• 77 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by BaconBits (56 posts) -

So, IGN put up a video that showcases the "evolution" of The Bureau with footage of the new game. Yes, it's pretty much a Mass Effect game now, complete with "i'm gonna lift you up in the air so my buddies can shoot you!" powers. Also, enemy forces now consist of Sectoids and Mutons.

Basically it went from an original Horror/FPS that could of been an awesome origin story of a clandestine organization to something soooo XCOM that it doesn't even make sense in the XCOM fiction.

Update: Newer video

#2 Edited by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

Not going to lie, I really liked the way the original version looked when it was first shown off.

Now, it really does look like XCOM: Mass Effect Edition.

#3 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4605 posts) -

Really disappointed with what they've done to The Bureau. Could've been a really cool X-Files inspired game but now? Eh.

I'll probably still play it in hopes that the original Horror/X-Files DNA isn't completely lost, but I'm definitely less interested in where it goes from here.

#4 Posted by JeanLuc (3574 posts) -

Yeah I have to be honest, I liked the mystery/horror vibe of the original version better. It sounded unique and different. This seems more like regular XCOM, which is fine as I love XCOM, but I kind of wanted this to be different.

#5 Posted by BaconBits (56 posts) -

@joshthebear:

I'm still willing to give it the benefit of doubt, and it probably is a better game than the 2010 version...it's just far less interesting.

#6 Edited by RE_Player1 (7551 posts) -

Have to be honest, I think it looks mad mediocre. Like a small step up from the Star Trek game.

#7 Posted by Tonyyj (141 posts) -

I seem to be in the minority here in thinking that the new revision looks a whole lot better than the original 2010 version. Surprised at the inclusion of squad recruitment, hopefully there's permadeath for your squaddies. Very much looking forward to this!

#8 Edited by Ares42 (2590 posts) -

Watching that video just made me realize how bad of an idea this project has been all the way through. It's just such a "focus group"-game. While I enjoy the X-Com setting there's nothing about any of their iterations that makes me think they are improving on the franchise. Also, listening to that one guy say The Bureau: XCOM Declassified over and over just really punctuated how terrible that name is.

#9 Edited by BeachThunder (11719 posts) -

I appreciate their transparency on the game's history, but really, this just looks like they've never really had a clear, decisive vision of what they want this game to be.

I still feel like they should have divorced this from the XCOM franchise; labeling it XCOM post EU's success just seems to muddy the water even more...

#10 Posted by MentalDisruption (1618 posts) -

Not entirely sure that I'm digging the way this looks, but I'm going to try and keep an open mind. It might end up cool. Maybe.

#11 Posted by Labman (287 posts) -

I'll probably end up buying it and never playing it, like I do with most FPS games!

#12 Posted by BeachThunder (11719 posts) -

@labman said:

I'll probably end up buying it and never playing it, like I do with most FPS games!

Psst, watch the video, it's no longer an FPS...

#13 Edited by Hailinel (23968 posts) -

I appreciate their transparency on the game's history, but really, this just looks like they've never really had a clear, decisive vision of what they want this game to be.

I still feel like they should have divorced this from the XCOM franchise; labeling it XCOM post EU's success just seems to muddy the water even more...

I think they did have a clear, decisive vision.

Then Firaxis's XCOM game came along, stole their thunder, and made the idea of an FPS XCOM a lot less appealing to a number of people.

Online
#14 Edited by probablytuna (3550 posts) -

I think I would enjoy playing any of the three versions of this game, though I think I prefer the setting and character designs of that 2010 demo.

#15 Posted by TheHT (10930 posts) -

I get that they're gonna talk down the old vision for the game they're now not making, but Republic Commando had that team feeling through and through. A squad system like that would've covered that whole squad tactics thing no problem. Make your partners some talky archetypes, let you level em up and gear em out, all while in a BioShock-like campaign. Could've been awesome.

But hearing that they've got some interesting powers in it is a bit of a relief. It came across before as Mass Effect sans abilities and that universe (i.e. the interesting parts).

#16 Edited by Funkydupe (3312 posts) -

This game feels so forced it is unreal. Is someone pointing a gun at those developers talking in this video?

