know if these date are correct? Also, did UFO: Enemy Unknown come out before, or at the same time, as UFO Defense?

 

And just for the record, Alliance was originally meant to come out in Novemer 2000!!

[Zombie]

Looks pretty close to me. A quick check at XCommand verifies. UFO: Enemy Unknown came out before X-COM: UFO Defense did. The "X-COM" part was not introduced until the game was released in the United States due to copyrights or some such.

 

- Zombie

[Danial]

Six and a half years since an X-COM game... How saddening

[Bomb Bloke]

On the brighter side of things, the original game has stood the test of time.

[Strong Bob]

Has it really?

 

At this point, as much as it saddens me, I know virtually nobody in person that has ever even played this game. And online fanbases appear to be collective from all over the world.

 

Hmn... I'm wondering if that is why a new X-COM game hasn't been made. Perhaps if sales, global, were taken into account it would do decently. But it probably would do poorly in each individual country, which is how the economy determines things.

 

Unless it were distributed online, to the whole world, from a centralized source, I do not see how a new X-COM would fare very well unless it were completely redone into something that none of us would even like.

[Slaughter]

As much as I want a new X-COM game, seeing what is happening to Fallout makes me think it's better if they leave it alone. Unless Strategy First get their hands on the license, I doubt we'll ever see a turn-based small squad based X-COM ever again.

[Bomb Bloke]

Well, I still play the first game. Which is saying something 'cause there aren't that many games from back then that I still mess with these days.

 

Well, I say "play"... Haven't actually "played" UFO for quite a while now...

 

*goes back to his coding*

[Zombie]

A lot of this can be applied to UFO: Extraterrestrials. It's based off of EU and shares many similarities. True, it is not an authorized remake like Genesis was to be, but who cares what company develops a new X-COM game as long as it plays well?

 

- Zombie

[Danial]

The new UFO games scored poorly on most reviews though. Metacritic shows the scores between 67-71%, which is pretty bad. It makes you wonder if being an actual X-COM franchise would effect that?

[Zombie]

True. How true. I think that for some people, even if an authorized remake came out by Take2 or whoever, they still wouldn't be happy. For them, the romance is gone. They are holding on to the hope, no matter how slim, that the remake will look, act, and perform just like the original did.

 

That said, companies these days don't care about the fans, they care about the bottom line. If research shows they are not going to make much money on the title, changes are going to be made to the game until it does. Changes will alienate (pun intended) some gamers of this series.

 

One of the reasons why UFO: EU still is popular these days is that anyone can play the game. For the most part, any computer (no matter how strong or weak) can run it without too many modifications. If a company would remake the game, what is the first thing they are going to do? That's right, they are going create a game which taxes the resources of todays high-powered computers to the max. That basically screws the people who have an older computer and just can't afford to upgrade the components or buy a new one outright. I think most of us would be more happy with a game which actually runs and is bug free, rather than one which has all the bells and whistles. Sure, those features are nice, but at what cost? In one word: compatibility.

 

- Zombie

[Strong Bob]

Or maybe I think the fact should be faced that X-COM is not quite as popular as we would like to believe.

 

For the longest time, this site used to be called x-com.co.uk and featured a high number of members and posters until a short couple of years after all X-COM projects ended up canceled. Attendance of players declined, and the Sim games eventually died. (As much as I treasure that whole year of XCAS I was present for)

 

Now X-COM is just a smaller branch on the same website that is trying to feature more, and newer, games to keep up the activity. I mean... What is there left to talk about in regards to X-COM after so many years with the same game? I barely ever see a new topic here anymore.

 

I love X-COM as much as anyone and revisit the classic frequently. I hope they'll make a new X-COM someday, but I have a funny feeling it won't be taken well by anyone. Fans of the classic will hate that they aren't playing a game exactly like the original, and new players simply are not into squad based strategy games of that nature anymore.

 

I mean... What are the sales figures for X-COM in places like Japan? That is usually the defining factor in whether or not a game gets sequels or remakes.

[Bomb Bloke]

I've never thought of X-Com as "overly" popular and well known, but many game reviewers mention it from time to time (in a positive light) so I reckon most people have at least heard the name.

 

These days it seems a bit of the site activity has shifted over to the Wiki.

 

Wasn't there only one release in Japan, a PSX game? Too long ago to matter these days.

 

Really the big hiccup point was with the last few games, Genesis, Alliance, Enforcer and Interceptor. Of these four the two that were released weren't really "X-Com" style games, whereas they two that didn't make it most likely would have easily kept the franchise on the map.

 

A gradual evolution of games would have kept fans happy, this is true. Instead other games have paved over the ideas that they would have introduced. A modern day X-Com release would have to be good.

 

Which is why we all want it made by the guys who did System Shock.

[Strong Bob]

The guys who did System Shock have just made Bioshock.

 

Frankly, I'm not too sure I want these guys making X-COM after what happened with Bioshock.

[Bomb Bloke]

DRM? Could be worse, could be what Valve are doing at the moment...

