🚀 go-pugleaf

rdclark...@erols.com (Rich Clark) wrote:

>IMO, WCP doesn't have the replayability of TIE, despite their both
>using scripted missions, because TIE's missions are generally larger,
>more complex, and approachable in more than one way.  Also IMO, TIE's
>space-combat engine -- particularly the flight dynamics of the
>fighters -- feels more natural and less arcadish.  This is obviously a
>matter of opinion, since neither game makes even a small attempt at
>real-life physics.  To me, TIE feels a tiny bit more like flying
>airplanes, while WCP feels a tiny bit more abstracted than that.

	WCP game engine actually features inertia, unlike TIE, so it's
a bit more realistic - WCP have a good inertia model. Also, when you
turn T/F, you have to "roll" the ship, as atmospheric fighters, so
that is why some people feel it's more realistic. But as there's no
gravity nor atmosphere in space, it's rather pointless (to the
"realism" point of view).

>As for "tricks" -- well, there are missions in TIE that are based on
>keys or tricks, too.  You can figure them out if you try hard enough
>and understand the game mechanics, but they're still scripted missions
>in which the designer is trying to challenge the player.   WCP is no
>worse in this, I think.

	Actually WCP is more based on skill than finding out the trick
to solve the scripted mission puzzle (if that's better or worse, it's
a matter of opinion). It's a different design approach. Origin keep
the "scripted" elements of missions to a somewhat modest level, while
Lucasarts makes massive use of it.


     >> Delance <<