"Our joke has been before that we want to make XCOM an X-files?" Waaat... he says that with a poker face and I'm wondering what's up with this video, why make this video, why make this game.

#17 Posted by Humanity (8865 posts) -

First it was completely different and people were outraged. Now it resembles XCOM more and everyone is unhappy it's not what it was before.

These poor guys can't seem to catch a break.

#18 Posted by Funkydupe (3312 posts) -

Poor investors.

#19 Edited by Oldirtybearon (4605 posts) -

@humanity said:

First it was completely different and people were outraged. Now it resembles XCOM more and everyone is unhappy it's not what it was before.

These poor guys can't seem to catch a break.

Two different camps of people on that, though. The X-COM purists were the ones who raged about this game. Then they got Enemy Unknown and now couldn't give much of a shit about The Bureau, and the people who were intrigued by The Bureau (back when it was just called XCOM) are now disappointed because they've been kowtowed into abandoning their original vision. The whole horror/X-Files vibe was fresh and interesting. So was their idea of merging design concepts of the original (like research, base building, and objectives that focused on collecting samples and alien technology, as well as trying to cover up the invasion) with the run-n-gun shooter gameplay 2K Marin is good at. It had the potential to be a lot more than the sum of its parts, and now it looks derivative as hell.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they did it. Publisher pressure to make it more like good old fashioned X-COM probably fucked them on this one, but it's incredibly disappointing all the same.

#20 Edited by BeachThunder (11719 posts) -

"Our joke has been before that we want to make XCOM an X-files?" Waaat... he says that with a poker face and I'm wondering what's up with this video, why make this video, why make this game.

That part was surreal; I don't think I've ever heard someone say the word "joke" so seriously - not even a hint of a smile...

#21 Edited by Funkydupe (3312 posts) -

@beachthunder: Well they made a video documenting their own fuck-ups so I guess he just wasn't in a joking mood; the guy writing the script however... :)

#22 Posted by Wampa1 (627 posts) -

I'm still really interested in this, I have a deep love for the whole "G-Men in fedoras" look it has going on, it's not a style you see much in games now. Whilst it does make more sense to have enemies less abstract for balanced squad combat I actually really like those abstract designs for the creatures.

#23 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

This is so like Mass Effect it hurts, lol.

#24 Posted by CrusaderNoRemorse (12 posts) -

The whole part where you issue commands to your buddies really reminded me of Brothers in Arms games. But anyway, I'm still kinda looking forward to it, even though it has changed drastically. I hope 2K Marin pulls it off!

#25 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

The question is is it Mass Effect 1, or Mass Effect 2 (more like poo)/3?

Also, the original idea was basically Bioshock as I recall, with a few extra mechanics, so I can't say this really surprises me.

#26 Edited by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

Looks terrible - could that level design be any lazier? The original idea looked ok, it just had no business being called XCOM.

They shoulda ended up somewhere between the two. The XCOM management stuff and then missions that played like Republic Commando or Brothers in Arms.

#27 Edited by Hunter5024 (5555 posts) -

Mass Effect's combat sucksss. Why would they copy it?

#28 Posted by owack6 (213 posts) -

All 3 of these games looks kind of neat in their own way, but the latest is the one that looks most like an actual game, but probably the less interesting of the 3.

It is really awesome seeing the way a game can change in the course of development in quite drastic ways like going from 1st to 3rd person game play, i can't think of any other instances we actually got this kind of video about a still in development project (i might be wrong).

#29 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

I admire their commitment to *getting XCOM right*. The prior versions of the game sure look like they were *good enough* games, but just not true enough to the turnbased tactical core of XCOM. It seems to me like they finally found the middle ground between direct realtime player interaction, narrative, and tactical control/player agency.

Don't quite get the backlash for it seemingly playing like a latter day Mass Effect game, just with a whole lot more player agency (especially with perma-death factoring into it all). This iteration seems to shoot awfully close to the scope and scale of the turnbased core XCOM experience gameplay-wise. How's that a bad thing.

True, the prior iterations were arguably a lot more moody and atmospheric, but gameplay-wise they certainly weren't XCOM. The Bureau actually looks like it'll play like an XCOM game, and if it controls well and offers player-agency akin to the turnbased experience, it will be a baller game.

