> >> I think the issue is tho, Descent doesn't come in an SGI version (which
> >> would rock if it did :)
> Descent is just eye candy. People these days seem to think that
> realistic rendering engines automatically make good games, which
> is a ridiculous idea. In fact, Descent is much worse than something
> like Pac-man in terms of its interactivity, immediacy, and directness.
> (I would say depth and excitement as well, but these are more
> subjective factors.)
What a load of bull's bollocks! Descent has been quoted as having: `
80's style gameplay with 90`s technology'... anyone who remembers the
80`s (I do!) will remember that games in those days didn't have the
technology we have today, yet they were immensly playable. Descent
marries the best of both worlds, rocking gameplay and an awesome
(although occassionally a little slow, dependant on your box) rendering
engine! I think most people who play Descent would be more than happy if
it simply relied on a Lambert-shaded, non-texture mapped engine, cause
it's the gameplay that counts for this baby! Sure, it isn't mentally
taxing (nor is Doom), but it's an action game, not Myst or 7th Guest!
Maybe Mr. Sinclair possesses an antiquated 386 box not capable of
providing the full experience Descent has to offer. Or maybe his
reflexes are unable to keep up with having to manuever through small
spaces at high spaces, and with multiple degrees of freedom...
As someone else said, 'Descent does for Doom what Doom did for Wolfenstein'
BTW, is this getting off-topic :)
| email@example.com | MSN != FOI |
| firstname.lastname@example.org | Warp 4ever |
| The BloodNet home-page, for the Oz demo scene |
| http://ftoomsh.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~woody/ |