Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenXcom 1.0 Released

Posted by timothy on from the dropped-the-hyphen dept.

It's a small class of video games that still draw interest or inspire an active community 20 years after their first release — even if we're now 40 years into the era of commercial video games. Games like Doom, the several iterations of Civilization, and the Mario Brothers franchise will probably be around and played in some form many decades hence. The X-COM family of games fits, too, having inspired various spiritual successors since its release in 1994. Now, an anonymous reader writes that the open source (GPL) " OpenXcom 1.0 is finally released, after 5224 commits, 1843 days, and 606 resolved issues since v0.9. 20 years of X-COM — XCOM oldschool lovers enjoy!"

50 comments

  1. Resolution by Thanshin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why not leave everything exactly as it is but up the resolution? Is it because it's hard to find people who would redraw the sprites?

    1. Re:Resolution by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The art assets are from the original game; you actually need to have a copy of xcom to play. This is for people who want to play XCOM.

      Upping the resolution is a fine idea though, and as the game is moddable, you probably can up the resolution, and include all new artwork.

    2. Re:Resolution by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      We've upped the resolution, now UP YOURS!

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    3. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always use Dosbox. It has a few modes available that will smooth out those old sprites for higher resolution screens.

    4. Re:Resolution by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Upping the resolution is a fine idea though, and as the game is moddable, you probably can up the resolution, and include all new artwork.

      Or one could integrate the various filters from, say, ScummVM. Making low-res pixel art look good is a problem that's been pretty much solved.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already been done.

    6. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh no, just no. Applying some interpolating filter is a far cry from actually having redrawn graphics. You cannot acceptably upgrade graphics without a ton of work.

  2. Re:textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about some textures for 4k monitors?? !

    How about enjoying a fucking classic ?
    Otherwise you can play the 768th COD shit on your 4k monitor.

  3. Re:Or... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .... you could just buy XCom.

    You need a copy of the game to use this. This project is to resolve the difficulty running the original game on modern hardware, fix bugs in the original game, etc.

    I've got several copies, the original, a CD re-release over 10 years ago that I could NEVER get to run properly due to speed issues, and it's outright incompatibility with using nvidia graphics cards; and I now own it on steam as well (but it came with Enemy Unknown and I haven't actually tried the steam one yet) -- I did get the re-release version working in DOSbox but it still had its issues etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the steam one has its flakiness as well... a proper modern remake is a good thing.

  4. The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Jahoda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I personally didn't care for any of the sequels that followed XCOM/XCOM:TFTD - none of them seemed to capture that sublime perfection that is the gameplay of the original, most seemed like cash-ins on the IP. So, I was very surprised to find that the current Firaxis title was actually surprisingly, surprisingly good. I learned that recreating the original game in the engine they built was their first step in creating the new title, and clearly it was created with love. So, I say this for any fans who may have been like me, and avoided the titles strictly because historically the sequels stunk to high heaven.

    Having said that, it still doesn't completely scratch that itch that only a game of nice, classic Xcom. Dosbox has always been an option of course, but Xcom has bugs, and while using "XcomUtil" (http://ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XcomUtil) can fix many of these problems, the work of the OpenXCOM to give us such a wonderful, expandable, moddable version of such a giant of PC gaming is simply astounding. As I read over the documentation, I can't wait to give this a shot. Really want to thank these guys for such a wonderful job - my memories of the summer of 94 and this game are very fond indeed.

    1. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Zero replayability. A completely different game with with the same name. Xcom Apocalypse was closer to the original than the 2012 version ever was.

    2. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      EU feels far more like XCOM than Apocalypse ever did to me. As for 'zero replayability' try the mods. :)

      They add a lot more variability and depth, and some of the re-balancing change the tactics... adds a lot of replayability.

    3. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sublime perfection that is the gameplay of the original

      Excuse me? You mean the whole set of bugs that the fans had to fix because it was embarassingly broken? Or the horrible AI which you could play around however you wanted once you reached a certain tech level? Or the horrific behaviour of rockets/grenades which were essentially 2D? Or the destructible walls which would not collapse floating floors on you? etc, etc. Or maybe you mean the tedious boring unbalanced ending part of each game where you are forced to do silly missions you win every time because otherwise the aliens win, but you don't get a chance to attack?

      Man, I love xcom, and I've enjoyed openxcom several times since 0.9, but saying it had sublime perfection is stretching it a lot. Just look at the list of bugfixes, the gameplay really did suffer from them.

      Also, the recent fireaxis xcom is nothing like the original. I like it, but again, it's more action oriented and less strategy. Unless you tell me that strategy is having a super soldier unable to carry more than one grenade per mission...