I hope environments are as densely interactive and destructible as in the turnbased game. That would really elevate it beyond a Mass Effect/generic 3rd person shooter clone.

#30 Edited by jkz (4003 posts) -

Poor guys; they're in such a tought place with this one. I definitely found the original more interesting, although at the same time it also definitely made me yearn for a more traditional X-Com experience....but then we got that, in its entirety, with Enemy Unknown. But seemingly publisher pressure's meant that this has to fulfill that desire, at least to a certain degree, as well, and in doing so they made this a much more generic, much less interesting game (at least to my eyes). It's also a bit worrying that he outright said that the AI companions aren't going to be narratively relevant because of permadeath (which is certainly an intersting idea). When you take a game out of the over-head commander perspective and make the player a single character on the ground, the focus of the story neccessarily HAS to tighten into the player and the people accompanying him. It'll be interesting to see how they balance the permadeath with still creating a compelling story over the course of each mission, rather than just relegating story to post/mid-mission cutscenes.

Also, we're fighting "off the grid" meanwhile GIANT ALIEN STRUCTURE towers over the town. Myeh.

#31 Posted by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

@seppli said:

I admire their commitment to *getting XCOM right*. The prior versions of the game sure look like they were *good enough* games, but just not true enough to the turnbased tactical core of XCOM. It seems to me like they finally found the middle ground between direct realtime player interaction, narrative, and tactical control/player agency.

Don't quite get the backlash for it seemingly playing like a latter day Mass Effect game, just with a whole lot more of player agency (especially with perma-death factoring into it all). This iteration seems to shoot awfully close to the scope and scale of the turnbased core XCOM experience gameplay-wise. How's that a bad thing.

True, the prior iterations were arguably a lot more moody and atmospheric, but gameplay-wise they certainly weren't XCOM. The Bureau actually looks like it'll play like an XCOM game, and if it controls well and offers player-agency akin to the turnbased experience, it will be a baller game.

In literally no ways does it look like it'll play like an XCOM game. It's real-time, funnel-level, whac-a-mole TPS. It's about as close to XCOM as God of War is to Baldur's Gate.

#32 Posted by Ares42 (2590 posts) -

When you take a game out of the over-head commander perspective and make the player a single character on the ground, the focus of the story neccessarily HAS to tighten into the player and the people accompanying him. It'll be interesting to see how they balance the permadeath with still creating a compelling story over the course of each mission, rather than just relegating story to post/mid-mission cutscenes.

If they are trying to recreate the X-Com feel they will just stick to mid-mission story. It doesn't have to be super character focused just because you play in third-person. Look at something like Vanquish. It's not about your character at all, he's just a soldier being bad-ass in this big military conflict. The idea that every game has to have this deep character-driven story is getting old.

#33 Edited by Humanity (8865 posts) -

@humanity said:

First it was completely different and people were outraged. Now it resembles XCOM more and everyone is unhappy it's not what it was before.

These poor guys can't seem to catch a break.

Two different camps of people on that, though. The X-COM purists were the ones who raged about this game. Then they got Enemy Unknown and now couldn't give much of a shit about The Bureau, and the people who were intrigued by The Bureau (back when it was just called XCOM) are now disappointed because they've been kowtowed into abandoning their original vision. The whole horror/X-Files vibe was fresh and interesting. So was their idea of merging design concepts of the original (like research, base building, and objectives that focused on collecting samples and alien technology, as well as trying to cover up the invasion) with the run-n-gun shooter gameplay 2K Marin is good at. It had the potential to be a lot more than the sum of its parts, and now it looks derivative as hell.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they did it. Publisher pressure to make it more like good old fashioned X-COM probably fucked them on this one, but it's incredibly disappointing all the same.

Thats kind of what I'm talking about. These guys made a unique new take on XCOM, and the public openly rejected it. There were some people that were intrigued but it was a much more negative vocal outcry from the online community. Obviously no one knows for sure, but probably under publisher pressure they re-worked their original vision into something more viable in terms of sales and here we are. The people that were interested in the original concept are not happy because they all but scrapped that in favor of something completely different. The people that wanted another strategic turn based XCOM are not going to be happy because they already got one, and this third person shooter isn't anything they're interested in. Worse of all 2k Marin probably isn't happy either because they had to compromise their entire project in lieu of being forced to cater to an audience that does not want anything they are selling - just like Bioshock 2.

