To the first point, it does not, but the thing that people forget is that the first few games only followed the barest of similarities to the other as well. For example,the first game took place in 1998 all over the globe, the second 2040 and was mostly underwater. That was a drastic difference in setting, and it changed again to be a world conflict some centuries later in the third game.

The enemies are also fairly scattered. Sectoids were fairly common but were not in the second game, instead it was their “cousins” the Aquatoids. The species were similar in appearance but different in the canon. So one of the problems with X-Com is that, yes, you have Mutons and Sectoids and Snakemen and all of these creatures in three different settings, but they felt like a jumbled mess put together for different encounters.

Now that said 2K can bring them back in some form out of respect for the original design, but to be fair the original designs were also very blase. If I saw a bunch of grays and monsters with a mechanical ball for legs it would seem like a Halo knock off for having diverse alien types with no real uniformity. The new design is a rip off of the borg yes, but it at least is very consistent. And honestly, feels more like a threat.

One more thing about design, X-Com as a series has had inconsistancies with its astethics all the time. The only things linking them together are core elements, the map screen, the tactics, the use of reverse-engineering tech, etc. So far, all of those elements are still in the reboot in some form, making it loosely an adaptation of the original games.

As for the rest of that question, I can’t comment on the story since I didn’t play it yet, or the gameplay since all of it was here-say. That said, if the gameplay is basically Mass Effect, it honestly makes sense that the game would go that route since it adds the tactical element that Mass Effect employed efficiently. And since 2K Marin has only done FPS games before, designing the tactical elements is a challenge for them, so I do hope they put it in correctly.

For the second point, I guarantee the only reason they didn’t change the name was because of brand recognition vs a new I.P. Any company that publishes a new I.P is always taking a big risk, and only with some exceptions they actually make these games. This year we saw a lot of original games come out, but most of them have been collaborations between some studios or publishers with a lot of coin in the coffers to take the hit if the game does sink.

This is only speculation, but I guess Take-Two Interactive, since they already own the I.P for X-Com, made it easier to promote a reboot of the series for the consoles then make a new game that has no brand recognition. It doesn’t make it right, no, but from a business point of view it’s practical.

All true, but the problem is you are talking about the PC market, not the console market. The PC market is where these games can thrive, or at the very least, hold a niche. As a sidebar though, Shogun 2 and CIV V are RTS games, not tactical strategy, there is a major difference. What makes TSG’s anachronistic is the fact that the control schemes and depth would likely piss off today’s consumers, since the consumer market for games is vastly different than it was in the 1990′s. That is part of the reason why it was likely changed to be a FPS (as you said with the Extra Credits reference.) to make it more accessible.

Again, the hate is a gut reaction that I guarantee Take 2 didn’t expect to see, but at this point listening to feedback and changing it up even further will just cause feature creep. At this point it’s irrelevant if this is X-Com or not, the point is the hate shouldn’t be about what the past was. If the game sucks, it sucks, but it can’t be based on what was changed.