1. Beats me I am noob to gaming.
2. The graphics are awesome and I love all the color.
3. The graphics are pretty good but it's a little bit too toony.
4. The graphics are out dated and suck balls.
5. The graphics are really terrible and should have been super realistic.
6. I don't know yet I must play the game first to judge.
I generally like the graphics style. But there is one major exception: PSI. This purple, magic-like energy really does look toony to me. In my oppinion, it does not fit with the rest of the art style. Here I really think the original did a better job, because PSI attacks where more scary.
I hated hearing the psi-attack noise. And the fact that it had no other warning made it terrifying. No argument there.
However, I think any expectations of minimalism in terms of visual design are unrealistic. They are clearly trying to liven things up and interest a wider audience that wouldn't normally try turn-based. Flashy effects are to be expected. Particularly if the character isn't carrying any visible weapons, like the psi class. Without the big visual cue, I guess he'd be limited to walking around and squinting really hard. LOL.
Hahah, psychic warfare should be like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Tj_l4PcPs
DUH nUH nuh nu, DUH nUH nuh nu
Pew PEW pew!
Personally I like the "Action-Figure-Look".
I agree that a more realistic look might work as well.
But you always will have some problems with realism in video games.
Realistic ranges on a battlefield? 300 meters is not far for your sniper. But if you want to show the sniper and his target and the 300 meters between them on your screen, your sniper would be about 10 pixels high.
Same with camouflage. Zoom out a little bit and your soldier is an undefined stain (just look at Jagged Alliance: BiA), because that’s the reason for camo.
Realistic weapon sizes? Helmets? Protective goggles? Good luck if you want to tell who is the Heavy and who is the Supporter just by the look of them from a little farer away.
"What if this really happened."Originally Posted by Aegeri
QED.
"Oh god, purple luchadores in green spandex are invading! They're shrugging off my bullets and punching out all my blood!"
Exactly. X-Com 1 doesn't look cartoony because of graphics limitations. It looks cartoony by design. The opening in particular makes it clear that it's supposed to be comic/anime inspired.This is actually ignoring the incredibly deliberate decisions made in the original X-COM in terms of artstyle. For the time of its release, we had seen games that tried to be more "gritty" (for lack of a better word) like Doom - so the bright, colorful style of the original was not solely technical limitations: It was a deliberate choice in artstyle. Implying the way this game looks is "Cartoony Nonsense" is just utterly ridiculous, given the game that it is directly inspired from is almost certainly highly cartoony and not at all realistic looking.
I personally like the "huge blocky guns" aesthetic even though it's impractical IRL. It looks cool, and that's enough for me. I just wish there was a "toggle helmet" option so I could see my guys with helmets on the battlefield.Realistic weapon sizes? Helmets? Protective goggles? Good luck if you want to tell who is the Heavy and who is the Supporter just by the look of them from a little farer away.
command & conquer and tftd came out at the same time and they never upped the graphics on tftd and commmand and conquer was far superior in graphic. now as me which game i still play? The cartoony graphics style is part of xcom just as much as mutons and snakemen. if it was to relistc you would loose park of xcom. To look at it from a diffrent angel. The ufo series that was made 10 years ago had three releases. i hated the first to as they tried to hard to be realistic. The last on i loved as it went back to cartoony graphics.
I have to agree with that. I think it would be better and a lot more scary if the only notification you got of a trooper being under PSI attack is him/her clutching at their head as though in agony.
My 1994 child-persona is still in shock at how amazing the game looks - how amazing all games look these days!
Not even. 300m is about 50 to 100m outside of what normal infantry would consider close range and not even close to what would be considered long range for infantry. A designated marksman would be taking people out from 600 to 800m range optimally I think, and a sniper? Well you're looking at 1200+ meters. At that range you wouldn't even be render-able unless using a high power scope.
300 m was just a number to get my point across. I think you are a little over the top with your ranges also. But because we agree that it would totally impractical to make a TBS game with realistic combat distances, I think I let you get away with.
I think the art design of the new game looks great. No complaints here from a hard core fan of the original!