    4. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Also, the recent fireaxis xcom is nothing like the original.

      Its different, but it captures the feel very well to me.

      I like it, but again, it's more action oriented and less strategy. Unless you tell me that strategy is having a super soldier unable to carry more than one grenade per mission...

      I agree, the changes to streamline things are significantly different - skill trees, and the restrictive inventory system for example. But... playing within the confines of that is still lots of strategy and tactics. You have to make some hard choices.

      If you haven't tried the mods, there are some good ones out there. Warspace, the long war, second wave, etc. Add a lot more depth and variability and replay.

    5. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You have to make some hard choices.

      The difficulty of the choices doesn't make the game have more strategy or less. If you were told to flip a coin and figure out the result to win 1M dollars it would be a hard choice, but without strategy at all. In fact, that's what strategy is about: you predict all the possible outcomes and plan ahead for them, so if you get that soldier shot at a crucial moment, you have a backup plan. And suddenly losing a soldier is not a "hard choice" because you plan for that.

      If a game restricts the inventory system, skill trees etc, I'd say it has less strategy options than the original, reducing it to merely coin tossing. Having to choose between two options instead of twenty really sucks as strategy goes. It did suck Doom 3 having a soldier not being able to use a weapon and a flashlight at the same time. It sucks having a soldier able to carry a rocket launcher plus main weapon and not more than a single grenade. In Doom 3 soldiers didn't know about duct tape, and in fireaxis Xcom soldiers don't know about belts. I wonder how they keep their pants up.

      With regards to the mods I would like to play, but they won't come out on iOS/Android devices, and my desktop machines aren't capable of running the game.

    6. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If a game restricts the inventory system, skill trees etc, I'd say it has less strategy options than the original, reducing it to merely coin tossing.

      That's absurd. Is Chess not a strategy game given you only get 16 fixed pieces to start with, in fixed starting positions, with fixed capabilities? Or Go, with its even simpler rules?

      There are lots of definite right and wrong choices to make in xcom, and you still need to plan, and to have contingency plans, and escape plans, etc within a mission. I do agree the longer term strategy is a bit watered down relative to the original in terms of base construction, planning, etc. But which nations you support, and research decisions etc still dramatically affect outcomes.

      And suddenly losing a soldier is not a "hard choice" because you plan for that.

      Losing a solider is not a 'hard choice'. Choosing what to equip him with, and where to position him were the hard choices, made harder by having fewer backup soliders, and fewer backup supplies.

      If you were told to flip a coin and figure out the result to win 1M dollars it would be a hard choice

      No. That's not a hard choice at all. Pick a side, and flip the coin.

      Choosing what equipment to outfit your xcom eu team is a harder choice than it was in xcom ufo because in xcom ufo, I could have piles of extra stuff. So it didn't matter as much if I put the wrong guy in the wrong place, or destroyed cover i didn't need to destroy because i had all the rockets and grenades i needed. You had to think harder about what you were likely to need, and when to use it when you did, because you couldn't brings lots of extra stuff.

      It did suck Doom 3 having a soldier not being able to use a weapon and a flashlight at the same time. [...] In Doom 3 soldiers didn't know about duct tape

      In the Doom 3 i played I had an entire arsenal of weapons. Which one was my flashlight attached to? Or did I have 9 flashlights?

      I'm also not sure how I moved around, supersoldier or not, carrying a chainsaw, a minigun, a bfg9000, grenades, 2 shot guns, pistols, plasma gun, and a rocket launcher with 100 rockets not to mention ammo for everything else? And even the rocket launcher and plasma guns wouldn't penetrate interior walls... or even most furniture...

      It was a game.

      It sucks having a soldier able to carry a rocket launcher plus main weapon and not more than a single grenade.

      It really wasn't better have them carry a rocket launcher 5 rockets, plus main weapon plus 12 grenades, plus smoke grenades, plus...XYZ and just nuke the entire landscape on any map without civilians...

      and in fireaxis Xcom soldiers don't know about belts.

      Or air support, or armor support, or artillery, or drone scouts, or showing up with more than 6 people, ... the local police department regularly has more officers involved in a speed trap, but I can't take more than 6 soldiers to defend against an alien invasion? No its not 'realistic'. Its a game. The object was to win with those limited resources, and it was balanced such that it could be done. You don't need more than half a dozen grenades... and you figure out a tactical solution that doesn't require more. People beat iron man... so clearly the right strategy works, unless you really argue they just happened to brute force it until they guess right on hundreds of coin flips??

      With regards to the mods I would like to play, but they won't come out on iOS/Android devices, and my desktop machines aren't capable of running the game.

