Ugliness of the Xenonauts...

The spinning globe in the original was cool, but I think the flate map is an improvement, as it is much easier to get a big picture view of what is happening.

I didn't go through all the posts and I am not going to. Having skimmed a bit through the thread though, it's "funny" to see how some people cannot accept criticism or even cannot accept that someone may have a different point of view than their own. Yes, for someone a 3D globe is important and they would love to see it in the game. Get over it and don't try to convince them otherwise, simply because you are of a different opinion. The same applies to the rest of the negative comments about the game.

[/Quote]

Pretty sure this isn't what causes a heated argument every time somebody criticizes the game. What does is whenever somebody makes a thread like this, the conclusion is always "Devs, you are not finished because the game does not have everything I would like to see. Get back to work". Then a member of the development team has to explain that the game is finished, the OP's opinion isn't ranked higher than any other player's, and the OP just has to deal with it. At this point, either the OP resigns or throws out a last message claiming the other players don't know enough about the game for their opinion to matter, then cuts.

It's very possible to criticize the game and accept that the devs consider it complete instead of stating that your vision is what should have been released, and the developers need to release additional content to please you.

You'd be wrong there. Both NASA and NORAD use such screens.

NORAD is 1960s tech friend. my microwave has faster processor than all of norad combined.

Hey, people... Again about 2D map (as in real HQs) vs 3D globe. If devs and others consider that 2D map is better than 3D globe - you are so wrong too! Any commander will tell you, that 2D map is good for display DATA about units and other statistical information... But, it is not good to make plans! Each commander understanding that and use globes (even if in its mind) in conjunction with maps. So, if globe is unrealisable on game's engine - then curvatures had to be implemented. Because it 2D maps show the globe, which means and methods of work with it (later about it).

Creating games only due to features of the engine - will always lead to harsh criticism (not I said it). It is also necessary to create supplement to the engine. Since the engine was not designed specifically for YOUR game or for further innovations in it.

By simplifying display on maps contrary to the apparent reality - induces permanent restriction, leading to a conflict between the inner world of the player and the world of the game. It causes unpleasant feelings. Player's attitude to the game must be like to a good book © think someoane said it already The game should clearly define the properties of their world and methods of interaction with it. In case of Xenonauts game - world is defined like real, but methods are in contradiction with this. This makes the game poorly written "book". If Chris will ignore that in his future projects - it will make for him bad reputation. Thus, I repeat again, should extract useful things from argumented critics.

That is all I wanted to say about 2D maps and 3D globes.

Creating games only due to features of the engine - will always lead to harsh criticism (not I said it). It is also necessary to create supplement to the engine. Since the engine was not designed specifically for YOUR game or for further innovations in it.

That's all well and good, but when the source code for the engine used isn't available or supported by its developers any more, it's more or less impossible.

By simplifying display on maps contrary to the apparent reality - induces permanent restriction, leading to a conflict between the inner world of the player and the world of the game.

No. It *may* lead to that, if it's something you care about. But it has honestly never done that for me, because I don't care. What I care about, instead, is being able to see what is going on without having to spin a 3d globe around all the time.

(For real, the fact that the map when fully panned out doesn't show all of the Pacific Ocean matters more to me than not having a 3d map, even though I totally understand why that's not displayed).

Navi1982, you really should stop making statements that are unqualified. For example, where are these commanders? Can you quote one? Two? Are you aware that serving, ex- and reservist military personell make up a large segment of this forum? Shall we put the question to them? For any serving, ex- or reservist military personell out there. Are maps terrible for planning, like Navi1982 says?

Furthermore, if your paragraph about restrictions were true, then where are the complaints? Why hasn't the board been drowned in them? Where's your evidence? There are a lot of things that people care about, but the number of people who care about the lack of a globe to the point where they complain about it are very small. VERY small. It seems that Chris has made a "book" that people are willing to read, based upon the evidence available.

bla-bla-bla... (cause you did not ask them!)

Are maps terrible for planning, like Navi1982 says?

I dont said that map is terrible for planning... I just said that maps, that do not reflect the real world (like is presented in the game) is realy terrible. Because by the sense of the (such a) game(s) you are fighting against aliens on the whole world... real world... that was in 1979 and still exist now... and hope will remain as is.

And I've said that curvatures on 2D maps (really I'm not against it) still should be implemented! That I've mean.

Furthermore, if your paragraph about restrictions were true, then where are the complaints? Why hasn't the board been drowned in them? Where's your evidence? There are a lot of things that people care about, but the number of people who care about the lack of a globe to the point where they complain about it are very small. VERY small. It seems that Chris has made a "book" that people are willing to read, based upon the evidence available.

People read the books (different genres) because want to read these. And people is ready to swallow omissions for the sake of nostalgia or the love of it. But, what book will be better? Depends on the author: how adequately describe the world and he will handle it. So, this question of "what is better?" And I answered on it, pointing out the flaws.