It's all a little depressing.

#34 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@jimbo said:

@seppli said:

I admire their commitment to *getting XCOM right*. The prior versions of the game sure look like they were *good enough* games, but just not true enough to the turnbased tactical core of XCOM. It seems to me like they finally found the middle ground between direct realtime player interaction, narrative, and tactical control/player agency.

Don't quite get the backlash for it seemingly playing like a latter day Mass Effect game, just with a whole lot more of player agency (especially with perma-death factoring into it all). This iteration seems to shoot awfully close to the scope and scale of the turnbased core XCOM experience gameplay-wise. How's that a bad thing.

True, the prior iterations were arguably a lot more moody and atmospheric, but gameplay-wise they certainly weren't XCOM. The Bureau actually looks like it'll play like an XCOM game, and if it controls well and offers player-agency akin to the turnbased experience, it will be a baller game.

In literally no ways does it look like it'll play like an XCOM game. It's real-time, funnel-level, whac-a-mole TPS. It's about as close to XCOM as God of War is to Baldur's Gate.

  • What I saw is a chock-full tactics/powers-quickselect-wheel that's slowing down time when opened, allowing me to order around squadmates, and employ powers with pin-point accuracy.
  • It's hard to say how linear of a corridor the leveldesign will be, from what little we've seen. People complained about the same thing with Firaxis' game, and it turned out fine. As long as the corridor is wide and varied enough to allow for rich tactics, who gives a hoot?

The core premise for this project is to make a XCOM action game, so I don't see where your confusion comes from. It sure looks like a XCOM action game to me. Rather than just going for the alien invasion setting of the initial FPS iteration, they've changed their focus to making the game more mechanically true to XCOM.

  • Recruit and level and equip your squad of XCOM soldiers. With perma-death looming threateningly overhead of these stalwarts of your campaign against the invaders - like the proverbial sword of Damocles - we ideally do care deeply for their lifes.
  • Order your fellow comrades-in-arms from cover to cover. Decide tactically when to use your powers and equipment to best eliminate the threat at hand.

Mechanically, these elements are both in The Bureau, as well as in the turnbased original XCOM, so no, I don't see your point. It's as close as a 3rd person action game can be to the turnbased original. I know - pessimists are always right, but I'd rather be an optimist, on the off chance that it'll actually come together nicely.

What's really bugging me is that I don't see any destructibility. High density interactivity (aka tactically destructible environments) is a key-element for the fascination I have with XCOM eversince its inception over a decade ago - from the footage we've seen here, that seems to be missing. Here's me hoping tactically destructible environments are in. The graphics are sure modest enough to make me believe it's in the realm of possiblity.

Please get it right - 2K Marin!

#35 Posted by ViciousReiven (820 posts) -

The original looked so much better, quiet suburbs slowly being terrorized by monoliths and goo with the only people to take care of it being detectives investigating cases of invasion, so rad, now it's just a generic third person shooter with the same old 'aliens took us by surprise and wiped out some towns now the military and anyone with training must fight to survive' bullshit.

#36 Edited by jkz (4003 posts) -

@ares42 said:
@jukezypoo said:

When you take a game out of the over-head commander perspective and make the player a single character on the ground, the focus of the story neccessarily HAS to tighten into the player and the people accompanying him. It'll be interesting to see how they balance the permadeath with still creating a compelling story over the course of each mission, rather than just relegating story to post/mid-mission cutscenes.

If they are trying to recreate the X-Com feel they will just stick to mid-mission story. It doesn't have to be super character focused just because you play in third-person. Look at something like Vanquish. It's not about your character at all, he's just a soldier being bad-ass in this big military conflict. The idea that every game has to have this deep character-driven story is getting old.

Nono I don't even disagree with you there. I suppose it's more that, in the initial presentation, that's what drew me to it. Telling another story about an alien invasion on a grand scale that humanity has to fight back against isn't particularly interesting to me (it certainly wasn't what drew ME to Enemy Unknown), and as they said in the video, the initial survival horror-y, small-scale, "in your back-yard" feel to the story is what drew me to the project in the first place.

