:D
I wouldn't know, I haven't played Jagged Alliance yet
I never finished Apocalypse either, but I can't remeber anything except it was fully bugged.
I got on the alien planet though ,but I can't remember what happened next, other than never finishing it...

I first finished terror from the deep before even starting enemy unknown but I don't think that I would like a remake of TFTD (or UFO:EU for that matter) as much as the original... Sure I might be amused for a while if you put in some new techs and fancy graphics/guns/thingamajigs but what I love most about XCom (Except the strategic planning-part maybe) is if you do your mission well, nearing the end those little green buggers will start panicing like hell and walking to and fro in front of your men and I just love seeing them walk up and down like that... Any change in graphics would spoil little effects like that for me...

I thought only kids could say something like that. There was nothing great about games in their time but ideas? Come on, didn't you gloat over the graphics of Defender of the Crown? Weren't you impressed with the music in Star Control (if you played it on the PC, you probably weren't, yes)? The good games released between 1969 and 1994 are perfect the way they are. If you think they could become better by adding high-resolution high-colour 3D schmuck, then you've just lost a lot of respect from me.

Ah yes, and in case you didn't notice: the article I linked to is completely ironic! Just look at the last example and the 'other examples of things which got better'. Nobody is that retarded.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 10:53 on June, 25th 2003

What a contradictory paragraph ...



And so peevish to boot ...

I finished Xcom 3: Apocalypse several times already and I am a true veteran of the tittle. I always play SuperHuman mode or else I get bored. The only difference is the amount of aliens you encounter anyways, and the research pannel is quite irrevelant; research is usually completed before I get to the second building of the alien dimmention. And that's when I'm in the mood to get my squadies killed for no good reasons. Once you have the BioGun and the Personnal Shield, if you lose a squad mate you're either unlucky or completely stupid. The only thing that could go thru the shield is the alien heavy rocket launcher, and then you still have your armor on you...

For Xcom Apoc, what do you think of real-time play? I'm usually a stickler for turn-based in these kind of games but I thought I might try it - looked like it could be interesting.

The real time based mode is definitly better if you use the space bar (and the auto stop features in the option pannel) to pause the game at key moments. Beleive me; it's just like playing turn based, except that fire goes thru from both side at once (which is pretty good, especially if you happen to shoot faster ). Your soldiers can also fire while walking, which is neat tough it reduce your accuracy. Your soldiers will also try to cover themselves from fire if they have a low bravery, but you can counter that (somewhat) by adjusting the agressivity of your squaddies to max. I always set them there at every fight. Oh, and don't forget to make them kneel for the extra accuracy and minimalistic cover.

Actually, I the graphics and the sound were exactly as they are today. Just we were different. I can't answer, I didn't play those two games.

Come along, what the point in being agressive ?
Leave the old games alone, I don't want to inpure your holy monument , I'm thinking about games with the same ideeas, but a new look.


I 'm not in the mood of starting a war, so I'll say thet maybe you're right. I have to admit that I haven't read the entery article,just looked over it.
Even so, the fact of it being ironic has nothing to do with my ideea, which I still consider to be a good one.

Edited by Dexterus at 18:40 on June, 25th 2003

And yes, reffering to that last part of that article, now I can say that if others could be controversial, at least porn really got better over time

What? The Atari 2600 version Wicked!

Eagle of Fire: Sounds fun, and looked it like it would be. I'll dig into that again sometime and try it out myself.

Dexterus: Your idea has been advanced by several people in out of the game industry. Really, some of those older games do need a paint job. By doing so it'll attract current gamers, gamers of the future, and spice it up for veterans of a particular game. And why not?

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Why I'm agressive over this? Because you're not the first one to propose this shit - there have been many 'fan projects' (lousy 'fans' ) already and now, even the commercial gaming industry is jumping on it (I've lost track of the numerous 'professional remakes' already).

Why this sucks so much? These games are work of art, in their completeness, exactly the way they are. If you seperate one part (gameplay) from the rest (looks), it can only get shitty. It's simple as that.

Especially today, as graphics and sound are worse than ever these days. You seem to consider the technical improvement being a one-way road: always getting better. I don't. Graphics always slowly got better until the early nineties. Then, there is a sharp downfall in the mid-90s when people started using this render-shit and ugly 3D for everything. It's gone down so much that I prefer the graphics from the Space Invaders period over today's already! And now people come and tell me games could be improved by adding this puss? Bah.

Look, my point wasn't challenging anyone about how new games are better than the old ones..
That has absolutelly nothing to do with it, and I don't even think that's right in most cases...
I was just trying to atract people in a project , any way it would be...
What about a new game ,then ? Inspired from something of the past, but not copying .

Nowdays it seems to me that 3d graphics really got better. Indeed, in the begining it was ugly and boring.
But I've seen some recent 3d strategy games ( not first person ) that look as well if not better than their 2d ancestors, in the 90s.

Wow, it's really impossible to have a conversation with Mr Creosote here due to his holy shrine of 1969 classics.

Lousy fans huh? At least they're doing something relatively constructive. I don't know how you get off saying those games were perfect works of art. I don't think I've ever played a game that was perfect. Close to perfect maybe.

Alot of things have been redesigned for the better, like cars, for one. Airplanes too. Air conditioners perhaps. But if you're going
to accuse me of using a bad analogy, I'd say
Art / Books / Movies haven't improved or lessened in quality. It's art, it's subjective. Just as NetDanzr said, there's no accounting for taste.

I think you should spend a little more time playing newer games instead of automatically passing judgement on them in order to reinforce what I consider to be, a cherished dellusion.

Although I will agree with you that gameplay is often sacrificed for graphics nowadays. That's
exactly why the bottom of the PC gaming industry is likely to fall out soon. Part of the collapse of Atari and Nintendo were quality problems. As it is happened before, it will happen again, and the cycle will repeat (all major variables being equal).

Well, I don't program anymore. So what did you have in mind?

Well, can you draw ?

Excuse me, but how do you know they always get better 'til the early nineties? How many nineties have you been in? How old are you really?

Exchange 'always' with 'gradually' and it should be clear

Don't do that anymore either.

So, what are your greater talents at this point?


Edited by A E I at 14:56 on June, 27th 2003