Problems with Descent (long post)

#83

Author: pbre... Patrick M Brennan
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 1995 23:53

78 lines
4871 bytes

Although in general I feel that DESCENT rocks, I have two main problems
with the game.  One is not so important, but one is a real
show-stopper.  I don't expect to register DESCENT if they insist on
keeping it.  

* Of course, I'm referring to the save game "feature".  I understand 
Interplay/Parallax's philosophy on this issue, it's just wrong.  OK, 
so they think that allowing the player to save at arbitrary times would
allow the player to use save-game as a super-equalizer and defeat
any enemy by repetition.  To which I reply, "So what?"

It's true that some people play that way.  It's true that this problem
has existed since the beginning of computer games, and nobody has yet
found a satisfactory answer for it.  DESCENT's way is not the solution.
The solution is simply that a player be honest with him/herself.  It's the 
way I played out DOOM, for example.  But if I don't 'want' to be honest,
then who the hell is the software vendor to tell me how I should use
the product?  It took me five hours to try to complete Level 7 of the
shareware, and I still died. (Hotshot level).  Five hours.

Five hours.

When the hell do I expect to have five hours, in a single block of
time, to attempt that level again?  Level 7 is HUGE.  I can't take on 
that level, get halfway through it, save it, and get some sleep (or go 
to work).  I need to find another five hours, and I'm not even sure
that that five hours will get me anywhere, because I can't even save the
game.

So there's a very good chance that I'll never get past level seven, since
I'll never find the five (10,15,20,25?) hours I'll need to do so,
and I'll just say "screw it, I'll play Heretic instead."  Which is too
bad, because DESCENT is really a good game.

In making their save-game "feature", Interplay/Parallax isn't just
telling me how their game shoul be played; they're butting in to my
life and telling me how my life should be lived.  "You have a job?  Other
responsibilities?  Well if you want to play our game, you're going to
have to put them off for a little while."

Come on, guys!  You have a whole audience of busy professional people,
students who actually attend classes and do their homework, lots and
lots of people like me who ARE NOT GOING TO BUY THIS GAME because it
asks for far too much of a time commitment.  And it's all because of
your stubborn stand on the save-game "feature".  But it's only a GAME,
after all.  Give us an arbitrary save-game and I guarantee your sales
will reflect the decision.  Sadly, I can't buy the game without it.

(other alternatives might include reducing the size of the levels, or
allowing the game to be saved at selected "check-points" in the mine.
But you'd better do something...)

and now for the little problem I had with the game:

* I love the mulitplayer game.  I played via modem with a friend and
boy was it great!!  SO much easier to get going than any other product
of its kind (you know what I'm talking about).  However, we had a problem
with the multiplayer rule that when you die, your powerups are scattered
in the vicinity of your scene of death.  It seems to me that this rule was
conceived with the 3+ player game in mind, and it seems appropriate to
tht type of game.  It is less appropriate to the 2-player game, since the
recently killed player must now swoop all over the mine trying to get
whatever powerups are left before being found again by an even stronger
enemy.  It's actually more effective, if you've just been killed, to 
head for the reactor and blow it -- because you've got a fair chance of
stripping the other guy of all his powerups if he can't make it out of the
mine in time.  That'll make for short and unsatisfying anarchy games.  I
would much prefer to see Interplay/Parallax add a switch to the multiplayer
games setup which allows the selection of an option to either (a) as now,
distribute powerups in the vicinity of where you bit it, or (b) distribute
powerups randomly through the mine when you bite it.  This still won't
eliminate the issue, which is just a fact of all multiplayer games, but
for 2-player games at least, it will redress the balance just a little. 

Sorry for the length, but I need to get this out.  Anybody want to 
tell me how to get these ideas to Interplay?  Do they read this group?

Patrick

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

#84

Author: hbcs... WildThing
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 02:34

26 lines
1720 bytes

> * Of course, I'm referring to the save game "feature".  I understand 
> Interplay/Parallax's philosophy on this issue, it's just wrong.  OK, 
> so they think that allowing the player to save at arbitrary times would
> allow the player to use save-game as a super-equalizer and defeat
> any enemy by repetition.  To which I reply, "So what?"

