Could We Beat Aftermath ?
Posted 11 November 2003 - 09:26 AM
I'd like to drop a sentence here too. I played aftermath, in fact it is the reason I came here to work on this project. It's right, aftermath has some nice graphics, but for me it spoiled the game. They put in too much effort in little details which you either cannot really see, since the camera views are restricted, or in which you are not interested after playing a few fights. On the other hand the loading times are crazy, it may take five to ten minutes until the whole tactical map is loaded (on fast computers). In my eyes it's nearly unplayable, really disappointing. Since the graphics and real time movement (which is quite fine) are the only new features, while many others are missing, it cannot possibly stand a comparison to xcom (and thus xenocide).
Posted 11 November 2003 - 10:08 AM
Posted 11 November 2003 - 12:01 PM
Anyway, I find it highly likely that we will beat aftermath. While it is fun, it loses its appeal quickly. Xenocide won't. Just like Xcom hasn't even after several years.
*Coming back? Avast! Facehugger, finish your assignments!*
Posted 11 November 2003 - 12:30 PM
:o When did the graphics improve from X-Com 1 to 2? I always thought it was the tedious cruise missions and dodgy physics that made it slightly worse, although I am told it is harder than 1.
I still vote for retro gaming... of course it's nice to have some nice graphics but it's not what matters the most... there's a reason I'm a mod on a retro gaming site (is it allowed to post links, I won't so far) the reason is that I like retro games... Duh so I say graphics doesn't count much, which is why X-Com 1 is better than X-Com 2...
Posted 15 November 2003 - 01:04 AM
yes it was harder, only thing that was different other than the water scenes...