SMAC's graphics is very good not medicore

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  SMAC's graphics is very good not medicore

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   SMAC's graphics is very good not medicore

Tgzo posted 06-18-99 10:19 AM ET
Many people in this forum is saying that the graphics in SMAC is medicore or even sucks, but I really think that the graphics is very good, I never had to tried to "force" myself to like the graphics or the game as a whole for that matter. I just simply like it, cause it's good!
umbra1 posted 06-18-99 10:38 AM ET
I recently went back to playing Civ2 for a while... Still a good game but it does show the great improvements Firaxis made with SMAC, the better gameplay, strategies and graphics. All hail SMAC.
Zoetrope posted 06-18-99 11:12 AM ET
We must dissent. Slow graphics are bad graphics. Brian Reynolds has publicly agreed that the caviar graphics were a bad choice. So if you want to defend them, then take it up with him, if you dare.
PS: Slow battles are bad battles. Slow moves are bad moves. This whole aspect of the game is a major waste of time. Instead of two troops going "zap-zap-zap" or a unit "crawling, crawling, crawling", I want to make _my_ moves, dammit!
And none of this nonsense about how many billions of computations are involved in tossing a dice a few times in a battle, or in negotiating obstacles while travelling from A to B.
When the units are off-screen, they travel fast, sheesh! You guys ever compared the time it takes for a unit to travel the portion of a magtube off-screen, to the snail's pace along the section that's on-screen?
My case rests, conclusively and incontrovertibly proven by both BR and me, so that's the end of the matter.
Hope that doesn't scare you off, but when I do the computations myself, and compare with (older!) games that have far more complex, more detailed, 3D continuous-world graphics with serious physics-of-collision calculations, with _continual_ user interaction, and run very fast on primitive architectures, then it's obvious that SMAC's graphics programmers really have to go back to school.
If they want to see what's possible, they might consider RTS games like Starcraft that plays reliably, seamlessly, and fast across the Pacific, for goodness's sake!
They can also look at games in other genres, for example the best free-movement Action/Adventures from several years ago, such as Twinsen's Odyssey, which is the work of one small team in France led by Frederic Reynal.
Some of those small firms with obvious graphics expertise could use a little cash better than those idiots who sold Firaxis this puppy called "caviar" graphics.
Resource Consumer posted 06-18-99 11:21 AM ET
Why are the called "caviar" graphics.
Is it that they are so rich that they make you sick or is there a more sensible reason?
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: SMAC's graphics is very good not medicore
Tgzo	posted 06-18-99 10:19 AM ET Many people in this forum is saying that the graphics in SMAC is medicore or even sucks, but I really think that the graphics is very good, I never had to tried to "force" myself to like the graphics or the game as a whole for that matter. I just simply like it, cause it's good!
umbra1	posted 06-18-99 10:38 AM ET I recently went back to playing Civ2 for a while... Still a good game but it does show the great improvements Firaxis made with SMAC, the better gameplay, strategies and graphics. All hail SMAC.
Zoetrope	posted 06-18-99 11:12 AM ET We must dissent. Slow graphics are bad graphics. Brian Reynolds has publicly agreed that the caviar graphics were a bad choice. So if you want to defend them, then take it up with him, if you dare. PS: Slow battles are bad battles. Slow moves are bad moves. This whole aspect of the game is a major waste of time. Instead of two troops going "zap-zap-zap" or a unit "crawling, crawling, crawling", I want to make _my_ moves, dammit! And none of this nonsense about how many billions of computations are involved in tossing a dice a few times in a battle, or in negotiating obstacles while travelling from A to B. When the units are off-screen, they travel fast, sheesh! You guys ever compared the time it takes for a unit to travel the portion of a magtube off-screen, to the snail's pace along the section that's on-screen? My case rests, conclusively and incontrovertibly proven by both BR and me, so that's the end of the matter. Hope that doesn't scare you off, but when I do the computations myself, and compare with (older!) games that have far more complex, more detailed, 3D continuous-world graphics with serious physics-of-collision calculations, with _continual_ user interaction, and run very fast on primitive architectures, then it's obvious that SMAC's graphics programmers really have to go back to school. If they want to see what's possible, they might consider RTS games like Starcraft that plays reliably, seamlessly, and fast across the Pacific, for goodness's sake! They can also look at games in other genres, for example the best free-movement Action/Adventures from several years ago, such as Twinsen's Odyssey, which is the work of one small team in France led by Frederic Reynal. Some of those small firms with obvious graphics expertise could use a little cash better than those idiots who sold Firaxis this puppy called "caviar" graphics.
Resource Consumer	posted 06-18-99 11:21 AM ET Why are the called "caviar" graphics. Is it that they are so rich that they make you sick or is there a more sensible reason?