I actually like this action figure or old school GI Joe look at least it's better than the original in terms of graphics. Now I'm sure they could of made it hyper realistic like Final Fantasy or Crysis, but I'm with the developers on this one. This is a over-head tactical strategy game more in the leagues like Star Craft so they gotta design the units to be more pleasant and viewable looking from a over head perspective.
Scanning through all the posts made on this thread, it seems that most people disagree with the title statement.
To the original poster, I throw a smoke grenade.
Who dared revive this long dead carcass of a thread?
This is an act of heresy against the natural lifecycle of threads!
Seriously this thread should have died loooooooooooooong ago.
Saying that graphics are "not realistic enough and too toony" is simply a bad attempt of trying to present your personal opinion as a fact.
Personally I would prefer a less cartoonish style. I like my xcom soldiers be humans, elite soldiers they may be, but still humans with all the limitations. Not heroes directly from comics books carrying armors and guns more suited for a tank.
As do I ಠ_ಠ
You realize that's the point of Powered Armor as portrayed in sci-fi and reality - to be able to carry big guns and armor like a tank.
It's simple this game has never been about graphics and I'm glad they have not tried to go over the top with it. Lets face it, if they did we would not be getting a release for OCT 2012 that's for sure. The game play is the key to this game. I can still play the original and not be bothered by the looks. I've said before this game sits on the throne of gameplay and looks down upon graphics like a god.
The original had a certain feel to it. Almost a soul, it's hard to explain unless you have experienced it. I hope they have been able to replicate this in some small way.
It is a style choice and there are plenty scifi themed stuff which does not go that direction. Personally, I like armor as "personal armor" instead of "armor = tank".You realize that's the point of Powered Armor as portrayed in sci-fi and reality - to be able to carry big guns and armor like a tank.
But I do see your point and will say it is a individual taste thing.
Well, the original went both ways. You had both Personal Armor and Power Suits.
I was going to write a big post on this, but I'll just say this: you guys make me a bit depressed.
All I want is X-COM's aliens to look like this:
image
image
But you guys actually sound like you really want games to look like this instead:
image
I think the game for this gen looks okay. But for PS4, it better be hyper-realistic! OR else, what is the point?
Well then, why couldn't there be some kind of red marking around the aliens like that of Crysis or Diablo? I remember it was hard to see the aliens in the dark, in the first game, so I really don't know why you would need to see the aliens where the aliens are at all times. If your men see it, then they will tell you-- just like the first game.Same with camouflage. Zoom out a little bit and your soldier is an undefined stain (just look at Jagged Alliance: BiA), because that’s the reason for camo.
First, you have bad spelling.
Next, I always find it annoying that people say they don't care about graphics for, what was once, a very good looking game; but then attack a bad game for having bad graphics. Like Duke Nukem Forever: most reviewers would always say something bad about the look of the game (even though I thought it looked old school).
First I think Okami looks cheap and ugly. It's an eyesore. I even think the first half life game looks better, then.... *that*!Compare that to Okami. A game released in the same year taht relies on a heavily cell-shaded look inspired by old japanese art.
I would argue that this game still looks gorgeous even today. Like the old art it's based upon it has a timeless beauty that will look just as good in another 6 years from now.
And I still think Halo, Doom 3, Quake 3 arena, Unreal 2, and others still looks good. But to me, the old graphics seem like a DVD, and I just want to see what they would look like if they were on a 3D blu-ray, if you know what I mean.
-----
And let me say this: it's a long story, but having photorealistic graphics does NOT mean game will be harder to make, or cost more, trust me!
(I have more to say, but that's for later)
No I don't trust you. Why would I? How many AAA game titles have you made? Zero? Well I guess I'll rather trust the industry then thank you very much.
Also I can see why you might not like Okami's graphics but calling it cheap and ugly just shows how ignorant you are to other graphical styles.
Face it: we won't have truly photorealistic graphics for a looong time.
