> There was definately no jump forward in Descent when compared with
> Doom. Have a look at Wolfenstein, and then Doom. Then compare the two
> with Descent. Although Descent adds a dimension to the players'
> movements, it certainly isn't as good as James is making it out to be.
Hmmm... I tend to disagree. I can empahise (I almost felt that way
about Descent after the first couple of times I played it), but after
a larger investment in time in the game, I concluded it really was
significantly better than Doom ][.
Of course, Wolfenstein sucks big time. :)
> It has an average rendering engine, and gameplay seems okay. What helped
> Doom become the great game it is was the ability to create one's own
> levels and any binary hacks people developed (against the license
While I agree that that attracted people to Doom, I'd hardly say it
was a function of the game that affected how it *played*, merely how
popular it would become. Assuredly, some of the patches (simpson
for example) are truly classic.
> I remember Wizball on the C64 back in the early 80's... countless other
Ya know .. the really scary thing is that earlier today as I was
reading this thread, I was thinking of two games from my 'youth' that
ratd high on the playability stakes, but were fairly shitful in the
'gee-whiz technology' stakes. Wizball (where the C64 version easily
outstripped the later Amiga version) and Loderunner. I still think
Loderunner (excluding infocom type games) is my favourite of all time.
Of course, all the youngsters have never heard of it...
(And I'll avoid mentioning that that game, too, had the ability to
create your own levels as well. Well, more than once, at least.)