1up - We talk to Firaxis about bringing a beloved classic to the masses without alienating fans.
XCOM: Enemy Unknown rebooted the series back in 2012, and has since inspired numerous new strategy game series to be born.
If someone gets into this I'd recommend getting the enemy within version. It's got all the dlc included so it's the better version. Wish the author would've atleast mentioned it. I didn't see it.
Fantastic game though. Xcom 2 is top notch also. I've spent countless hours in these games.
Phoenix point if I remember was created by the original xcom developer or something to that affect. I did try gears tactics some months ago and I just couldn't get into it. It's probably just me
It was, but it was really closer to the newer XCOM than the older ones. Gears Tactics was okay but was hard to get into knowing there probably wont be a sequel.
There are few things more gratifying in gaming than skillfully turning the tide of a conflict. And few genres provide as many opportunities to abruptly reverse the odds via skill and forethought as tactical strategy. To be sure, we are more often than not talking about turn-based tactical mobile games, specifically titles in line with the iconic landmark series (XCOM and Jagged Alliance) that made the genre a genre.
Some games age better than others. When a game is getting on in years, mods can help give the game a little push and make it worth playing again.
The original is my favorite game of all time, and I have huge hopes for this remake.
That said, the interview is based on a false premise.
"At the same time, long-time FPS fans who preferred the more complex version of the genre that existed before Halo's linear, two-gun design look to Halo as the game that ruined the FPS."
That's wrong. The FPS staples before Halo -- ones that pretty much any mainstream FPS was based -- are Doom, Quake, and Half-Life. Doom is certainly a far simpler game than Halo and either about the same or more linear; Doom's gameplay is simplicity itself, containing none of the nuance of Halo. Quake is quite similar. Half-Life is 100% linear, as are all its sequels; in fact Halo's big differentiator against Half-Life is just how non-linear its battles are, in comparison. As far as complexity, Halo has more weapons, it has vehicles, it has non-scripted A.I., and it has far wider play areas and ways of approaching a given battle. About the only thing "simpler" about Halo is the regenerating health which does allow for less planning and more immediate gameplay... but given the amount of layering and nuance added by the other things I've mentioned it's not even a contest.
In short, the premise that Halo "dumbed down" a genre by being "linear" and "simpler" is false.
The only thing Halo "dumbed down" is made FPS available to a wider audience by being one of the first palatable FPS for consoles, and consoles are more popular than PCs.
Being popular among an audience you consider dumb does not actually it dumb. That, and the notion that a non-keyboard/mouse-based shooter can be as popular/good/influential as K/M shooters, is what leads to some people's idea that Halo "ruined" a genre. Being simpler and more linear has nothing to do with it, especially since it's the opposite of true.