 

Valid point though, but I suspect the game devs have little say in the matter of the copy protection scheme used. The matter will probably get worse before it gets better.

 

I've kinda of spun off into the land of console gaming, so it's easy to forget what happening on the PC these days.

[Strong Bob]

Valid point though, but I suspect the game devs have little say in the matter of the copy protection scheme used.

 

Are you refering to Valve or the developers behind Bioshock?

 

I've never had a single problem, ever, with any kind of copy protection. I've never had trouble with anything copy-protected because I've had the decency to go out and buy it. And when I needed to download a game, I always bought it first, and thus have all the CD-keys and such necessary to play and prove I actually own it. Complete with reciepts.

 

The only exception would be old ID games such as Commander Keen. I have no idea how to prove I bought those other episodes over 10 years ago, and I don't feel like paying for it again, even if I was only in my single digits back then. XD

 

My beef with Bioshock was that the developers literally took everything that made System Shock a great game, and flushed it. No skills, no environmental depth, and no ability to actually 'lose'. Not even an inventory system. It was a new game with maybe 1 or 2 things that could be attributed to System Shock as nostalgic.

 

Now, Bioshock wasn't a bad game at all. But it was, by no means, a spiritual successor. What does this set as an expectation if they're going to do the same thing with X-COM? If this is any indication, we'll be seeing a new X-COM system where all your soldiers are equal in skill in all things, have no inventory system (No loadout), and probably can't be killed. (Ala, KOTOR, where your companions resurrect once battle is over.) I'm sorry, but if we want to see a good "X-COM" game, those guys aren't giving me a lot of assurances.

[Bomb Bloke]

Are you refering to Valve or the developers behind Bioshock?

Any development group that has copy protection applied to their stuff, basically. Sure some are self published but there are always exceptions to the rule (usually it's the publishers who make the decision on this stuff).

 

I've never had a single problem, ever, with any kind of copy protection.

System Shock II uses a copy protection that causes it to crash on many modern systems (not intentional at least, but still not good), assuming it worked with a given CD drive at all. BioShock's protection is set up so you may only install it three (or five, can't remember) times even on the same machine, and if the computer has multiple user accounts, it only works for the one that installed it. Valve are currently "disabling" games purchased from certain sellers who sold outside of the region they thought they were going to be selling in (and leaving it up to those sellers to give refunds as they choose).

 

Then there's the case of Sony installing rootkits on systems without the owners knowledge. Their particular setup was rigged to hide their software, but since all that was required to hide files was to follow a certain naming convention it also hid whatever viruses were released to take advantage of it.

 

Not to mention StarForce, which installed extra device drivers into systems that (like Sony's rootkit) were resident in memory all the time. One of the things these did was to take out software that wasn't "liked" (virtual drive or burning software for example), and because the publishers didn't include any removal software for them, many users wrecked their OS installs trying to get rid of the things.

 

The solution is to use cracked software. Not saying you shouldn't purchase it first, and laws on the matter vary around the world, but it's getting more risky to install retail stuff then it is to download warez off the web and use those.

 

My beef with Bioshock was that the developers literally took everything that made System Shock a great game, and flushed it. No skills, no environmental depth, and no ability to actually 'lose'. Not even an inventory system. It was a new game with maybe 1 or 2 things that could be attributed to System Shock as nostalgic.

Ah... Haven't actually played the game (not really intending on getting a capable system).

[Strong Bob]

System Shock II uses a copy protection that causes it to crash on many modern systems (not intentional at least, but still not good), assuming it worked with a given CD drive at all.

 

Interesting... Are you sure it is the copy protection?

 

System Shock 2 would repeatedly crash on my newest computer up until a couple months ago. I am not sure the actual reasoning behind it... But I left System Shock running in the main menu for about 16 hours (Went to work and came home to sleep, and waking up to find I left the game on). Ever since then, I've been able to play for hours on end and have yet to encounter crashes anymore. I've recommended this tactic to others, but I cannot speak for their results.

 

What is it about the copy protection that actually causes it to crash so randomly?

 

BioShock's protection is set up so you may only install it three (or five, can't remember) times even on the same machine

 

Admittedly, I was quite ignorant of this little piece of information. The logic escapes me as to how this qualifies as copy protection... You might as well just say you're renting the game.

 

This does set back my opinions on modern day developers and the like... I knew we'd be seeing some serious response to all the piracy. Especially if things are getting bad enough that we must download cracks just to play games safely.

 

Regardless... I don't want the people of Bioshock to make X-COM. Doom 3 was a much closer game to System Shock 2 than Bioshock was. All things considered, it simply won't be X-COM at all...

[Bomb Bloke]

What is it about the copy protection that actually causes it to crash so randomly?

The game does a disc check on startup. On certain machines (usually XP based) this will crash on the spot without fail. If you made it to the main menu then your matter would have been seperate.

