🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May14.1...@exu.ericsson.se> exu...@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:
}In article <SIEBERT.92...@cachalot.cs.tu-berlin.de> sie...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Steffen Siebert) writes:
}>In article <57...@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt5...@prism.gatech.EDU (William Dennis Herrin) writes:
}>
}>>    Are we gonna have to go through this all over again? Are we going to have
}>> to explain to this fellow as well that W3D's objects look the same from any
}>> direction. Will we have to remind him that position in W3D is a 2-D plane
}>> as opposed to UW's 3-dimensional graphics? Does he have to be told that UW has
}>> to worry about lighting, and W3D does not? Do we need to instruct him on
}>> the differences in time complexity between an algorith that has to consider
}>> a 3-D position and an algorithm that only has to consider a 2-D position?
}>> I sure hope not. We just went through this, and it was old the first time
}>> through. ;)
}>
}>The point is: Wolfenstein looks great and is fast, Ultima Underworld looks great
}>but is slow, so with do you prefer ;-)
}
}But UW is much more complex than W3D. Notice in UW that your screen 'bounces' as
}you walk, simulating real walking ? Or that UW has slopes, ramps, pits, etc ?
}I like W3D, but its only a graphic upgrade. Still flat floors, square edges, etc.
}UW  FELT like a real place.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  And that, right there, is why Underworld is far better than Wolf3D. Wolf3D
is an excellent game, but it just doesn't compare to underworld, which
arguably is as much a simulation as it is a game.

-- 
William Dennis Herrin
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5254a
Internet: gt5...@prism.gatech.edu