X-COM Strategy/FPS

[76561198292631324]

X-COM series is mainly known for strategy games. Productions such as Interceptor - which is a strategy / space flight simulator, next to Enforcer - which seems to be a third-person-shooter, hardly got as much attention as their other counterparts within the line. Even though turn-based tactics is a trademark of the brand and we are probably all for it, in this thread I would like to ask what would you think of X-COM being a strategy / first-person-shooter game, such as a merge of geoscape UFO Defense, Interceptor and - lets say - Doom or any other of given genre.

For the battlescape equivalent, there could be a squad-build element, equipping, placing the soldiers within certain deploy area, maybe even placing some static cannons, setting tactics or plannig particular movement sequences for allies. Once the battle begins, the player enters the role of a field officer, who ought to survive the mission. In case the players character is killed, the mission is failed; nevertheless creating another character is possible at the level of geoscape management. Attributes development should be more flexible, based on RPG games rather than hitherto automatic. Experience points system could be introduced. The difficulty level of combat should be balanced in a way to depict the original games battlescape, meaning the equipment to be a crucial factor.

Any moment of the ground battle mission the player could enter the management screen and change the tactics in way available. The problem could arise with intelligence level of the allies, who would probably die mostly due to numbness. Maybe a multiplayer could be introduced to fix this, but the question is, how to accord it with geoscape strategy, without removing the geoscape strategy, maintaining the fluency of gameplay.

Reassuming, the idea is to observe all the complexity of UFO Defense with the tactical combat switched to put emphasis on players skill in FPS fashion.

Maybe a solution to the artificial intelligence problem could be just minimizing the squad element, as far as it concerns moving units, for the sake of some battle-robot simulator.

----------
EDIT - one hour later:

I am far from being any game developer; just researching some ideas.
----------

[DOOMed]

Doesn't XCOM:The Bureau kind of cover this? It's a third person tactical squad shooter similar to Brothers in Arms.

[76561198292631324]

Well, when it comes to X-COM, I rather got stuck with the early ones, so the latter releases are quite alien to me. When it comes to my opinion, X-COM is all about strategy, management and turn-based tactical combat, but the idea if it involved actually a first-person-shooter genre in the place of tactical turn-based combat, would it do? I think it could suffer the penalties of Interceptor - which are often mentioned in reviews - unless some decent solutions were introduced.

[76561198292631324]

After a second consideration I think an attempt to merge X-COM with FPS genre could result in outcome similar to the Interceptor. Even if the execution was very good, still there would be players unsatisfied with the line abandoning the tactical turn-based combat, which it pioneered and excelled in great extent - much like in case of players early reaction to Fallout series switching from turn-based tactical RPG to FPS/RPG, regardless of the gameplay quality. The charm of UFO lies in what it is; nevertheless moving forward and searching new paths is also noble, if the developer is willing to risk. UFO Defense was an avant-garde in the time of its release and still nowadays remains unique in the employed structure of gameplay. Even though I heard an opinion that FPS are the ultimate gaming experience and probably - next to flight simulators - the ones that are going to triumph when VR technology is introduced, the good old turn-based strategy has its fans who are going to play it just for the sake of its way.

[DOOMed]

Originally posted by wHAT:

After a second consideration I think an attempt to merge X-COM with FPS genre could result in outcome similar to the Interceptor. Even if the execution was very good, still there would be players unsatisfied with the line abandoning the tactical turn-based combat, which it pioneered and excelled in great extent - much like in case of players early reaction to Fallout series switching from turn-based tactical RPG to FPS/RPG, regardless of the gameplay quality. The charm of UFO lies in what it is; nevertheless moving forward and searching new paths is also noble, if the developer is willing to risk. UFO Defense was an avant-garde in the time of its release and still nowadays remains unique in the employed structure of gameplay. Even though I heard an opinion that FPS are the ultimate gaming experience and probably - next to flight simulators - the ones that are going to triumph when VR technology is introduced, the good old turn-based strategy has its fans who are going to play it just for the sake of its way.

I understand what you say, though I'm still unconvinced VR is going to take off. There have been many attempts before with VR headsets. I know they have a better chance now with the level of graphics quality being what they are, but the price is still prohibitive to many.

As for a first person XCOM? As I say check out the bureau. While not an FPS it does merge some basic global elemnts with a squad based tactical experience. It's ok. It's not knock your socks off awesome but it does cover many of the areas you originally mentioned. You have a main character, who runs a team of agents trying to counter the alien infiltration of Earth in the '60's. You get differing skill sets and equipment to consider for each of your agents. You have to try and best employ the right agents against the right enemy in various locations around the globe. There re also some but not much, micro management features when it comes to using your agents and their support networks. It's been a while since I last played and I never actually completed it so the details are a bit fuzzy. I remember it as being quite good though.

[RestedPandy]

There was an attempt at doing this back in the day. Look up "XCom:Alliance". Unfortunately it was cancelled in 2002, was looking very promising and when the intro video launched for it back then it looked amazing for the day. First person shooter with the ability to jump to any other team member and issue commands to them whilst controlling your own character.