I suppose I was just expressing dismay at the fact that that's yet another example of how much of that premise they're leaving behind (since initially it also seemed focused on telling the story of these fedora-wearing-g-men dealing with a threat they literally didn't understand, which seemed potentially interesting to me). Not that there mightn't be something to the tactical combat in this iteration that'll differentiate it from EU while also being interesting in its own right. That I can't be certain of at all. I was merely lamenting the apparent departure of what interested me in the initial pitch, rather than what it's become, because hell, 2K Marin are a talented group of guys and I believe they'll make a cool game: just maybe not the one I wanted out the project.

My phrasing wasn't particularly good (I'm on a train typing on a tablet, so my focus isn't all here), but I didn't mean to imply that everything HAS to have a character driven story, but more that if you ARE intending to tell a story during gameplay - i.e. during missions rather than between missions (not that they are) - and that gameplay all takes place "on the ground", then the story sort of has to as well, if it's going to have an impact, and that making the characters replaceable is a sign that that's not the route they're taking.

*Edit* Ugh, I'm tired, sorry if none of that makes sense.

#37 Edited by dudeglove (7688 posts) -

Fuck this, hurry up with Terror From The Deep already.

#38 Edited by natetodamax (19177 posts) -

I dunno, it could be interesting, but at this point I'm more interested in a turn based XCOM than this.

#39 Posted by Daneian (1208 posts) -

I'm down. In theory, they're speaking my language.

#40 Posted by Labman (287 posts) -

@labman said:

I'll probably end up buying it and never playing it, like I do with most FPS games!

Psst, watch the video, it's no longer an FPS...

Ooops, meant shooters. That's what I get for drinking and posting!

#41 Edited by The_Ruiner (1020 posts) -

Looks pretty ok to me. I actually prefer Mass Effect to most fps games anyway. Plus I like that it feel more like an XCOM game with permadeath and an emphasis on squad tactics...Kind of reminds me of a sci fi Freedom Force. Fingers crossed.

#42 Posted by I_smell (3925 posts) -

I loved the visual designs of the aliens before, and it sucks that they're gone, but in terms of how the game plays, this seems at least a bit more interesting than the first one.

#43 Posted by TwoLines (2789 posts) -

Boo. The game looked way more interesting in 2010. Now it's like Xcom 0.5. Whee.

#44 Posted by GunstarRed (5044 posts) -

It looks alright, did prefer the original artstyle in the FPS version though.

Online
#45 Posted by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

@seppli said:

@jimbo said:

@seppli said:

I admire their commitment to *getting XCOM right*. The prior versions of the game sure look like they were *good enough* games, but just not true enough to the turnbased tactical core of XCOM. It seems to me like they finally found the middle ground between direct realtime player interaction, narrative, and tactical control/player agency.

Don't quite get the backlash for it seemingly playing like a latter day Mass Effect game, just with a whole lot more of player agency (especially with perma-death factoring into it all). This iteration seems to shoot awfully close to the scope and scale of the turnbased core XCOM experience gameplay-wise. How's that a bad thing.

True, the prior iterations were arguably a lot more moody and atmospheric, but gameplay-wise they certainly weren't XCOM. The Bureau actually looks like it'll play like an XCOM game, and if it controls well and offers player-agency akin to the turnbased experience, it will be a baller game.

In literally no ways does it look like it'll play like an XCOM game. It's real-time, funnel-level, whac-a-mole TPS. It's about as close to XCOM as God of War is to Baldur's Gate.

  • What I saw is a chock-full tactics/powers-quickselect-wheel that's slowing down time when opened, allowing me to order around squadmates, and employ powers with pin-point accuracy.
  • It's hard to say how linear of a corridor the leveldesign will be, from what little we've seen. People complained about the same thing with Firaxis' game, and it turned out fine. As long as the corridor is wide and varied enough to allow for rich tactics, who gives a hoot?

The core premise for this project is to make a XCOM action game, so I don't see where your confusion comes from. It sure looks like a XCOM action game to me. Rather than just going for the alien invasion setting of the initial FPS iteration, they've changed their focus to making the game more mechanically true to XCOM.