Xcom derives it's graphical styles from old sci fi flicks based on the aliens people call "greys"... they are not making them true to life representations of what aliens would actually look like if they landed. And in any case, a "realistic" game scenario with extra terrestrials would be incredibly boring. They are much higher tech than us, either it would be an incredibly short shock and awe bombardment of insanely powerful orbital weaponry, or they would use a virus/biochem weapon to destroy the earths population before they ever got close enough for a firefight.
This is not really a game where you need incredibly graphical fidelity to draw you into the lore and the mood of the game. Give it a chance and you'll see what I mean.
(quick reply)
Well, sorry, but I was a bit offended that you would call it "timeless" and ignore all the hard work that all the other realistic games put into graphics. It's a slap to the face to all the programmers and graphics artist who work day and night, just because you think Okami/Cel-shading looks 'pretty'.
If you would have read my initial post more closely you would know that I don't like its graphics because it's "pretty" ,but because it is very close to ancient japanese artstyles. Just look up old japanese art and compare it most screenshots from Okami look really close for a game and that is mighty impressive in my book.
We're not forgetting that there's a rather large difference between the art direction of a game, and how much of a drag it is on a video card, right?
I thought the point of bringing up Okami was that, while it wasn't the most "graphics intensive" game, that it had beautiful art direction, and a bit more thought into it's visual style than a lot of other games which might be more taxing on a system's resources. Whether or not that game is stylistically to one's taste, I don't think you can deny that a lot of thought went into it's visual style; which had more to do with aesthetics than technological limitation.
With a lot of the "I don't like the new X-Com's graphics" posts, I'm often having trouble understanding just what point is being made in each individual case:
When you say you want more "realistic" graphics - are you saying you want something that's stylistically more representational, or do you merely feel that you want more technological power put into it? Or both?
(Or to put it another way - is it the specific art style that you're railing against, or do you just want more... "bells and whistles?")
Edit: Or to put it yet another way:
Halo 1. Halo 3. Same art direction and aesthetics, but with better "graphics."
So when it comes to being "photorealistic," are you meaning like the difference between Legend of Zelda: Windwaker and Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (ie, one being stylistically more representational than the other,) or do you want more "graphics?" (And hopefully that makes some sense...)
Last edited by nu_clear_day; 06-13-2012 at 02:24 AM.
Yes thanks for maiking my point more clear. I'm not a native speaker so I sometimes have a bit of a language problem XD
However I wouldn't call "photorealistic" graphics an artstyle.
In a way phtorealism seems like a total lack of a distinctive artstyle to me.
Photorealism means copying reality to the point where the game becomes as close to reality as possible.
Here to clarify what most people would want to have when they talk about photorealism (taken from podtechs post)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWE18YjLA8U
Let me just start at the top:
A: Obvious, self-serving, and hyperbolic examples are obvious. Try posting screenshots from the actual game against what you think XCOM should look like instead of using something that was obviously done for the art style of it versus the greatest prop and creature designer on the planet. One is done by computers, the other by handcraft. Of course they're going to look vastly different.
B: I don't get it. Do you want some kind of gamey signifying ring showing units, and spoiling the "realism" or do you want them to glow more?
C: There's a difference. For the time XCOM was done to the best of the technological limit. Sure, it's not really interesting to look at it outside of '94 context in a graphical way. Duke Nukem was just poorly done, regardless of what style they were going for. I never played it, but there were lots of reports of clipping and popping which are just technical errors.
D: Uh... graphics versus art style here. You're comparing apples to oranges. Sure, Okami isn't a graphical powerhouse, but it still looks better artistically and has hold up better than Half-Life 2 even. It's not that the game is bad but the graphical bar of what is "realistic" changes rapidly enough (at least for now) that games four years old look terrible compared to modern stuff. Oblivion and Skyrim anyone?
E: Ha, ha, ha. Oh please, tell me another one. Yes it does, it's almost a mathematical formula. If this weren't true we wouldn't have to worry about the graphic ceiling we're about to hit. There's only so much hardware can do before the cost to graphical output ratio becomes financially unsound.
