KickStarter Phoenix Point - the new game from X-COM creator Julian Gollop

[Child of Malkav]

This, to me is unbelievable.
You all accuse Gollop of catering to idiots/trying to make money/consolisation etc. but if you were in his place, what would you do?
Every game company wants to have profits off the products they make.
What would you fucking do?
Between choosing to make an absolutely retarded but moneymaking game and a classic but a commercial failure which will probably lead to bankruptcy?
Understand 1 thing: those classics are classics for a reason, they weren't made to be surpassed, but what you can appreciate is that from time to time, certain indie devs come up with games that are close to classics and they need support.
Look at Rockstar lately: they just released RDR2 where you can see horse balls shrinking, watching how liquids dry up realistically on clothes or watching beard grow in real time. They actually spent millions of dollars on that stuff, programming, time and manpower and they're priding themselves on that in some interview. And that shit sells. It's unreal.
They spent 256 million dollars on making GTA V. Imagine that amount of money being spent by an indie dev to actually push forward this industry. Imagine LGS having this money, or Black Isle, or Styg, or Obsidian (yes I'm aware that talent left over the years), or any other developer you like, or Otherside Enternainment, imagine the games we'd get.
And yet, they wouldn't sell. Idk why.
Maybe it's the approach, maybe the fun factor, maybe the immersion (although true immersion comes from understanding the mechanics of complex games and having that "aha" moment when everything clicks and you brain starts making all sorts of connections and your horizon expands), maybe it's the outright mentally retarded audience the game is trying to appeal to. IDK.
Why is CoD selling so we'll? Why are action/shooting games selling so we'll?
Two polls, one in 2009/2010 and one in 2016 had almost exactly the same results: 1. Action/shooter games
2. Esports.
These are the most profitable genres. Every single year. AC/CoD/FIFA/NBA/NFS/etc.
Rockstar, Blizzard, Ubisoft have all the resources they need to make classics, but they won't because they would lose money. Look at Bethseda. With every Fallout version it gets worse and worse and there are braindead, shit eating plants out there that spend actual money on acquiring their "products".
There's no way in hell you can see a classic or a sequel to a classic being made today and being of the same quality.
You can't have a classic also be a moneymaker or at least I didn't see one.
TLDR: read that shit.

 

[Stavrophore]

It's just hard to understand that no proper sequel, bringing all the longevity / replayability, the flexibility and the immersion was created in the 20-25 years since those games came out.
So people cling to the possible explanation that, maybe younger generations of designers just don't have it in them to create such games - but what if the original designers returned, those same people that designed the original, now idolized games?

Sadly, those people are now old, and no one should begrudge them for wanting to take the easier way. They grinded away years of their lives, sleeping in the office, hardly ever seeing their families or any other people besides their co-workers, thriving on fastfood and ramen, and they delivered those classic, unsurpassed games.
But now they are aging, married with kids, maybe even grandkids, and when they take a look at the long climb on a steep flight of stairs that would be required to bring forth another classic game, they take a sigh, park their behind on the stair lift and deliver yet another mediocre game, like all their young contemporaries do.

I don't think it's that. I think it's more that the target audience has changed and it doesn't include only the über nerds like you and me but also more casual gamers who want to play something lighter. Gollop wants XCOM-like sales so that he can turn this thing into a successful franchise and he is designing the game around the XCOM template to attract the XCOM audience. I am excited for the game and I think that Gollop will make something great but I always expected XCOM+ instead of X-Com.

We all need to remember that the original X-Com was made at a time when Gollop went to the publisher, Microprose, with a game containing only the tactical layer and the publisher told him that the game was too simple, thus the addition of the strategic and management layer. Today developers and publishers are deathly afraid of alienating even the biggest morons and mouthbreathers. The original X-Com will never, ever be surpassed. I've made my peace with that.

