On 28 Oct 2007 16:11:30 +0000, "Angus Manwaring" wrote:
> On 23-Oct-07 20:05:34, Seppo said
> >On 23 Oct 2007 18:38:9 +0000, "Angus Manwaring" wrote:
> >> The game doesn't really lend itself to "air-to-air" combat, shooting
stuff
> >> is not a problem so much as an option. I just don't feel that the
> >> existing interaction has much depth.
>
> >Not sure I follow you here and what more do you want - please
> >elaborate. There's plenty of more to do than just shooting stuff and
> >docking into things. You have to observe things, create plans, find
> >different ways to prevent a murder of Kaf-E. Bit like in Carrier
> >Command, where you have to carefully think about your strategies
> >and adjust them accordingly.
>
> Okay, I'll try to explain myself. :)
>
> I'm not knocking the game, I think its good, as well as being probably
> cutting edge 3D on a home computer in its day. I said I don't normally
> enjoy puzzle games, even when I can figure them out, so this isn't so
much
> a criticism of the game as a description of my own personal tastes.
>
> So having said that...... :)
<Sigh> :)
> Let's break the game down into some elements:
>
> The concept: Brilliant! Very much borrowed from Neuromancer the novel by
> William Gibson, but it works really well. A ninja lady infiltrates a
> cor****ation's HQ building while the cyber jockey hacks the dfences and
> security systems in cyberspace while maintaining contact with Ninja.
>
>
> The 2D side: The map works really well, with cool magnification features
> and the ability to reveal previously unseen detail. The linkages with
the
> 3D side work well too - cameras, doors, lifts etc.
>
> The 3D side: Cutting edge technicallly, but for me it lacks depth. The
> fighters for instance don't really fight you they just zip around at
high
> speed firing when you cross their path. The feeling of fighting an
> opponent is much greater in Wings for example. When you shoot one down,
> which is not a challenge, another one immediately appears. Making your
> victory meaningless. You fly around and see quite a bit of cool and
> bizarre animation, like the frog on the monocycle. But although you can
> destroy them, you don't get the impression of an adaptive intelligence
> behind it, or even a linear plot. Its like walking round a factory with
> machines working away, they are there, you are there, but there's no
real
> connection. It feels like an impressive 3D demo where the programmer has
> just started to make it interactive, but as yet has not made it
involving.
>
> Or that's what I think anyway. :)
Okay, here's how I understand the things in the 3D world of
Interphase:
There are different kind of objects inside the Cyberspace - not
all of them are hostile. Like in real world some of us are soldiers
and others are civilians. In Interphase, the fighters are the
soldiers which attack the intruder (you) relentlessly - bit like bees
defending their base. They are not meant to be intelligent nor
are they very powerful - but unless you destroy their nest they
will eventually outnumber and destroy you.
The frogs and other strange creatures you might see in later
levels are IMHO civilians - they don't pose a direct thread to
you. They will defend themselves if you get too close to them
and have an annoying habit of being in a wrong place at a
wrong time but basicly, they are not after you.
Then there are some static objects, the various generators for
fighters, frogs, energy and objects. Some objects in Cyberspace
seem to have no im****tance - they are just representing the
infrastructure. Some of them allow you to operate things (doors,
turntables) in real world.
Don't know about you, but I like the fact that not every object in
the 3D world is im****tant to your success. This is not Wings -
you don't search for promotions, medals or kills in this game.
Your primary (and only target) is to get Kaf-E to top floor and
back alive. Nothing else matters. Everything you do in 3D world
should serve only this one special purpose.
> I've an idea one of the programming team also felt this
> way, I must try and dig out the article I think it was in an
> Amiga Power feature where they did an interview with the
> team - I maybe wrong.
That would be very interesting reading indeed. Would be cool
to know what they originally planned and how much of that
made it to the final game.
Bye,
Seppo
|