      You do realize that a lot of the reasons the new xcom was so, shall we say, streamlined, was precisely to facilitate having the game on ios android and consoles. If they'd made the deeper game you wish it were... it would never have been out for ios at all. One of ~my~ complaints about the game was that they'd clearly "dumbed it down" for non-pc platform users.

    7. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Its different, but it captures the feel very well to me.

      That's also the argument of this paper (PDF) comparing them, though it does also concede that the new game somewhat reduces tension and difficulty in order to accommodate a streamlined UX that players expect from modern titles.

      The two biggest changes to the feel imo are: 1) scrapping of the whole time-unit system; and 2) much less in the way of ambushes because the line-of-sight visibility mechanic was replaced by a much broader visibility field.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    8. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Losing a solider is not a 'hard choice'.

      Depends on the game you're playing. In original UFO/X-Com, I would sometimes fight a scout craft (the kind that's all one room inside) early in the game and all of the aliens would be in the ship. They would (intelligently) refuse to come out, and if I sent someone in, they would snap-shot him for an instant kill. So I made a hard choice to load up a rookie with a high-explosive charge set to 0 seconds, and ran him in next to the power source. As expected, the aliens killed him. But the explosive neutralized the threat. Score one for X-Com crack suicide squad! Unfortunately, the HE destroyed the power source so I didn't get the 50 Elerium-115.

    9. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Also, the recent fireaxis xcom is nothing like the original. I like it, but again, it's more action oriented and less strategy. Unless you tell me that strategy is having a super soldier unable to carry more than one grenade per mission...

      You know, in reality we'd probably have a bit more than half a dozen soldiers to fight off an alien invasion. UFO Defense was a lot more about tedium and logistics than actual strategy, okay the soldiers need bullets for their guns but I need to restock them between each mission or they'll forget to bring ammo? That's not the kind of micromanagement I'd like to be doing between researching alien tech, building new and unique equipment and facilities while staving off an alien invasion. I consider the chances in the new X-Com basically to say that for any reasonable engagement, the soldiers will have bullets because practically they'll either kill the enemy or be killed before they run out. The reload time also makes you cut down on the spray-and-pray tactics. Standard issue is maybe 2-3 grenades, I agree it's an oversimplification but it also means you get to pick the pros and cons not just throw whichever grenade is best all the time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:The new Firaxis title was surprisingly good.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had plasma rifles, you could sometimes shoot the walls out and get them that way. That's how I completed those missions. I did always wish for a way to open that fucking door without having a guy standing right in front of it, though....

  5. Re:Or... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 0

    Difficulty of running the original game? I suppose perhaps they started their project before the age of Dosbox. I mean, you can even buy the original XCom's on Steam these days.

    What would be really nice is if they now started improving on the original. And what would just be incredibly awesome is, if they would merge XCom and Terror From the Deep into one game with both assets, land and sea bases... extreme X-Com awesomeness in a single package.

  6. Re:Or... by kevn57 · · Score: 1

    It's better to walk to Boston then work all day for a train ticket.

  7. Xenonauts also released by ACS+Solver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A very good time to be an XCom fan.

    Another release is that of Xenonauts, to be finally released next week. I think it's a must-have for fans of the classic XCom. Xenonauts is a modernized remake, but it keeps the same fundamental game mechanics (unlike the Firaxis version). Time units, multiple bases, great freedom in soldier inventory and other things from the original, and there's a huge amount of balancing and subtle improvements. I have played several indie and small-studio successors, such as UFO: Aftermath, UFO: Extraterrestrials, and UFO: Alien Invasion, but none of those have, in my opinion, captured the original's feeling, while Xenonauts managed to.

    1. Re:Xenonauts also released by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty curious how Xenonauts turned out. I bought it during the early stages of development (back when it was more "crowdfunding" than "early access") and the last version I played was an alpha where the game would crash if your soldiers tried to pick up alien guns. I remember the ground combat being good but the interception minigame being pretty annoying.

      It'll be interesting to see what has changed since then.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  8. Re:Or... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suppose perhaps they started their project before the age of Dosbox. I mean, you can even buy the original XCom's on Steam these days.

    Yeah, I like dosbox as much as the next classic game fan, but you are way off base here. Still all kinds of glitches and stuff that affect lots of people (too fast, too slow, unsteady framerate issues, sound or graphics corruption -- joystick woes (not so much for xcom but lots of other titles); and spending hours teaking dosbox config files to try and resolve them is tiresome.