It's going to happen, probably in the next few console generations. PCs and consoles will pretty much even out. Barring some kind of wonder-tech.
If you wanna see bad graphics have you seen the other pile of poop XCOM (sorry 2K) I think this is a discussion best left on that web sites forum.
I'm sorry I've registered because this post is stupid, biased and lacking in any actual understanding of art.
The Aesthetic (graphics are a tool, not the end product, get it right) took just as much work to actually create, if not more than any of the examples of failed "photorealism" you or anyone else has posted in this thread. It's not like the art was made by a machine or a line of code running in perpetuity. Someone had to, like other any graphics artist, and ☺☺☺☺ing draw it, looking through reference photos, and doing repetition after repetition trying to get the design just right. Did you know Clover actually originally conceptualized the game in a more realistic aesthetic? It didn't work because the gameplay themes they ended up deciding on made it look like crap, so they went with the one that actually served the themes and mechanics of the game rather than stick with something that was inferior in every respect.
Which is something terrible for many gamers that whine like you are about graphics: they fail to understand that the artstyle, like anything else serves gameplay, not the other way around. Photorealism would make it harder than is necessary to actually play the game (because realistic weapon proportions and armor design will homogenize agents, meaning you have to click on every one to see they're class rather than actually playing), so it get's pitched and something better takes it's place. Photorealism isn't the end all of design, and considering true realism is still impossible, it's also very rarely the best option when designing a game.
And no it's not a "slap in the face," to prefer Okami's aesthetic; that you are capable of thinking such ignorant, insipid nonsense, is.
Sigh, I find that a bit rude, and I have lots of things to do, and other replys to reply to, and if you are going to be like that, then fine, I'm not going to explain or show you all the cool things that may be coming. But I will show you one thing, not just to be nice, but you probably will hear about it already. Or at least you should have heard about it by now.
http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com...-Trailer_2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEup8y0g-Q
That was all running on the PS3. Think about that. It's running on out-dated, 7 year old hardware. That should be impossible. Keeping that in mind, I bet before 10 years from now, we will have realistic graphics. I bet a hundred million dollars on that!
And just to be more nice, here are some great links on new tech:
http://zcint.co.uk/article/crytek-cl...nreal-engine-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIkMaQJSyP8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue4z9lB5ZHg
To put it in your way: Yes I want it more like Skyward Sword. I'm (kind of) railing against the art style. It doesn't need all the "bells and whistles" (but it would still be nice), as long as it *trys* to be more representational of real-life.
To put it in another way (sorry): I want them to try their best to really make me feel like I'm really there. Like Crysis, and how you really feel like you were in a super-suit. The ending was so surreal, because you were in this nearly photorealistic world, fighting these flying aliens, near a cafe-- I loved it! That level really made you feel like this was happening! The funny thing is that is *exactly* what 2K Marin wanted to do with the FPS xcom: take some unbelievable surreal aliens, put them in a boring real world environment, and make you feel like you are really there. Unfortunately, because of the cartoony graphics (and everything else), that didn't happen.
Or to put it my way: I want two things: Progress and Seriousness
Progress: I like seeing things getting better. I like seeing the progress of art, from the start, where it looks cartoony, to the final image, where it becomes hyper-realistic. I want to see what the artist world would look like if they had unlimited resources. To quote Jurassic Park I wanted "Something that was real. Something they could.... see and touch". I want to see what these surreal things would look like in there final form. Like, for example, did you ever wanted to see what Buu, Frieza, and Cell from Dragon Ball Z would look in real-life? Well, thanks to some great artists you can:
Buu
Frieza
Cell
Cell 2
Ever wonder what a Headcrab would look like, from fake to real? Well now you can:
HL1
HL2
HL3
Even Link has an evolution from a cartoony to realistic:
http://www.coveroid.com/wallpapers/z...on-640x480.jpg
Short answer : I want it more like Crysis.
-----------------------
To nu_clear_day:
And since we're here, and I don't feel like finding the "New chryssalid" topic....
