🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:56:25 GMT, "DocScorpio"
<DocScorpio@prodigy.net> wrote:

>
>"Shingen" <Shingen@aolsukd.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:n2nb2011q0tnu4h1k9afao3rq15ere4k6h@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:28:14 GMT, "Bill Huffman"
>> <bhuffma1@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >
>> well if it was a crap release of the same game, I would be the first
>> to scream about it. The fact is there is DEFINITE "production value"
>> in this release. It may not be on par with M$, but it's still far
>> superior to any Activision game I've ever bought.
>>
>> Gameplay is entirely subject to the gamer, but the title is NOT a
>> "value product" even though DC chose to market it as such.
>>
>> It's a good buy for the price even if it's exactly the same as BCM
>> with improved graphics.
>>
>[snip]
>
>I'll be interested in hearing your critique of it after a bit of play.  I
>wondering if the "instant ship-switching" feature, which was removed from
>BCM, got back in?
>

I can see why he took the instant switch out, so as to make the game
feel more realistic, in that you have to actually walk to the ship
bay, climb in the ship, pilot it and then return to the CC if you want
to take out another ship or assume command of the bridge. This means
the commander is subject to the same constraints as every other crew
member. he problem with that is it just makes the game even more
distant to a new player, being able to just jump into what ever you
wanted at any time made it much more accessible

br d