    And as this is moddable, it sets the groundwork for being able to run a version with modern hi resolution graphics instead of dealing with upscalers and antialiasing as your only option to play with a window larger than 2.5".

  9. Re:textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even 4K textures wouldn't make that crap playable.

  10. Interesting! by snemarch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's nice to see that there's still people interested in the *original* XCOM games - and not the utter junk that's been released since TFTD.

    Some 13 years ago (wow, time flies), I was delighted to see a Windows re-release of the XCOM games (the "Collectors Edition"), since the DOS version was indeed pretty troublesome to get running under Windows - this was before the luxury of DOSBox. However, the fine developers who did the port didn't know the difference between "pitch" and "width", and thus it was unplayable (on a wide range of graphics cards, apparently). I was put down by this, but my friend who was visiting that evening said "well, you usually fix... bugs... in programs, so can't you fix this?".

    One frantic night of reverse engineering and beer-drinking and reminiscing about chryssalids and tentaculats laters, I had a bugfix loader running. XCOM once again! The CE port in general wasn't perfect, the XCOM1 intro only had MIDI music but not the muton screams and other sound effects, there were stall-for-a-second issues when changing soundtrack on many soundcards, et cetera.

    When XCOM1+2 were re-released on STEAM, they initially used my bugfix loaders (I'm told they use DOSBox nowadays - that's a more authentic experience). Didn't even contact me about it. When I reached out to the people in charge (took a while, the rights to the brand had been shifted around quite a bit), I was told that the source code no longer existed - apparently, at the end of days, it had existed on a single laptop that had been stolen or destroyed or whatever.

    So, with the above in mind, it's nice to see that people are trying to re-create the legacy of one of the best games I've ever spent countless hours with.

    --
    Coffee-driven development.
    1. Re:Interesting! by afallowhorizon · · Score: 1

      You made those loaders? Awesome. I owe many hours of XCOM fun/rage to you, then. Thanks for releasing those!

    2. Re:Interesting! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Apoc wasn't that bad. It was flawed but still enjoyable, although I think that some of the cut content would've made it even better (like tracking down people to uncover alien infiltration attempts). The premise was silly but I do like the gameplay. Plus, there were these sublime moments like when you realized that your desperate tactic of throwing swarms of hoverbikes at the UFOs was actually pretty effective. Overall it might not have been quite as good as the first one but it was still good.

      Now, Interceptor and Enforcer; those games were horrible. I wholeheartedly agree with you there.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 2012 xcom and its expansion are extremely good games. try them.

  11. A totally different game by arielCo · · Score: 1

    I tried Firaxis's XCOM as soon as I could, seeking the flexibility of the first two games; the devilish plays you could pull when in a tight spot (prime alien grenade - toss at buddy - buddy picks it up - buddy lobs at alien), shooting or running as your speed (TUs per turn) allowed, switching equipment on the field, breaching walls for your teammates... all were fond memories worthy of revisiting with a modern engine.

    The first cinematic of the landing scene gave me a huge grin, and it was mostly disappointing from then on. Its walk-shoot-shoot; you die with the gear you brought; you can't shoot at walls because they've done nothing to you. I played four missions and didn't get to experiment with classes or see whether you could ever learn Mind Control.

    My hopes are now on UFO: Alien Invasion. Bit rough around the edges but coming along nicely. If you share my feelings, give it a go.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:A totally different game by khchung · · Score: 1

      I tried Firaxis's XCOM as soon as I could, seeking the flexibility of the first two games; the devilish plays you could pull when in a tight spot (prime alien grenade - toss at buddy - buddy picks it up - buddy lobs at alien), shooting or running as your speed (TUs per turn) allowed, switching equipment on the field, breaching walls for your teammates... all were fond memories worthy of revisiting with a modern engine.

      The first cinematic of the landing scene gave me a huge grin, and it was mostly disappointing from then on. Its walk-shoot-shoot; you die with the gear you brought; you can't shoot at walls because they've done nothing to you. I played four missions and didn't get to experiment with classes or see whether you could ever learn Mind Control.

      My hopes are now on UFO: Alien Invasion. Bit rough around the edges but coming along nicely. If you share my feelings, give it a go.

      Agree with you on all points, and I will add one game-breaker I gleaned after completing the game a few times, for all the great promise of the new XCom game, this is the killer that made me stop playing it -- the AI cheats.

      That's right, it cheats. Not in the strategy game purest sense of cheating like it knows the position and gears of my team before they can see them (it does), but in the much more serious way as teleporting its units, literally, behind your back. So you can have your units partition the map into two, heard enemies on the left half in one turn, and sudden have then appear on the right the next turn!