I think you said that you see the old chryssalid looking just like the Xenomorph, but you really can't see the new chryssalid looking just like a Keeper from mass effect?
I find that hard to believe. I mean, they both have the same legs, the same torso (but with the Keeper looking fatter), the same arms, even the same way the head bends down.
this, i am happy how they made it, not only because i like table top miniatures games, and it fits in. it looks realistic as it can get for this type of game, without sacrificing performance too i would think and hope
The boat has already sailed on this one. In the original xcom, the intention was definitely trying to make the player feel like they are really a part of earth's final defense against alien incursions. That was what made it a classic.
This xcom:eu is more about casual gameplay. I don't think its intention is to make you feel like you are really there, its more like you are playing a game to have some casual fun and the gameplay experience wasn't meant to be intense immersion. Just casual fun. And the graphics (as well as the entire game design) is made to accompany that mindset. So it would actually be counter productive to the entire game to have ultra-realistic graphics. So cartoony is fine in this case.
Those videos you posted with Beyond:two swords look incredible. But that looks like a very serious game.
And the casual-hardcore gamer just gets another nail of moronic absurdity hammered right in there. Thanks Timewatch. Yes, more realistic graphics equals more serious. Genius logic right there. The more realistic your graphics are the more hardcore you are. I mean it's like two and two. It's not like there's a ton of games out there that are hardcore gamer staples that look unrealistic or anything or that there are games that are realistic looking that are "casual as all get out". Oh... wait... never mind.
Don't like it throw a smoke grenade.
The issue is comparing XCOM's original style to Mass Effect or Aliens - completely different universes and XCOM is a classic - why should it be copying from them or trying to replicate their style? If I want to play something that looks realistic I'll go and choose a game designed that way. The same if I want to play a game fighting Xenomorphs.
But this is XCOM - and the toonish look of the original game is precisely one of the reasons why old timers love it. Let the other games have their unique features or realistic graphics, we don't need to copy from them to have a great XCOM game
I don't think he'll get the subtly of sarcasm. Especially when he's saying gems like:
"xcom:eu is more about casual gameplay" and "graphics (as well as entire game design) is made to accompany that mindset"
Conjecture based on very loosely correlated factors of the game. How do you posit this even relates to other games? HOW did that make sense in your head? How did graphics = gameplay? I must know. You must write a thesis paper. I will read it. *Sigh.
Podtech115, I feel for you. You're the quintessential example of a temper tantrum.
I posted your Link example because it no way does it help your case to persuade this guy. *Thumbs Up. This, and other pretty pictures, represents the foundation of your argument?
Your'e citing to us the art style evolution of various beloved series. In particular, Link from LoZ. When the evolution is still clearly "cartoony." Sure, Link's proportions are different. He's more anatomically correct. Sure. You should note that the Zelda series has been a beloved series for most, if not all, the art directions it has done in the last 25 + years. I love the hyper-realism and the Hyperrealists (Chuck Close is the man) out there, but will you ever see a hyperreal Link in a published LoZ? Probably not because it only has niche market value and more importantly, it would betray the overall art concept of what The Legend of Zelda is. Would I like to see Link in the art style of Kratos or Crysis? F* yea! However, it doesn't make cultural or conceptual sense. I wouldn't invest millions of dollars to develop a AAA title and BETRAY an amazing series.
Remember that XCOM had it's beginnings in a comic style. If you take a look at the catalog of the XCOM series, there's a comic evolution from XCOM94. I remember JS talking about how they put themselves in a bubble when they set out to make this game. To stay true to the game we all love. I love the way they handled it because it's truly derivative. In terms of art direction, they tried to insulate themselves from all these other multimedia influences. I believe they've succeeded, in part, because of haters like you. You're trying to fit an artistic square into and artistic circle, so to speak. Simply put, you hate it because it's different from what you've seen in your recent and preferred experience. "Short answer: I want it more like Crysis." Wah.
I don't want XCOM to be anything more or anything less but XCOM itself.
Also read Zeful's quote about art serving gameplay. It's a goodie:
"I'm sorry I've registered because this post is stupid, biased and lacking in any actual understanding of art.
