🚀 go-pugleaf

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:

>dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Dennis E. Weldy) writes:

>>>Each games has its pros and cons.  Doom is an action game, UW is an RPG; 
>>>it's like (pardon the cliche) comparing apples and oranges...  the fact
>>>that they both happen to have a 3-D first-person engine is irrelevant. 
>>
>>	I think it is most relavent, considering that some of us like
>>and play both genera. To my mind the interface to the 3-D, first person
>>perspective _is_ the issue, not the action/rpg catigorization. In this
>>respect, if I were to have the Looking Glass (Underworld) interface used
>>in Doom, Dooom would be a better game for it, which is also the underlying
>>point of the original poster.

>I enjoy both genres as well, but I still don't think either one can
>necessarily be placed above the other.  If you stick a LG-style interface
>in Doom, where you can pick up and manipulate objects, solve puzzles,
>etc., Doom becomes a completely different game, no longer the pure action
>game it was meant to be. 

	No. Forget the rpg elements (solving puzzles). The _interface_ was
the issue. The 'arrow-on-the-screen' movement v.s. point and this button,
shuffle and that button or just keyboard. The ability to pick up objects
like in the real world v.s. walking over them ("I'm so good I can pick
them up with my toes. Everytime. Honest!"). Perception of detail is _more_ 
as you get close, not less.
	If you _were_ talking about this, then I apologize for the wasted
bandwidth I have just caused. |-]
-- 
 Dennis E. Weldy                    |    enter-> 01101011
 dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu        |            10101010
 "In _wildness_ is the preservation |            01011101
    of the world."   -Metallica     |            01101010->exit