      Higher level snipers can get a motion sensor that reveals enemies, and the game is bugged in that it considered enemies revealed by motion sensor as still hidden. So you will get to see how the AI moves (i.e. teleports) those units to ALWAYS JUST out of sight of your units!

      So instead of the strategic thinking the original XCom encourages, the new XCom just have one way to play without having your squad getting killed, which is to prepare and respond to having enemies popping up from any direction, even from parts of the map which you have cleared already!

      P.S. Mind Control, don't even bother. You only get to control the alien for a few turns, not enough to make a real difference. The option of keeping one or two mind controllers in the team sitting at the starting location and just control aliens as they were spotted and use them is no longer viable. Since you cannot drop equipment now, mind controlling one to have it disarm itself is also not possible. Dropping a grenade on itself is the most useful thing you can do.

      --
      Oliver.
    2. Re:A totally different game by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the old Carrier Command game. Due to rushed development, the AI code was never fully finished - it was thick as two short planks. To compensate for these weaknesses, it was given certain advantages that made the game very unfair.

      eg, the AI was never given pathfinding code - so it couldn't navigate around an island. The solution was to just let it drive over land too - thus allowing it to take a straight line between any two points. The manual lampshaded this by declaring it was a hover-carrier. Worse, you are dependant upon a network of resource production and fuel supply. The AI has one of these too, but if you act strategically to sever it from the network, nothing happens: It simply has infinite everything. The AI resource management network is nothing but a meaningless display.

    3. Re: A totally different game by arielCo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, some behavio(u)rs of the original game were less than reasonable, to the point that taking advantage of them felt like an exploit. One of these was "collective sight", which meant that if anyone on your side (even a controlled alien) can see someone, everyone can target it. You could do the Cydonia mission without leaving the craft by spotting one alien and chain-controlling as many as needed to reach the hive-brain. Others were: stuffing someone (dead/unconscious) in your "backpack" and only suffering some weight encumbrance; unconscious characters not being targetable (I saved more than one soldier by knocking him out); and (this one's debatable) your soldiers' collective "memory" of the map, which e.g. allows any of them to guide the ridiculously fun Blaster Bomb like a Tomahawk Out Of Hell.

      Still, those design flaws are more forgivable in their historical context than the needless restrictions that put me off XCOM:EU. Didn't have a chance to enjoy the teleporting Greys.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  12. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it's a stupid fucking saying.

  13. Re: Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux anno 1994 when X-COM was released wasn't really suitable for games.

  14. Re:Or... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I play all the old microprose games on linux all the time. With dosbox.

  15. Re:Or... by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    I bought the version from Steam a year ago to play it again. It runs in DOSbox and they seem to have worked out all the issues because it worked great on modern hardware. It was five bucks. More power to them but I hope they do something make the game better because I don't see the point otherwise since the steam version is just like playing back in the day.

  16. Re: textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yea, we are living in the age of games that pander to spoiled, stupid kids with attention deficits.

    Games that make you think are too "boring" for today's mass market.

  17. If you haven't tried the Enemy Within expansion by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Do so now.

    The Firaxis reboot was good, but with the EW expansion it is amazing, probably the best turn based tactical game of all time. They hit the right balance of simplicity of mechanics and complexity of strategy, kept everything nice and balanced, gave you a lot of different valid strategy options and so on.

    I've been extremely pleased with it and spent a shit ton of time playing it.

    1. Re:If you haven't tried the Enemy Within expansion by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I will definitely have to do so. I have the expansion, but have simply never gotten around to playing it (Steam sales, etc etc). Might be a good summertime thing to start up =)

  18. Re: textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, X-COM just sucks.

  19. Re:Or... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    You mean something like no more Groundhog Day bug, native multiplatform support, mod support, tons of bugfixes, a replacable soundtrack (with Amiga and PSX and Cydonia's fall, oh my!), three-dimensional explosions, no more Groundhog Day bug, all sorts of XcomUtil-type fixes/mods optionally available, TFTD-style battlescape controls (like being able to open doors without walking through them), strafing, radar ranges displayed on the geoscape, Apocalypse-style persistent soldier equipment, no more Groundhog Day bug...

    And did I mention that they added support for shotguns? Because they added support for shotguns. They're fun.

    Seriously; the original XCOM was great but OpenXcom makes it better. If you think about starting up DOSBox to run the original try OpenXcom instead. You'll like it. (And no, I'm not affiliated with the project; the closest I came to that was to think about a mod that completely replaces the aliens' equipment. Because the world needs space AK-47s. Alas, I lack the time.)

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  20. Re: Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netrek (http://www.netrek.org/) would like to have a word with you.