Baxterstockman Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Keep up the good work. I am currently trying to beat the game on superhuman. It is soooo hard, but I almost have my psi labs up so its alL downhill for the aliens now. BUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarenGarond Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 X-com is very good but the graphics is awful, so xenocide will be very good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engy Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 X-com is very good but the graphics is awful, so xenocide will be very good!<{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...The graphics for X-COM are not awful, they never were, and never will be. X-COM has the best graphics I have ever seen in a dos game and I beg anyone to prove me incorrect. Now yes its not up to the 3d standards of today however, it did good for what it ran on. Now if you want awful graphics play Star Command. Ah the dieing days of Text Based gaming... and the beinging of 2d graphics... By the way that game is great to provided you can deal with terible graphics and no mouse and can take getting owned on mission 2 the 1st 20 or so times around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATeX Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 I don't remember a lot of DOS games from the good ol' times, but for example Duke Nukem 3D and Quake 1 are not a little bit, but far more advanced at graphical quality. What you meant to say, is that X-COM has great lowres VGA graphics. I completely agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarenGarond Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 It where good graphics in x-com when it was made but now its kinda awful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reist Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 Isn't it a bit silly to compare today's graphics to graphics of old?The difference in technology is insane. With the advance caused by the race between nVidia and ATi you can compare games' graphics only to other games of the same year, or at most two.Now playability is something that can be compared. On that I agree, xcom is a really great game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarenGarond Posted October 9, 2005 Report Share Posted October 9, 2005 Isn't it a bit silly to compare today's graphics to graphics of old?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mad] Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 (edited) ...The graphics for X-COM are not awful, they never were, and never will be. X-COM has the best graphics I have ever seen in a dos game and I beg anyone to prove me incorrect. Now yes its not up to the 3d standards of today however, it did good for what it ran on.[...]Well, I think UFO had the best isometric craphics, but no DOS game could ever beat Extreme Assault! Awesome 3D graphics! (For that time of course - although even today it doesn't look that bad. ) [...]Now playability is something that can be compared. On that I agree, xcom is a really great game Definetly! I really think it is one of the best games I ever played! Edited October 10, 2005 by Mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevegen Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 "Isn't it a bit silly to compare today's graphics to graphics of old?" Probably, but to be honest, I found the graphics in X-Com: Apocalypse now already very good, and when I look at today's graphics like in WoW i am very disappointed with a LOT i see there. Also Half-life 2 seemed to not be that great, and Doom 3 is perma dark... Ah well, i think they overdo things. Its not beauty by design but by flashing effects... analogy to web, css and flash - like how flash is used instead of CSS sometimes, though there are also GREAT designed flash websites (a japanese guy comes to my mind, of course i forgot the name....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafros Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Well, I think UFO had the best isometric craphics, but no DOS game could ever beat Extreme Assault! Awesome 3D graphics! (For that time of course - although even today it doesn't look that bad. ) http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=4742 Most gamers(/lamers ) do a serious mistake: They don't hesitate to sacrifice gameplay and especially REPLAYABILITY in order to get better graphics For example, if you tell me "RPG", I will respond Castle of Winds! At simple, windows 2D tile-based game, but probably the most interesting one IMO. Another one: Mordor : The Depths of Dejenol Is one is strange... A NetHack+Diablo combination Slash'em And concerning replayability: I NEVER get bored while of Moo2 (Master of Orion II). It still rules, and it will forever and ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Azrael Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 I like a good combination of gameplay and graphics games are about fun, so it's not really a mistake to prefer graphics over gameplay, people enjoy their games being pretty, a nice looking FPS can be as enjoyable as the now crappy-looking X-Com. There are not really mistakes when it comes to games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 Execution is the key. XCom is a great game, not the best graphics in the world, but insane gameplay, with some truly novel ideas superbly executed. Apoc is a good enough game, better graphics than XCom, fairly good gameplay, but I don't really like it all that much because there are so many good ideas poorly executed, making the game overly complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakeman Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 You have a point about Apocalypse Blood Angel. The main problem I ever had with it was its interface, its got more bells and whistles on it than the first one did. So in that vein, I think keeping it simple in some areas was what was best for X-COM's replayability for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Some of the graphics in xcom are very good, but some are downright terrible. There are a lot of games with much more consistently good artistry. Wing Commander had excellent graphics all-round. Ultima VII also had very consistently good graphics. XCom is a mixed bag, and the average of those are inferior to the two games I just mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Azrael Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Execution is the key. XCom is a great game, not the best graphics in the world, but insane gameplay, with some truly novel ideas superbly executed. Apoc is a good enough game, better graphics than XCom, fairly good gameplay, but I don't really like it all that much because there are so many good ideas poorly executed, making the game overly complicated.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I disagree, I find the interface in X-Com to be too complicated for its simplicity, one of the main reasons I cannot play that game, annoys me to dangerous levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now