Basically you controlled the UGS Patton (the ship that goes missing in the news feeds during Interceptor) which was dragged through a wormhole and ejected in the heart of alien controlled space. Your mission was to get home whilst sending teams to alien craft/installations to recover artifacts etc.

I believe the plan was to have you allying with one faction of the aliens against others (hence the game name) but not a lot was released on that side before it was cancelled.

Intro video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNwJmMcImcU

Beta level leak (1998 footage rebuilt in Unreal Engine):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjGxCerqPPY

Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM:_Alliance

Design doc:
http://www.terrygreer.com/xcomalliance.html

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "Billy Connal":

First person shooter with the ability to jump to any other team member and issue commands to them whilst controlling your own character.

It would be a blast on its own - if ultimately done right, that is. Slippery thing, though.

Basing on the samples you sent, visually it reminds me something between Unreal and System Shock 2. That is actually a very good connotation.

Pity it was cancelled, but on the other hand, maybe better if it was to end up unsatisfactory.

Anyway, so it was there, the X-COM FPS with team management, tactics and nice plot. Parhaps that was too much for its time.

[VonStreed]

Originally posted by wHAT:

I would like to ask what would you think of X-COM being a strategy / first-person-shooter game, such as a merge of geoscape UFO Defense, Interceptor and - lets say - Doom or any other of given genre.

I am not opposed to it. If done right it could be a really awesome experience. Reminds me of some of the Lucas Arts games that were part flight sim part shooter. It can be done.

Originally posted by wHAT:

For the battlescape equivalent, there could be a squad-build element, equipping, placing the soldiers within certain deploy area, maybe even placing some static cannons, setting tactics or plannig particular movement sequences for allies. Once the battle begins, the player enters the role of a field officer, who ought to survive the mission. In case the players character is killed, the mission is failed; nevertheless creating another character is possible at the level of geoscape management. Attributes development should be more flexible, based on RPG games rather than hitherto automatic. Experience points system could be introduced. The difficulty level of combat should be balanced in a way to depict the original games battlescape, meaning the equipment to be a crucial factor.

Vaguely remember playing one or two games that were like that. You would get a map of the battlescape pre fight and set up a strategy/place units then hit the launch button to start the fight. During the fight you were able to take control of units or stationary guns and go back to the map to change up orders. They can be a lot of fun.

I don’t think having the field officer dying be a lose condition would work. I mean, I just don’t think that having the character you are in control of being that crucial would be all that fun. IT would basically discourage the player from getting into the thick of it and instead just ordering your mean to jump into the meat grinder for you so you can survive the mission and not lose. The fun of most FPS games is charging in and blasting the crap out of enemies. Having you character be so crucial would encourage players to be spectators more than participants in the fight. If your character dies the game should pause and let you choose who you want to take control of. You don’t need to penalize the player with a lose condition. Losing your toughest fighter and all the level ups and having to start over again from scratch is a big enough penalty on its own without being maddeningly frustrating or deterring the player from leading the charge.

[VonStreed]

Originally posted by wHAT:

there would be players unsatisfied with the line abandoning the tactical turn-based combat

There will always be haters. That is the way of the world. If a game franchise sticks to close to one formula people complain they aren't innovative enough or that they are just money grubbers repackaging the same game to resell it. If they move too far away from the original formula fan boys all cry about how it is ruined. Like how Fallout tactics got so much hate for removing the RPG aspects and just focused on TBS elements. For whatever reason people hate spin-offs, like The Bureau. I personally have no problems with-spinoff games. So long as they are only little extra fun bits on the side and the franchise goes back to the original spirit for the next game, know yourselves out devs. I know I would get a little bored sticking to making only one type of game for my entire career.

Speaking of The Bureau, it got a quick mention in this parody trailer for Enemy Unknown. It is a pretty funny video. ---https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qehLhqLx6Ak----

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

Reminds me of some of the Lucas Arts games that were part flight sim part shooter. It can be done.

Like Descent?

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

Vaguely remember playing one or two games that were like that. You would get a map of the battlescape pre fight and set up a strategy/place units then hit the launch button to start the fight. During the fight you were able to take control of units or stationary guns and go back to the map to change up orders. They can be a lot of fun.

I can recall Space Hulk meeting some of these criteria, but it was a hard game with some fault in the play design.

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

I don’t think having the field officer dying be a lose condition would work. I mean, I just don’t think that having the character you are in control of being that crucial would be all that fun. IT would basically discourage the player from getting into the thick of it and instead just ordering your mean to jump into the meat grinder for you so you can survive the mission and not lose. The fun of most FPS games is charging in and blasting the crap out of enemies. Having you character be so crucial would encourage players to be spectators more than participants in the fight. If your character dies the game should pause and let you choose who you want to take control of. You don’t need to penalize the player with a lose condition. Losing your toughest fighter and all the level ups and having to start over again from scratch is a big enough penalty on its own without being maddeningly frustrating or deterring the player from leading the charge.

