LAWL AMERICA!!!!!!! The *headdesk* bit seriously made me almost choke on my hot-pocket, congrats :)
I would wonder if they begin this AT Roswell or AFTER Roswell. Likely with the FBI agent investigating an odd case and aliens showed up. I have a little more hope but all games sound better than they really are a year or two before their release. Remember Spore? Don't take the devs word for it, ever!
EDIT: Just read bit on BSG, to be honest I only liked the space battles. The religous overtones applied to the beliefs of the Cylons really ended up stalling the show to me all the way to a dead stop. I think the first season was great but then they ran out of their best ideas and had less battles to accommodate the story that I ended up not liking a single bit. If they left it at robots with a drive to kill all humanity though it would've felt too much like an attempt at Space Terminators: John Connor still lives!

From what I've read I have to agree with Delixe: the game seems to have very little to do with the original X-COM storywise. The journalist even calls the game a "reboot" of the series, whatever that means.
On the other hand, it also seems to include a lot more tactical and strategical options than I'd have expected from an FPS. So it might be a great game all on its own.

I am not saying that it even sounds like it is going to be 100% faithful. Hell, I personally am hoping to even get 25% faithful.
But the focus on the US perspective is really NOT a problem. If you are annoyed that it is a focus on the US over France or Britain (or Europe as a whole) or Russia or Columbia or Brazil, feel free. But to say that it is not XCOM just because the prequel isn't a global story is just looking for an excuse to complain.
As for the FPS complaints: While I share them (to an extent, I actually always DID want a spin-off XCOM fps that was well done), take a look at some of the more tactical FPSs. Games like GRAW (the PC version, not the console ones), Republic Commando, Hidden & Dangerous (seriously, these games were more tacical than the UFO:After* series :p), and the original Ghost Recon are pretty much proof that you can get an XCOM style game in a shooter.
Hell, you could EASILY get that terror once you start clearing buildings/UFOs. Break up your squad into fire teams (well, you ARE a fireteam in this game, but whatever) and deal with shadows, the unknown of entering a new room, and even having to split up (and command your squad members via their headcams, a la SWAT 3 and SWAT 4).
Am I saying that this game is going to do stuff like that: Probably not, but it is too soon to tell. But just keep an open mind.

It's not an excuse its a perfectly balanced reason to complain. Alien threats are a GLOBAL threat not just the US. Even the X-Files had cases involving other countries as did Stargate SG-1 which had arguably it's season defining moment set over Antarctica not to mention several episodes featuring other world governments. Hell in Stargate: Atlantis the whole expedition was multinational. To use another comparison this is like the RTD era of Doctor Who where every global threat seems to gravitate to a council estate in London.
If you honestly don't see any problem with removing the Global map from X-Com then you probably didn't understand the point of X-COM.

A reboot is taking a franchise and wiping the slate clean starting it completely from scratch again. The recent Star Trek movie would be a good example of a reboot as it has completely thrown everything Star Trek into the bin.

I thought the gameplay was the point of XCOM, not what set of sprites/textures were used to represent the map (which is why it didn't really matter that the second one was underwater and that one of the After* games was in space :p). But that is just me.
Again, alien threats would be a global threat. But I sincerely doubt any government in the entire world would run to the UN for help the moment they see their first Grey (even though they probably should). They would try to solve the problem themselves (and benefit from the technology) and only go global if/when it becomes a problem they can't solve.
And let's use the Stargate example, because that IS a perfect one.
In the movie (with Alan Shore :p), it was JUST the United States. In the first season or two of SG1, it was pretty much just the US (with some minor appearances of the Russians). It was only later in the series (after multiple planetary threats had occurred and the US and Russia had effectively become allies with regard to the Stargate program) that the SGC became a global organization (to any real degree). And SGA started something like five or six years (plus however many years were between Spader-Jackson and the infamous nude scene) after the program started.
This game is set in the 1950s, so let's assume at least 30 years before the original (probably closer to 50).
To summarize:
First Contact: Cool, aliens. Let's kill them and steal their toys so that we can be the big boys
First major defeat: Oh bugger. This won't end well. Uhm, maybe we should talk to a few other countries.
First super mothership/planetary threat: Uhm... So, teamwork?
This game seems to occur during the "First Contact" era.
Again, I would have pretty big issues if this were set during the final years of the war and was just the US (or EU, or Russia, or China, or whatever). But this is the years before the war (from what little we have seen). Even as per the canon that YOU cited, this is accurate.
Is this a carbon-copy remake of XCOM: No. If you want that, go get UFO:ET. The Steam version comes bundled with the best mods (and you can then add the other ones to make it an outright carbon copy). But what 2k are shooting for is a prequel/reboot.