The Aesthetic (graphics are a tool, not the end product, get it right) took just as much work to actually create, if not more than any of the examples of failed "photorealism" you or anyone else has posted in this thread. It's not like the art was made by a machine or a line of code running in perpetuity. Someone had to, like other any graphics artist, and ☺☺☺☺ing draw it, looking through reference photos, and doing repetition after repetition trying to get the design just right. Did you know Clover actually originally conceptualized the game in a more realistic aesthetic? It didn't work because the gameplay themes they ended up deciding on made it look like crap, so they went with the one that actually served the themes and mechanics of the game rather than stick with something that was inferior in every respect.
Which is something terrible for many gamers that whine like you are about graphics: they fail to understand that the artstyle, like anything else serves gameplay, not the other way around. Photorealism would make it harder than is necessary to actually play the game (because realistic weapon proportions and armor design will homogenize agents, meaning you have to click on every one to see they're class rather than actually playing), so it get's pitched and something better takes it's place. Photorealism isn't the end all of design, and considering true realism is still impossible, it's also very rarely the best option when designing a game.
And no it's not a "slap in the face," to prefer Okami's aesthetic; that you are capable of thinking such ignorant, insipid nonsense, is."
Alucardex, Zeful and I don't trust you.
P.S. There's are whole issues with 3D rendering and coordination you don't care to even consider. You just want it the way you want it. Whack.
Last edited by Laager; 06-23-2012 at 12:37 PM.
Link actually reached his most realistic in Twilight Princess. Skyward Sword actually backed off of that a bit. Also, I think the best Link in terms of the series is probably Wind Waker link. Why? Because he has oodles more emotion and character than any Link before him, but somehow the story is still just as serious business as ever.
You can't call any game where someone gets stabbed in the head un-serious.
You know, talking to you people is pointless.
I feel like I'm talking to bunch of guys in there 40s who longs for the days when cartoons had falling anvils, and there was no 'Japanese cartoons' with their bothersome seriousness. Not that you are, just saying....
Let me add one or two more things:
-Another reason I don't like cartoony is because I see it *ALL THE TIME* at deviantart.com. There is an never-ending, bottomless Ocean of cartoony art that comes from that site. So if I ever need a longing for cartoonyness, I don't ever need a $40,000,000 game to give it to me. So I'm good for cartoony, thanks. But what I would like to see more of is this, instead of this.
-I want to go to the future as soon as possible. But you people are always " oh, no, we have enough. We don't need the future." Well, I, for one, don't want to be stuck in the past, I want to see games with super physics, and super AI. I'm not afraid. I want to see what developers can give us, if they had all the power they need. And the only way we can get there is by telling them we need better graphics. Which means better hardware.
I love how you add your personal, and self-serving opinion, in why toon Link is better. He didn't show more emotion then any of the other Links I know of. And I guess this means you are really bad at L.A. Noire, because a big part of that game is reading real people's faces for the truth. I think it's more better then having them telegraph their emotion, like so much hollywood movies do.Also, I think the best Link in terms of the series is probably Wind Waker link. Why? Because he has oodles more emotion and character than any Link before him, but somehow the story is still just as serious business as ever.
I can, and I just did. Ooh, he gets stabbed in the head (with no blood), big deal! It's a Disney seriousness. I heard of one anime called Bokusatsu Tenshi Dokuro-Chan, and it has blood and gore all the time. And it's a comedy! I would show you a link, but I'm not sure 2k would let a link be made to an awful video like that. Oh, and I almost forgot, there's the simpsons halloween special, which gets bloodyer every year.You can't call any game where someone gets stabbed in the head un-serious.
OHH MY GOD MY EYES!!!!
I just looked at those "realistic" Dragonball Z images and - with the exception of Cell - they all look HORRIBLE!
Seriously they look like perverse abominations of their original design! You can't just take a cartoonish character with clearly stylized proportions and make him "realistic", because that will make those unrealsitic proportions and characteristics stick out even more!
Posting Permissions