So while I will never get my dream X-Com sequel, I will say that I am damn glad I have a choice of multiple quality X-Com-lite games to play. Just think of the poor souls who love Fallout.

Most of the casual gamers havent heard of Phoenix Point at ALL. Just go to the typical cliche casual site like polygon, kotaku, eurogamer or something similar and ask people around about Phoenix Point. I can assure you that maybe 1/3 will know about this shit even existing, and that's optimistic estimate. So i don't see this huge audience right now, so i don't know where you'd get a theory that the audience changed. Audience didn't change, but the project was in dire need of remaking, since it was obvious that interest of original audience[the one that watched the original release teaser] was pretty low and dropping. This time with huge publisher, they have a chance of earning some nice cash, but they have to attract different demographics for this to work out.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

This, to me is unbelievable.
You all accuse Gollop of catering to idiots/trying to make money/consolisation etc. but if you were in his place, what would you do?
Every game company wants to have profits off the products they make.
What would you fucking do?
Between choosing to make an absolutely retarded but moneymaking game and a classic but a commercial failure which will probably lead to bankruptcy?
Understand 1 thing: those classics are classics for a reason, they weren't made to be surpassed, but what you can appreciate is that from time to time, certain indie devs come up with games that are close to classics and they need support.
Look at Rockstar lately: they just released RDR2 where you can see horse balls shrinking, watching how liquids dry up realistically on clothes or watching beard grow in real time. They actually spent millions of dollars on that stuff, programming, time and manpower and they're priding themselves on that in some interview. And that shit sells. It's unreal.
They spent 256 million dollars on making GTA V. Imagine that amount of money being spent by an indie dev to actually push forward this industry. Imagine LGS having this money, or Black Isle, or Styg, or Obsidian (yes I'm aware that talent left over the years), or any other developer you like, or Otherside Enternainment, imagine the games we'd get.
And yet, they wouldn't sell. Idk why.
Maybe it's the approach, maybe the fun factor, maybe the immersion (although true immersion comes from understanding the mechanics of complex games and having that "aha" moment when everything clicks and you brain starts making all sorts of connections and your horizon expands), maybe it's the outright mentally retarded audience the game is trying to appeal to. IDK.
Why is CoD selling so we'll? Why are action/shooting games selling so we'll?
Two polls, one in 2009/2010 and one in 2016 had almost exactly the same results: 1. Action/shooter games
2. Esports.
These are the most profitable genres. Every single year. AC/CoD/FIFA/NBA/NFS/etc.
Rockstar, Blizzard, Ubisoft have all the resources they need to make classics, but they won't because they would lose money. Look at Bethseda. With every Fallout version it gets worse and worse and there are braindead, shit eating plants out there that spend actual money on acquiring their "products".
There's no way in hell you can see a classic or a sequel to a classic being made today and being of the same quality.
You can't have a classic also be a moneymaker or at least I didn't see one.
TLDR: read that shit.

Depends on how you define "money-maker" If by money-maker you mean the sort of game that sells millions and millions well Phoenix Point is never going to be that game. Even the new Xcom games with big marketing are okay sucsesses. Not barnstormers like RDR2. But with Phoenix Point you had a dedicated niche that has already thrown money at it to get that true successor to X-Com. It would of sold decently enough to the type of person that wanted that more in-depth strategy game. Now? Now the game is chasing the type of players that have no interest in the game. Possibly in a misguided effort to court the people who bought the newest Xcom. Xcom sold well. But it sold well on PC. To the point Xcom 2 came out on pc first and was ever so slightly more PC centric. Console sales are non existent for this type of game because it simply isn't the kind of game they want no matter how many changes you make to it. But it will lead to a lesser product for the PC people that actually do want it. This is before we get into how people were either misled by the crowdfunding or the game just changed direction mid development. Either way the Phoenix Point we were all promised no longer exists. A shallow, clean, safe, marketable console game has taken it's place. And the game will tank. If it does even middling sales it will do so on PC. This whole direction the game is taking is the height of hubris on Gollop's part.