  • Recruit and level and equip your squad of XCOM soldiers. With perma-death looming threateningly overhead of these stalwarts of your campaign against the invaders - like the proverbial sword of Damocles - we ideally do care deeply for their lifes.
  • Order your fellow comrades-in-arms from cover to cover. Decide tactically when to use your powers and equipment to best eliminate the threat at hand.

Mechanically, these elements are both in The Bureau, as well as in the turnbased original XCOM, so no, I don't see your point. It's as close as a 3rd person action game can be to the turnbased original. I know - pessimists are always right, but I'd rather be an optimist, on the off chance that it'll actually come together nicely.

What's really bugging me is that I don't see any destructibility. High density interactivity (aka tactically destructible environments) is a key-element for the fascination I have with XCOM eversince its inception over a decade ago - from the footage we've seen here, that seems to be missing. Here's me hoping tactically destructible environments are in. The graphics are sure modest enough to make me believe it's in the realm of possiblity.

Please get it right - 2K Marin!

Yes, which -contrary to your first post- still isn't close at all. That's my point. To suggest that it "looks like it'll play like an XCOM game" because you can order ~3 guys around, drop powers and it has perma-death is tenuous at best. And it shows a pretty shallow appreciation of gameplay - games can have things in common and still not have remotely similar gameplay. A real-time TPS is, by definition, not going to play anything like a turn-based strategy game, regardless of whether both involve men hiding behind cover shooting at aliens.

They aren't necessarily wrong to be trying to action up XCOM. You're wrong for claiming it'll somehow play like the turn-based strategy original despite fundamentally not being that. The trailer makes it plenty clear that they've taken Mass Effect -not XCOM- as the main inspiration for their gameplay. It's Mass Effect's combat with a vaguely XCOMish coat of paint.

#46 Edited by jakob187 (21645 posts) -

I'm willing to make a bet....nay, a guarantee...that the majority of people in here saying "this just looks mediocre now" were the ones bitching about this game back in 2010 and 2011 in the first place! People can never seem to be satisfied.

I think it looked awesome then, and I still think it looks awesome. The guys were able to justify all of their reasons for the changes, and that scores huge brownie points with me. This is a day one buy for me, no ifs ands or buts.

#47 Posted by MaFoLu (1858 posts) -

Was kinda interested in the original demo just because it seemed to kinda carve out it's own niche in the shooter space, but now that they've seemingly taken away the most interesting parts and replaced them with more standard shooter gameplay they've lost me.

#48 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@jimbo said:

@seppli said:

@jimbo said:

@seppli said:

I admire their commitment to *getting XCOM right*. The prior versions of the game sure look like they were *good enough* games, but just not true enough to the turnbased tactical core of XCOM. It seems to me like they finally found the middle ground between direct realtime player interaction, narrative, and tactical control/player agency.

Don't quite get the backlash for it seemingly playing like a latter day Mass Effect game, just with a whole lot more of player agency (especially with perma-death factoring into it all). This iteration seems to shoot awfully close to the scope and scale of the turnbased core XCOM experience gameplay-wise. How's that a bad thing.

True, the prior iterations were arguably a lot more moody and atmospheric, but gameplay-wise they certainly weren't XCOM. The Bureau actually looks like it'll play like an XCOM game, and if it controls well and offers player-agency akin to the turnbased experience, it will be a baller game.

In literally no ways does it look like it'll play like an XCOM game. It's real-time, funnel-level, whac-a-mole TPS. It's about as close to XCOM as God of War is to Baldur's Gate.

  • What I saw is a chock-full tactics/powers-quickselect-wheel that's slowing down time when opened, allowing me to order around squadmates, and employ powers with pin-point accuracy.
  • It's hard to say how linear of a corridor the leveldesign will be, from what little we've seen. People complained about the same thing with Firaxis' game, and it turned out fine. As long as the corridor is wide and varied enough to allow for rich tactics, who gives a hoot?

The core premise for this project is to make a XCOM action game, so I don't see where your confusion comes from. It sure looks like a XCOM action game to me. Rather than just going for the alien invasion setting of the initial FPS iteration, they've changed their focus to making the game more mechanically true to XCOM.

