🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter Huebner" <no.one@this.address> wrote in message 
news:MPG.20a7e85836067883989cce@news.individual.net...
> In article <ny6%h.4012$Q96.2331@trnddc04>, 
> DocScorpio@strupra-spammeros.com
> says...
>>
>> IIRC, in the last five years only eight SP space-sims have been 
>> published:
>> Universal Combat, Freelancer, X2 and X3, Starshatter I and II, Parkan II,
>> and Darkstar One.  Most are "open-ended" and  a couple are multi-genre
>> because they include land/air combat and RTS-style base building.
>>
>
> Dunno how you feel about Space Rangers 2. It's top down, and it has 
> stragety,
> rpg and (classic, text based) adventure elements - would that qualify as 
> space-
> sim? Possibly not, depends on how tightly you define the genre.
>
> Starwolves however should be in the list. I only played the demo, but that 
> was
> pretty much an in-cockpit space flying game from what I saw of it (didn't 
> like
> the interface, so I dumped it really quickly).
>
> I just recently got X3, played for a bit and then got sidetracked by 
> AOnline :\
>
> -P.
>
> -- 
>
 =========================================
> firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

I love Space Rangers 2.  Played it to death and am currently on a 
play-through on "insane."  Nevertheless, by my definition, it's not a 
"space-sim."  For me, a space-sim is an FPS in a cockpit.  No matter what 
other features it has (RPG, RTS, trade, etc.), it has to have a first-person 
view from a cockpit somewhere in the game.  Maybe this is too narrow, but I 
guess I base it on the original WC series.

I played the Star Wolves demo and thought it was a 3rd person view game, but 
I could be mistaken.  Couldn't get with it for some reason.  Probably 
involved in some other game at the time.