🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:45:28 +0200, walter mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>ZiggyPopp wrote:
>
>> rms wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.descentbb.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2677&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40&sid=85fc81187384044cca516f891c249e91 
>>>
>>>
>>> They aim for a D1/D2 gameplay, rather than Descent3.  Guess we'll see!
>>>
>>> rms
>>>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> Can you please explain "They aim for a D1/D2 gameplay, rather than 
>> Descent3".
>> I've played much d1 and d2 but never d3 so I don't understand.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>
>D3 was more "engine" than substance - some of the dickwads here would 
>cream themselves about the engines ability to move "seamlessly" between 
>tight indoor "corridoor" scenarios to wide open outdoor maps. 

Actually that isn't true.  I've managed to find one place where the
transition between the surface and underground affects gameplay.  It is
minor, but involved the inability of the headlight to cross the boundry in
one of the enterences to the base on mission 15.  

>Frankly I 
>was unimpressed because they threw the baby out with the bathwater : eg 
>the gameplay sucked.

The gameplay in D3 is no different than that in D2 - it's a fact that was
only noticed on the third iteration, as around that time, people were
beginning to find that FPS games were generally the same "move backward and
attack" style of combat.  

In fact, the gameplay in D3 was saved by the fact that the enemy AI players
actually know how to dodge on the higher difficulty levels.  This makes the
game very hard on those difficulties, but it is one of the only games that
results in dogfights because of the slightly improved AI.  (Of course, it
does have targetting bugs which still need to be fixed - not sure if they
were present in 1.0 or if they were introduced in a patch..)