 

[Alienman]

text

The problem is, like many have pointed out already, nuXcom wasn't a commercial success on the consoles so there isn't even an audience here to try to get. And, niche games are doing just fine. Look at Xenonauts and Battle Brothers as two examples that belongs to the same genre. I think classics can be made nowadays, you just have to be willing to risk it. But I guess that gets harder when big old Microsoft come and waves money in front of you eyes. Getting rich on games not even out yet seems to be the way to go.

 

[Shog-goth]

But I can live without it as long as there is some inventory. Maybe in some future that inspires someone to make X-com like inventory again.

I'm afraid that it's this kind of acceptance and resignation who contributed to and keeps the current decline.

 

[Shog-goth]

So while I will never get my dream X-Com sequel, I will say that I am damn glad I have a choice of multiple quality X-Com-lite games to play.

So you'd be glad to play with multiple quality "RealDolls" instead of the single 'real' 'doll' of your dreams?

 

[Shog-goth]

Between choosing to make an absolutely retarded but moneymaking game and a classic but a commercial failure which will probably lead to bankruptcy? What would you fucking do?

An absolutely moneymaking classic game.

Spoiler

Divinity:Original Sin

 

[Achilles]

So while I will never get my dream X-Com sequel, I will say that I am damn glad I have a choice of multiple quality X-Com-lite games to play.

So you'd be glad to play with multiple quality "RealDolls" instead of the single 'real' 'doll' of your dreams?

Do I have a choice? I don't think it's up to me.

 

[ArchAngel]

But I can live without it as long as there is some inventory. Maybe in some future that inspires someone to make X-com like inventory again.

I'm afraid that it's this kind of acceptance and resignation who contributed to and keeps the current decline.

Again you are only looking at UI and art direction. X-com had terrible UI and simple graphics. It accomplished more with its music than with its art. And it accomplished most with its mechanics.

 

[HansDampf]

And those mechanics aren't lost on consoles? This has little to do with art. Here is a challenge: Design a controller-friendly UI for JA2 without cutting gameplay functions or sacrificing complexity. I'm choosing JA2 because that game didn't even get a console adaptation after the fact. It was designed strictly for KB without wasting a single thought on consoles. How does X-COM work on Playstation anyway? Do you just move the mouse cursor with the D-Pad? That's the only way it could work, but I wouldn't call it controller-friendly.

 

[ArchAngel]

And those mechanics aren't lost on consoles? This has little to do with art. Here is a challenge: Design a controller-friendly UI for JA2 without cutting gameplay functions or sacrificing complexity. I'm choosing JA2 because that game didn't even get a console adaptation after the fact. It was designed strictly for KB without wasting a single thought on consoles. How does X-COM work on Playstation anyway? Do you just move the mouse cursor with the D-Pad? That's the only way it could work, but I wouldn't call it controller-friendly.

Completely irrelevant.
As I said, it was clear from Day 1 that this was not going to be based on X-com with some new additions but that it was going to be based on Xcom with additions from X-com.

So some lost features were expected from Day 1. I never expected to see stances or things like spending more AP to get more accuracy (I didn't even expect to see AP but I expected they would keep the two action system).

Even things like real ballistics I never expected but we got that one.

Unlike most of you, I don't consider nuXcom a blight upon us all. It is just a flawed game that could have been made better if Firaxis had a bit more guts. And PP is hopefully the one to do that. And by current backer betas, they already did. I am just hoping for more. And Art is least of my worries.

 

[PanteraNera]

And Art is least of my worries.

Further market analysis indicate that this would sell even better.

I guess you wouldn't mind.

 

[ArchAngel]

And Art is least of my worries.

Further market analysis indicate that this would sell even better.

I guess you wouldn't mind.

Is this what is called a strawman in English debates?

 

[lightbane]

I need an "HERESY!!" button to tag that. Also, goddamn pony lovers.