Why make any sequel? Why make any prequel? Hell, why do anything in the same universe? A Song of Ice and Fire would have been better if Martin had created an entirely new universe for every single book :p
Because it is fun and makes things more enjoyable.
Let's use Star Wars. The movies were fun. Then they made games. But that would just annoy fans.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was REALLY fun to do a Death Star Run. It was REALLY fun to fight on Hoth.
Why make Stargate Atlantis when we already had SG1? Why not just make a whole new franchise? Well, probably because they already had a great universe with a lot of fans.
Hell, let's think of the rationale behind Interceptor. You never really got to control the planes (to my recollection). So they gave the player the option of doing that (and failed miserably).
Same thing here. The FPS-aspect will get new fans. But there is also the potential for the fun of "Hmm, I wonder how this all started" or "You know, it would be pretty fun to actually be the poor miserable grunt who got probed to hell and back after we abandoned him".

This is NOT a sequel its a reboot. PLEASE for the love of god if you are going to play devils advocate for EVERYTHING as you seem to then at least understand the argument.
Your last post was nonsensical really. We are not talking about sequels we are talking about a reboot. Like JJ Abrams taking everything that was Star Trek and throwing it in the bin then making his own version.

Yeah, all reboots are HORRIBLE.
You know, except for the recent Batman movie reboot. That was frigging awesome.
And the Ultimate Universe in Marvel Comics. Well, for the first year or so (and now just Ultimate Spider-Man).
And Stargate SG-1, since that was more a reboot than anything else (Jack went from being horrified by guns to hosing down cloaked bad guys with an M60 and handing a firearm to anyone who wanted to help).
And most people seemed to like the BSG reboot. I didn't, but I didn't really like the originals.
There is nothing wrong with reboots/alternate universes/prequels/whatevers. It is called updating things for the audience. That is generally a good thing. Is it always needed? Nope. Is it needed in this case? I am not really sure. I for one would love a "true" XCOM, but I doubt that would sell very well (again, look at UFO:ET. All the XCOM "fans" in this thread didn't even know it existed :p).
Plus, you do know WHY they call it a reboot, right? Because, much as with a computer, sometimes you bugger things up to the point that you can only fix it by starting over. Is it always needed? No.
Again, don't run around screaming that the sky is falling and the apocalypse is coming until we know more. Right now, all we know is that it is going to be a prequel/reboot (and honestly, anything at this point would be a reboot since the series has been dead for years.) and that it is going to have an FPS for the tactical portion.
Plus, do we really want a direct sequel that builds on Enforcer and Interceptor? Either way, we would want something that ignores all those games. Guess what? That is a reboot :p

Why can't they do a Superman Returns and just ignore Apocalypse, Enforcer and Interceptor?
You are using bad sequels to justify throwing the whole thing in the trash. They did that with Star Trek and despite the huge box-office earnings how are the DVD sales?
Also Batman Returns was not a reboot. The comic has been going since 1939 and I can't see how Chris Nolan erased everything that has been written before. He ignored 1989's Batman but that was an adaptation.
Not many people, me included like the 'Ultimates' you can stick GA-LAC-TUS up your hole for all I care.
I dont get your comment about O'Neil and O'Neill. Both were professional soldiers and both used guns. When did Colonel O'Neill ever act 'horrified' by guns?

Because they're too lazy to make their own ideas
Because they think the name alone will sell a few copies?
You do know that what you're arguing is the same thing as the "for"-fans?
You're arguing the sky will stay up from the same position as those who think the sky will fall, that of no evidence either way.
No, that's a ret-con.
A reboot ignores everything that has come before.