 

The original two System Shock games were also hard to lose. You had to activate the resurrection stations before they'd work, sure, but all they really did was save you the time it took to reload the game upon death. Which if you think about it is what happens whenever you die in any game, so taking out the "game over" thing doesn't so much make them easier so much as it removes the illusion that they were hard.

 

Not saying that's a good thing, and I certainly agree that removing custom characters and the inventory would be dumbing things down a bit much.

[Strong Bob]

The original two System Shock games were also hard to lose. You had to activate the resurrection stations before they'd work, sure, but all they really did was save you the time it took to reload the game upon death.

 

There are severe differences between the Quantum Bio-Reconstruction chambers in System Shock 2, and the Vita-Chambers in Bioshock.

 

System Shock

1- The chambers needed to be sought out and activated individually first. Which means your character is extremely vulnerable to death until then.

2- Reconstruction chambers would only work if you were in the same area/map that they were in. There were quite a number of areas devoid of these chambers, where you had no chance to survive if you made a mistake.

3- Every time you died, it costed something. Granted, it was only 5 nanites. Towards the end of the game that doesn't even qualify as chump-change. Although, in the beginning, that is practically gold. It's still a price.

4- Quantum Bio-reconstruction Chambers are actually a bit rare. Some decks may have more than one, but all-in-all there are not that many. This furthers the consequence of death, in that some people really do not fell like traveling all the way across the ship after dying.

 

Bioshock

1- From the first chamber you encounter (Before you encounter even your very first combatant) you will always have a Vita-chamber to spawn at. There is no point throughout the entire game where your character is ever vulnerable, except for the final boss, which is autosaved directly prior.

2- Vita-chambers always work regardless of anything. You will always respawn right at the chamber you last walked within proximity of... Doesn't matter how far away from it you are, or how much is in between.

3- Dying is free of any and all consequence in every way, except for the pain of having to walk back to where you died. No fees (Despite the fact money and some resources exist in the game) and no other penalty.

4- Vita-chambers are so goddamn abundant that I no longer even consciously acknowledge one when I see it. At one point of the game it is actually possible to stand by one chamber, and see a second one, within the same screen.

 

Having played both System Shock 2 and Bioshock so thoroughly... I can attest that there is at least a strategy behind the Quantum chambers as opposed to the Vita-chambers. When I first played SS2 on it's harder settings, I recall making audible sighs of relief upon hitting each chamber. In Bioshock, like I said, I don't even notice them anymore.

 

Bioshock is not a bad game. But it's not a successor of System Shock... If anything, it feels like a core premise to an idea which could be made into a very good game... Which is weird, since it is supposed to be a "spiritual successor". I do not wish this fate upon the X-COM franchise. The people of 2K Australia (Formerly Irrational Games and current holder of the X-COM license, as I recall) should stick to improving on Bioshock's system to make a much grander game.

[Gimli]

A few tidbits on copy protection - sadly, the copy protection actually CAN cause problems to legitimate users. I remember a year or two ago, some people had problems with Serious Sam 2, because of copy protection. When I asked the developers about it, they told me that SecuROM (which is owned by Sony and also used by Bioshock) had problems with newer hard drives. The solution was to send the SecuROM developers a few necessary files and they would send you a fixed .exe. Still, it's sad that you have to even do such a thing. Anyway, it took a lot of convincing to stop these customers from suing the developers of Serious Sam 2. It is usually the publisher, not the developer, the one that dictates copy protection. And it's true in the case of Bioshock as well. The only problem is that with Irrational's acquiry by 2K and subsequent renaming, it is difficult to tell them apart for a lot of people.

[Strong Bob]

Indeed, but I feel that copy protection problems are a separate issue in this matter. Because I honestly would not mind seeing more games on the consoles if they can be made better.

 

Personally, I've never had problems with copy protection. Maybe I just happen to be lucky. If it's a problem, then I think measures should be taken to eliminate it.

 

My beef is not with the Publishers in this case, nor is it with whatever issues their copy protections are causing. It is with the Developers and how well they adhere to what made their older games good. We all want to see X-COM continued as either a sequel or a remake, and if people of System Shock/Bioshock are going to make it, then the one representation (Bioshock) tells me it's not going to be a pleasant ride.

[sluissa]

Every attempt to remake x-com has failed in my opinion. I will be the first to admit that x-com had it's problems, but nothing since has had the same comfortable gameplay that I've come to enjoy from x-com and TFTD... Even apocalypse changed the interface enough that I really can't enjoy playing it even though I admit that it's a good game in it's own right, it's just not an x-com game to me. I either bought or tried demos of all the UFO games to far, I tried UFO:ET and I've tried several of the fan remakes of x-com and none have done anything except give me a strong desire to go back to the original just as less sci-fi games such as slient storm always simply make me turn back to Jagged Alliance 1/2

 

I say, give me the exact same game. No changes to graphics or gameplay, just fix a few of the bigger bugs and update it to work with modern computers.... on second thought, scratch that, cause I'd probably lose xcomutil... just leave me alone and let me play x-com...