 

[rezaf]

So some lost features were expected from Day 1. I never expected to see stances or things like spending more AP to get more accuracy (I didn't even expect to see AP but I expected they would keep the two action system).

Honestly, I don't even understand why this kind of reasoning is a thing. Back when Firaxis developed the first XCOM, Jake Solomon stated in an interview that they had a prototype going with all the mechanics of the original XCOM implemented, and then purposefully threw out mechanics and stuff. My guess is that he was just talking bullshit, but if not, why not leave all that stuff in.
Disable it in low difficulties. Or even disable it completely but leave it in for modders to take advantage of. But the only real reason to not even have such mechanics is the crappyness that are consoles, which just have no input devices to properly process such mechanics. And instead of the proven JRPG strategy of just having deep, nested menues which are aggravating to navigate with the controller, these days the answer is always steamlining.

But steamlining as it is practiced is like if you were to turn everythin on menu in a restaurant into strained food. Sure, everyone can consume it, even if they have no teeth, but on the other end of the spectrum ... would you really appreciate it to be offered a steak strained into essently a mash at a restaurant?

Some in this thread have claimed XCOM on consoles hasn't even sold that well, if that's true, why even chase that phantom? On PC, that much streamlining is just not neccessary.
I hear there's quite a few keyboard commands you can/have to use in a game like World of Warcraft. Despite that complexity, I hear it was reasonably successful. Maybe I have been misinformed.

 

[ArchAngel]

So some lost features were expected from Day 1. I never expected to see stances or things like spending more AP to get more accuracy (I didn't even expect to see AP but I expected they would keep the two action system).

Honestly, I don't even understand why this kind of reasoning is a thing. Back when Firaxis developed the first XCOM, Jake Solomon stated in an interview that they had a prototype going with all the mechanics of the original XCOM implemented, and then purposefully threw out mechanics and stuff. My guess is that he was just talking bullshit, but if not, why not leave all that stuff in.
Disable it in low difficulties. Or even disable it completely but leave it in for modders to take advantage of. But the only real reason to not even have such mechanics is the crappyness that are consoles, which just have no input devices to properly process such mechanics. And instead of the proven JRPG strategy of just having deep, nested menues which are aggravating to navigate with the controller, these days the answer is always steamlining.

But steamlining as it is practiced is like if you were to turn everythin on menu in a restaurant into strained food. Sure, everyone can consume it, even if they have no teeth, but on the other end of the spectrum ... would you really appreciate it to be offered a steak strained into essently a mash at a restaurant?

Some in this thread have claimed XCOM on consoles hasn't even sold that well, if that's true, why even chase that phantom? On PC, that much streamlining is just not neccessary.
I hear there's quite a few keyboard commands you can/have to use in a game like World of Warcraft. Despite that complexity, I hear it was reasonably successful. Maybe I have been misinformed.

"Not sold well" was still something like 500 000 units sold. On PC it sold something like 2.5 million.
Maybe for Firaxis 500 000 is bad but for Gollop it is not so I can understand why they are doing it. But I am also not happy they are doing a simultaneous release with PC.

As for the rest of your post.. Firaxis never had fully working X-com mechanics. That was only their prototyping phase. When they settled on what they are going to do, only then they went full in to finish it.

What you are asking for is unrealistic for anyone.

 

[GrainWetski]

500k sold on console would no doubt be great for this game. The only thing you can really look at though is the sales difference between PC and console. This game is just for XCOCKS, right? So about 10% of PC sales. We'll ignore the XCOM 2 sales for Gollop's sake. This thing looks like a FiraXCOM 3 to the consoleretards so we shouldn't, but whatever..

I can't imagine this sells more than a few hundred thousand copies, so you're dealing with something like 30-50k on Xboner. I guess if M$ threw 20 million at them, that's worth it if they don't expect to stick around for long as a company.