In the original movie he was pretty messed up since his kid had recently shot himself. So he was pretty wary around guns and freaked out when Skarra even got close to one.
Then in SG1 he starts hosing stuff down and handing out weapons to various resistance people and the like.
And Superman Returns technically WAS a (failed) reboot of the series, by the way :p
As for Batman: Nolan basically DID ignore every single live-action Batman that had previously occurred (took more inspiration from TAS and comics, really). And it really helped. The Batman mythos didn't change too much, just the interpretation of it.
As for Ultimate U: That is kind of why I clarified "first year or so". From what I gathered, most people found it to be interesting, but maybe not amazing. That being said, it kind of did get a much smaller fanbase after that first year or so when it started doing actual storylines :p. For the record, I also hated Gak-Lak-Tus and only read it for USM at this point.
I am not saying that a few bad sequels really justify making a crappy game. Nothing justifies making a crappy game. But we don't know that this is a crappy game yet.
Here is what I am saying (I either outline it, or yell at people and accuse them of not listening. I like the fun way :p). All of these points are independent.
2K-com (let's hope that catches on) is a reboot of the series. If it is more reboot or reformat, we don't know. That is okay and expected. To continue on with a sequel would deal with Interceptor and Enforcer. We don't want that.
As long as the core gameplay/core elements/core style is maintained, I don't think the majority of fans would complain (outside of the ones who will complain no matter what). Because as RPS put it, XCOM is the gameplay, not the plot and spriteset.
2k-com acts as a prequel to the XCOM games. It takes place during the first contact era and focuses on the foundation of XCOM. As such, it focuses on the US (it could just as easily focus on Britain or Russia)
This in and of itself is not a bad thing. It provides a way to provide modernized gameplay. As much as we are okay with that style of gameplay, do you see it being accepted by most modern gamers? As such, an emphasis on smaller scaled gameplay is probably for the best.
Keep in mind that when I say "modernized gameplay" I don't mean making it an FPS (that is the next bullet point :p). I mean making it more accessible to new players (even just providing a more gently sloped difficulty curve), lessening the emphasis on "Research or Die!", or providing stronger recruits (just considering that almost everyone would be a veteran of WWII/Korea/Vietnam would give an excuse to provide an easier start).
2k-com is an FPS (at least as far as tactical gameplay goes). This is a pretty big concern and pretty much guarantees that we aren't getting a clone of XCOM. But that is still workable. I feel that I already provided examples of very tactical (and unforgiving) games with an FPS/TPS perspective already. Beyond that, it is just a matter of getting the atmo right.
So while this does mean that we won't get XCOM 4 (because there were only 3 true XCOMs :p), that doesn't mean we won't get an XCOM game. Think of Fallout 3. Is it as good as Fallout 2? Nah, although I suspect I also am seeing things through rose-tinted glasses. But is it still a Fallout? Yeah. It is just a different kind of Fallout.
Individually, none of those are really a huge problem or a destruction of the series. Now, together it starts to get very scary. But maybe we'll all be wrong and they will get it right. At least wait before jumping to a conclusion. At the very least, it will make it much more satisfying when we are probably proven right and it is a horrifyingly blasphemous game. And wouldn't you like to at least have the comfort of saying "I tried to give it a chance, but they just kept insisting on raping me in the butt with an aluminum XMas tree" while we cry over yet another crappy game with the XCOM name? :p

Watch it again.

No it wasn't it was a sequel to Superman 2. They even got Brando back.

Again Nolan was inspired by the comics. Nolan never re-wrote the Batman mythos.

Honestly you just do this as flame bait don't you? Find something people are annoyed about and fight the good fight. If you are not upset about XCOM then you never played or enjoyed X-COM.

I have the feeling someone does try to replicate the Fallout 3 approach here. The thing is - Fallout 3 was financially successful, despite removing itself from the original games, and despite the original fallouts being way old in terms of game releases.
My guess is that Fallout 3 was successful particularly because Fallout 1/2 were released so long ago. The main demographic that game companies aim for likely did not have any first hand experience of the original games at the time.
I.e. ... this just might be an attempt to use a game that can be marketed as a continuation of a successful and established series to people that are easily manipulated and cannot compare gameplay to the original games.
Fallout 3 showed that that is possible. Granted, this particular attempt could backfire, but marketing "strategy" usually is about attempting to replicate someone else's successes.

The thing with Fallout 3 was it was a sequel and not a reboot. Bethesda had the intelligence to not call it Fallout but Fallout 3. 2K however are calling this game XCOM as in XCOM 1