On 17 Nov 2007 10:38:20 +0000, "Angus Manwaring" wrote:
> On 14-Nov-07 21:25:22, Seppo said
> >On 14 Nov 2007 19:14:48 +0000, "Angus Manwaring" wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Suffice to say that the end was bloody, but ultimately satisfying.
:)
>
> >So Omega is history now? :)
>
> Well, there's a mysterious cloud that sometimes floats over the spot,
and
> if you turn off the engines and listen to the wind, sometimes you can
> still hear her play - but yeah. She's basically gone.
Excellent! :)
> >> >I think F-16 campaign mode and Carrier Command have lot in
> >> >common -
> >>
> >> You are certainly better qualified than me to answer that.
>
> >Thought that is not true, I thank you :)
>
> No, you are, because I've not played F16 in any real depth.
Hmmm....
;)
Basicly, I meant that in both of these games the campaign is easy
to control - you just choose the target and of you go. Also it is very
easy to follow the progress of the war - and adjust your strategy
accordingly.
> >> I think it is because it doesn't start with a very clear way forward.
You
> >> can go in lots of different directions with lots of vehicles, and
there's
> >> lots going on, but the impression is a bit chaotic. I launched a few
> >> aircraft, but combat seemed very hit and miss, and the gameplay
cluttered
> >> with features that weren't necessarily very well executed, and tended
to
> >> promote a feeling of being lost without a rudder rather than feeling
> >> enthused by the detail.
>
> >Somehow, you managed to capture perfectly the feelings
> >I had when I was playing Gravity! Amazing! :)
>
> Ouch! :)
>
> Its not the same though. I think the combat in Gravity is actually very
> conventional. And the huge differece is innovation. Gravity, whether it
> works for you or not, is, in my view, original, and presents itself in
an
> unusual and creative way.
>
> Armourgeddon although probably fla****er, and certainly (Psygnosis!) has
a
> better front end, is not really an original or differently executed
> concept. It just seems to me have some bits that don't work very well -
> enough to get it sold, but not enough to sustain an enjoyable playing
> experience maybe.
>
> >> In one way, it felt a tiny bit like Interphase in that they had
created an
> >> enviroment with lots of things going on around you, but it didn't
make you
> >> feel like you were really integrated into that enviroment. The AI ran
> >> itself pretty well, but it wasn't so sophisticated as to make you
feel
> >> that you were genuinely a part of that environment as well.
> >>
> >> You need to give it a try. :)
>
> >No, I now think I need to steer away from it - as far as possible! :)
>
> No because at this stage you're only going on my description, and if you
> based your decisons on that, you may never have got into Interphase, and
> would still be playing Gravity. Seriously, you might be able to make
sense
> out of the elements that leave me puzzled. You are pretty into the whole
> puzzle thing anyway. :)
Well, maybe I'll give it a go some day - no promises, thought!
> Anyway, regards Carrier Command - I just have a few islands left to mop
> up, and I have a couple of suggestions for the next game. I have made
> generic WHDLoad patches of Magic Fly (sort of Descent on the Amiga
in'90)
> and a Tower of Babel cover disk demo, which is a programmable robot,
> action-puzzle zap-push kind of game. :)
>
> What do you think?
I'm in :)
Bye,
Seppo
|