I agree. Maybe turn-based system merged with some skill-based fight from first-person perspective concerning time units and tactical parameters management, could be fun. On the other hand, some sort of rank hierarchy should be present with appropriate squad penalties in case of certain officers death, as in the original X-COM game.

[VonStreed]

Originally posted by wHAT:

I agree. Maybe turn-based system merged with some skill-based fight from first-person perspective concerning time units and tactical parameters management, could be fun. On the other hand, some sort of rank hierarchy should be present with appropriate squad penalties in case of certain officers death, as in the original X-COM game.

Or you can have it real time fps but have cool down times for actions like aimed shot. I totally agree about keeping rank. That would be the penealty of getting your squad members killed in a battle. If they die you have to replace them with rookies. That and you are down one more guy in the battle.

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

Or you can have it real time fps but have cool down times for actions like aimed shot. I totally agree about keeping rank. That would be the penealty of getting your squad members killed in a battle. If they die you have to replace them with rookies. That and you are down one more guy in the battle.

Cooldown type of system as means of restricting the amount of actions possible to be undertaken within real-time combat play in given length of time was utilized for example in Fallout Tactics. The Tactics has quite a plenty interesting concepts, but the end result is terrible - I would remove that product from my library, but it would take also Fallout the classic and its sequel, which both I adore, since I bought all in a bundle.

I say it would be better to stick with simplified turn-based action with time units aka action points. By "simplified" I mean it should perhaps be more "squarish" and method-based - far from a true first-person shooter - with skill-based approach between planning and execution, meaning as to eliminate the random-number-generation or chance-to-hit factor. Now it would depend all on the player. The battlefield conditions ought to be included, such as wind, Alien ships energetic influences, maybe some psychological factor with possible illussions derived from psi effects, but generally I would rather go for affecting the stats than the visual pannel - unless carefully planned - since the last one could get annoying.

[VonStreed]

Originally posted by wHAT:

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

Or you can have it real time fps but have cool down times for actions like aimed shot. I totally agree about keeping rank. That would be the penealty of getting your squad members killed in a battle. If they die you have to replace them with rookies. That and you are down one more guy in the battle.

Cooldown type of system as means of restricting the amount of actions possible to be undertaken within real-time combat play in given length of time was utilized for example in Fallout Tactics. The Tactics has quite a plenty interesting concepts, but the end result is terrible - I would remove that product from my library, but it would take also Fallout the classic and its sequel, which both I adore, since I bought all in a bundle.

I say it would be better to stick with simplified turn-based action with time units aka action points. By "simplified" I mean it should perhaps be more "squarish" and method-based - far from a true first-person shooter - with skill-based approach between planning and execution, meaning as to eliminate the random-number-generation or chance-to-hit factor. Now it would depend all on the player. The battlefield conditions ought to be included, such as wind, Alien ships energetic influences, maybe some psychological factor with possible illussions derived from psi effects, but generally I would rather go for affecting the stats than the visual pannel - unless carefully planned - since the last one could get annoying.

I guess I was working within a real time fps shooter perspective. Cooldowns are the sest way to enforce time restirictions in that sense. At least that I have seen so far. Or a VATS type system like the Fallouts have so that you can take real time shots, but aimed shots take AP or TU in this case. Or maybe some sort of system along those lines.

Are you suggesting having timed rounds? Like as in you get 30 seconds to issue orders and take shots yourself? That is something new. Of course new is risky.

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

Are you suggesting having timed rounds? Like as in you get 30 seconds to issue orders and take shots yourself? That is something new. Of course new is risky.

Single player without time limit, in case of any multiplayer, mandatory.

Actually I had a moment of doubt whether the FPS-like approach could work as derived from X-COMs initial isometric tactical combat.

[VonStreed]

Originally posted by wHAT:

Originally posted by "VonStreed":

Are you suggesting having timed rounds? Like as in you get 30 seconds to issue orders and take shots yourself? That is something new. Of course new is risky.

Single player without time limit, in case of any multiplayer, mandatory.

Actually I had a moment of doubt whether the FPS-like approach could work as derived from X-COMs initial isometric tactical combat.

I think it could, but only as a limited side release. Real time FPS and iso TBS are just too different. I think the only formula that could work as a hybrid is real-time FPS with limited resources like VATS. Or a similar system. I am not outright opposed to hybrid spin-offs, like I said, and they can work as side projects so long as the original idea is returned to after the spin-off, but you can't have an apple and orange at the same time. It would have to be a hybrid system of a little of both. But like someone already mentioned, the Bureau already tried that and it flopped. Old school fans tend to hate any dramatic change and new fans are hard to make.

[76561198292631324]

I think first the X-COM Interceptor needs to prove its worth in a decent remake, that should shed some light in case of further directions. But X-COM is first of all a turn-based tactical gameplay with wide base command and management side, so that it should stay.