  • Recruit and level and equip your squad of XCOM soldiers. With perma-death looming threateningly overhead of these stalwarts of your campaign against the invaders - like the proverbial sword of Damocles - we ideally do care deeply for their lifes.
  • Order your fellow comrades-in-arms from cover to cover. Decide tactically when to use your powers and equipment to best eliminate the threat at hand.

Mechanically, these elements are both in The Bureau, as well as in the turnbased original XCOM, so no, I don't see your point. It's as close as a 3rd person action game can be to the turnbased original. I know - pessimists are always right, but I'd rather be an optimist, on the off chance that it'll actually come together nicely.

What's really bugging me is that I don't see any destructibility. High density interactivity (aka tactically destructible environments) is a key-element for the fascination I have with XCOM eversince its inception over a decade ago - from the footage we've seen here, that seems to be missing. Here's me hoping tactically destructible environments are in. The graphics are sure modest enough to make me believe it's in the realm of possiblity.

Please get it right - 2K Marin!

Yes, which -contrary to your first post- still isn't close at all. That's my point. To suggest that it "looks like it'll play like an XCOM game" because you can order ~3 guys around, drop powers and it has perma-death is tenuous at best. And it shows a pretty shallow appreciation of gameplay - games can have things in common and still not have remotely similar gameplay. A real-time TPS is, by definition, not going to play anything like a turn-based strategy game, regardless of whether both involve men hiding behind cover shooting at aliens.

They aren't necessarily wrong to be trying to action up XCOM. You're wrong for claiming it'll somehow play like the turn-based strategy original despite fundamentally not being that. The trailer makes it plenty clear that they've taken Mass Effect -not XCOM- as the main inspiration for their gameplay. It's Mass Effect's combat with a vaguely XCOMish coat of paint.

I'm saying that it looks like 2K Marin tried to *translate* what makes the turnbased game special into an action game. 2010's iteration focused on the narrative-aspect of a secret invasion and an atmosphere of unease, which alone didn't please the fanbase. The cries for a more mechanically familiar product were deafening. Over the long years in production - development hell I believe is the colloquial term - it has become a more mechanically-familiar experience, as demanded by consumers the world over.

Of course the action game-take on XCOM doesn't play like the classic turnbased XCOM - however it doesn't have to. We already got a XCOM-ass XCOM-game from Firaxis. However, it's much more clearly familiar and in-line with what XCOM is supposed to be, rather than some kind of alternate universe XCOM. It's much more conforming with Firaxis' reboot of the franchise - mechanically and stylistically and narratively. From what I can tell (being an optimist), this XCOM game will inded play like an XCOM game, if it was translated into a 3rd person action experience. I don't understand your need to put a negative spin on that circumstance. Way to judge a book by its cover.

If you want a *real* XCOM game, I'm sure Firaxis will get to iterate on what many decided to be their game of the year in 2012. As far as an XCOM-themed action game goes, The Bureau seems to be much more mechanically-familiar to the turnbased game than anybody expected. In my book, that's a positive. We'll see how it all turns out. I doubt 2K is going to delay and retool this game yet again. What we see, is what we'll get, and I don't see any reason why what've seen seems so condemnable to so many.

#49 Edited by Ares42 (2590 posts) -

@seppli: I'd say the core problem lies in the fact that X-Com has always been a very gameplay focused game, so changing the gameplay while keeping the theme is basically like making a completely different game. The situation reminds me of Syndicate really. There was nothing wrong with that game, but calling it Syndicate didn't do it any favors. There isn't really any reason why any of the iterations they showed needed to be linked to X-Com, and basically all it has done for them is create a lot of fervor against their game.

#50 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@jimbo:

P.S. what I find much more worrisome than the naturally more shallow tactical options and more focused level-design is the seemingly compete lack of tactically destructible environments. As far as I'm concerned that's a key pillar of the XCOM experience. Firaxis didn't get that aspect completely right either, and 2K Marin doesn't even seem to try.

Not everybody is DICE or Volition of course, studios with appropriate tech at hand, and experience with such a production effort - yet it's a shame nonetheless. When I imagine a XCOM action game, high density interactive environmets are near the top of my list of needed feature. Hopefully such things are to become a lot more common in next generation productions.