 

[Latelistener]

Maybe for Firaxis 500 000 is bad but for Gollop it is not so I can understand why they are doing it.

They sold ~500k copies on Xbox 360. XCOM came out at the end of 2012 and at the beginning of 2013 Microsoft sold 76 millions of units of that console. Xbox One sales as of now are twice less and even that is fabulously optimistic.

Not to say that 2K had a much bigger marketing campaign for XCOM (they really thought it will be a hit on consoles).

I would be surprised if they'll sell more than 100k copies in the first 6 months, especially if they're going for digital release only.

 

[ArchAngel]

Maybe for Firaxis 500 000 is bad but for Gollop it is not so I can understand why they are doing it.

They sold ~500k copies on Xbox 360. XCOM came out at the end of 2012 and at the beginning of 2013 Microsoft sold 76 millions of units of that console. Xbox One sales as of now are twice less and even that is fabulously optimistic.

Not to say that 2K had a much bigger marketing campaign for XCOM (they really thought it will be a hit on consoles).

I would be surprised if they'll sell more than 100k copies in the first 6 months, especially if they're going for digital release only.

I think even 100k is good numbers from Xbone alone.
But sale numbers don't even matter since M$ is planning to put PP on their "Neflix for games" system. Gollop was probably paid big $ in advance and he is probably got to get bonuses depending on how many people choose to play that game over others on the same service.

 

[Shog-goth]

Do I have a choice? I don't think it's up to me.

My point is that if you settle for less, you'll not fight for more.

 

[Shog-goth]

Again you are only looking at UI and art direction. X-com had terrible UI and simple graphics.

UI was not terrible, but complex and maybe overbloated and allowed maximum flexibility. Art direction have little to do with graphic quality, but setting and atmosphere: you can get a good result even with pixel art, if you have a clear vision.

 

[geno]

 

[rezaf]

"Not sold well" was still something like 500 000 units sold. On PC it sold something like 2.5 million.
Maybe for Firaxis 500 000 is bad but for Gollop it is not so I can understand why they are doing it.

Chances are they'd get those same 500k sales if they didn't alienate parts of their core audience, but we'll never know.

As for the rest of your post.. Firaxis never had fully working X-com mechanics. That was only their prototyping phase.

I remember reading it in an interview, but maybe I'm just misremembering. As I said, I figured it was bullshit to begin with.

What you are asking for is unrealistic for anyone.

Well, what I'm ACTUALLY asking for is for some major development studios to go fourth and make games that don't overdo the steamlining. So maybe you're right, maybe asking for that IS unrealistic for anyone.
What a sad state of affairs.

Thankfully, there's still some hope left. Every now and then, decent games are still being made. D:OS was mentioned. Definately a pleasant surprise for me.
Also, sometimes incredibly dedicated fans just go far beyond the call of duty and remake one of the classics, opening them up for modding and improvement - like SupSuper did with X-Com. Such a grand achievement. A real hero of the digital world in my book.

 

[Latelistener]

Well, what I'm ACTUALLY asking for is for some major development studios to go fourth and make games that don't overdo the steamlining. So maybe you're right, maybe asking for that IS unrealistic for anyone.
What a sad state of affairs.

If you'll look around you'll notice that the RPG genre is practically dead (Indiana is the only big-budget RPG I know of) and immersive sims (even streamlined ones, like Dishonored) aren't even selling anymore. Arkane got a new management and is making some kind of online project, while Eidos Montreal is doing an Avengers game.

"Sad state of affairs" doesn't even begin to describe the situation. Look at the recent debacle with Diablo, just pathetic. I can understand why people are so eager to believe in these crowdfunding fantasies.

 

[CyberWhale]

Sandbox ARPGs are selling tho. Skyrim, The Witcher 3 and even Assassin's Creed nowadays. Still, if you want something more focused you're not going to get it from the mainstream. Maybe after some time, when there are not so many of them on the market (which was the case a couple of years ago).