They should be able to save mid-level, but it should be a cheat code, not
an option.  When you save after every good move, and restore after every
fuck-up, the actual straight through record doesn't portray your true
playing skill.  Saving only after completing a level makes scores in
competition more accurate making competition fair. 

Mid-level saving gets to the point where when to save becomes a stategy
alone. 

> * I love the mulitplayer game.

There needs to be a pause option for those of us that don't trust our
'friend' when they say "OK, I'll wait for you to get back."  Meanwhile
finding you, and putting your ass in his/her crosshairs.

Also, on my 386dx/40, 486's and Pentiums give my opponent a SIGNIFICANTLY
huge speed advantage. 

--
Mosh Hard!

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

#85

Author: bch... Brian Thomas Cheek
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 05:41

10 lines
1019 bytes

I have to agree with the people who like to save game anywhere. I work
from morning to 8 pm.  After dinner and all my other requirements, I
get an hour or two of gameplay at most a night, and interruptions are
numerous. 

Unfortunately for me, I have no choice but to only buy games with liberal 
save game options, otherwise I'll be the best player at the shareware 
version of level one ever!

-Brian

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

#86

Author: ea... EMeyer
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 15:45

34 lines
2557 bytes

In article <D1syD...@world.std.com>, pbre...@world.std.com (Patrick M
Brennan) wrote:

> (other alternatives might include reducing the size of the levels, or
> allowing the game to be saved at selected "check-points" in the mine.
> But you'd better do something...)

   I'm in full agreement with Patrick on this point.  I personally would
vastly prefer check-points throughout the level.  "Marathon" (a Mac
Doom-type game) has these, and they work very well.  The check-points are
called pattern buffers (gee, where have I heard THAT before?) and they're
generally at the beginning of new levels and at a very few quiet spots
within the levels.  Thus, if the player wants to indulge in the
"save-and-replay to get the best result" strategy, he has to spend quite a
bit of time at it, because he might do very well at first and then get
toasted a bit further on before the chance arises to save again.
   Please--include check-points, even if it's only one or two of them per
level, or even one or two per large level.  I'm already a bit annoyed
because yesterday I'd just gotten through most of level 3, then was
toasted before I could blow the reactor.  Okay, 3 isn't terribly huge--but
it is somewhat complicated and I wish I could restart halfway through with
my powered-up laser instead of at the beginning with a thoroughly wimpy
ship.
   Obviously, this would mean that lives would be irrelevant.  So get rid
of them.  The ability to occasionally save your position is vastly
preferable to the ability to restart a mine within a game--at least, it is
for those of us with jobs and families.

                                   -EMeyer

Unstable condition--a symptom of life     |Eric A. Meyer (ea...@po.cwru.edu)
In mental and environmental change        |Library Information Technologies
Atmospheric disturbance--the feverish flux|  Software Support Technician
Of human interface and interchange- (N.P.)|"What do you think, sirs?" -Joel

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

#87

Author: ac... Gordon Stewart
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 17:56

23 lines
1636 bytes

In a previous article, pbre...@world.std.com (Patrick M Brennan) says:

>Although in general I feel that DESCENT rocks, I have two main problems
>with the game.  One is not so important, but one is a real
>show-stopper.  I don't expect to register DESCENT if they insist on
>keeping it.  
>
>* Of course, I'm referring to the save game "feature".  I understand 
>Interplay/Parallax's philosophy on this issue, it's just wrong.  OK, 
>so they think that allowing the player to save at arbitrary times would
>allow the player to use save-game as a super-equalizer and defeat
>any enemy by repetition.  To which I reply, "So what?"

>
>Sorry for the length, but I need to get this out.  Anybody want to 
>tell me how to get these ideas to Interplay?  Do they read this group?
>
The folks at Parallax (one, anyway) can be reached at:
ad...@netcom.com

I sent a similar message earlier today - there's no way I'm buying a game 
without a reasonable save feature.

🚀 go-pugleaf

Thread View: alt.games.descent

Problems with Descent (long post)

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

Re: Problems with Descent (long post)

Thread Navigation