I'm not asking the author or publisher to give me back the money for the (not so bad) book that has read. For this there is criticism or discussion of this book. A forum is the place where discussions are held. (this is my answer about why people do not revolt)

Hope my point of view is clear?

Your point of view may be clear, but it isn't backed up by evidence. You are still making unqualified statements which are only held up by the theories you create, and you have been doing that all throughout this thread. You don't have a point of view. you have a position. You have planted your flag in the sand and you are not prepared to debate it. You are certainly not prepared to debate anything where the evidence shows otherwise. Show me the evidence which backs up your arguments. Not the theories which explains away the lack of evidence, or the theories which re-interpret the evidence. I ask for quotes - you can't give them. I ask for evidence - you can't give it. You can't give it because it doesn't exist. Your position is not even vaguely factually based. That is what annoys me, and that is what I take issue with.

Max_Caine,

The arguments is so much obvious that it is difficult to miss. At least compare sales of last few remakes ... You surprised me, it's true.

Max_Caine,

The arguments is so much obvious that it is difficult to miss. At least compare sales of last few remakes ... You surprised me, it's true.

You're not listening. Your arguments are apparent; however, your evidence is non-existent.

Just for funsies... here is a picture of NORAD's Command Centre.

Wot is that on the right hand side of the front wall?

...A flat map. Looks an awful lot like the Geoscape actually except they don't need no fancy colours to track incoming ballistic missiles.

Can we consider the realism case closed now?

No no no, you're obviously missing the full holographic 3D projected globe in the other room. Obviously the map there is just for show, they don't actually use it because everyone knows that seeing the entire globe in one screen is inferior to something where you must spend effort to view the other side of.

To back your point even further, it's not the late 90s but actually the late 70s earlier 80s.

No no no, you're obviously missing the full holographic 3D projected globe in the other room. Obviously the map there is just for show, they don't actually use it because everyone knows that seeing the entire globe in one screen is inferior to something where you must spend effort to view the other side of.

Apparently... Honestly I don't care much one way or the other. It just struck me as such an odd hill to plant your flag on and die defending when 30 seconds in google and a picture on wikipedia rendered the whole argument moot.

Still it's been highly entertaining to read the strawmen, the appeals to authority, and all the other rhetorical fallacies in this thread.

Just for funsies... here is a picture of NORAD's Command Centre.

...

Wot is that on the right hand side of the front wall?

...A flat map. Looks an awful...

... Can we consider the realism case closed now?

There's no problem with using flat maps.

There's a problem when the gameplay acts as if world is a cylinder.

This is the top of the planet Earth, as seen from ~8,200 miles directly above the north pole.

Think about this - an interceptor base stationed on Svalbard island, or the northern coast of Greenland, would easily cover the entire north of Russia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. Instead of having to use three or even four bases to do that, because of Cylinder World, you could just use one.

I'm not saying you HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE TO use a globe. What I am saying is that, globe or not, it would be nice if the world behaved like a world. One does not HAVE to give up one's precious cylindrical projection in order to model the fact that a plane can swoop over the pole, launched from Svalbard or Greenland, or even northern continental Norway* or Russia, and come down like the wrath of an angry god (Thor, if it was launched from Norway,) on UFOs giving trouble to pretty much anywhere in Canada or even the northern United States.

*Svalbard is a Norwegian island.

This geography shaped the Cold War. The Soviets didn't fear the people of, say, The Congo, because no matter which way you looked at it, the Congo was far away from every Soviet socialist territory. But look at that beautiful north pole. You don't have to fly very far at supersonic speeds to get from the northern United States to the U.S.S.R or vice-versa. That should, I think, be reflected.

Again, though, one does not have to give up a cylindrical map projection to reflect this fact! It would be possible to distort the speed of things closer to the north (or south) poles, to reflect the fact that the map itself is distorted, and if something flies off the map to the north or south, it would reappear going south or north on the other part of the map.

Really, it's just a matter of mathematically projecting radar circles onto the map, having them extend off the north edge at once place and extend down again from it in another place, and Bob's your uncle. This does not have to be an either/or situation; you can have your cake and eat it too in this scenario!

And for people who get confused? Just have it spelled out in a tutorial panel and the xenopedia. Use a nice graphic showing an arrow coming across the top of the planet from Russia to the United States and vice versa.

Yeah. In world, I hate most and extremely most only one kind of people - egoists.

And this post staled whole half an hour to just read how egoists attack more mature people, abusing them, ordering to do their bidding.

And as world rules, matures aren't matures just for age, but for mental part of it too. And poor matures just try act cool and convince with fully fledged arguments, while egoists still hear only what they want to hear and won't do anything for even their own cause.

Disgusting. Egoists b'gone.

I consider this flamed post, and it totally hasn't influenced any thought of anybody. It's just classic flame.

p.s. Guess, egoists just never created anything by themselves. Only creators understand imperfection of creation, because they experienced it themselves. While users never understand creators in simple terms.

My advice - close this flame-post. Because it breaks mood (

Even this UFO Alien Invasion has a globe.

http://ufoai.org/wiki/File:Geoscape_and_Sun.jpg