DescentBB

thwart wrote:Food for thought. What do you think about dynamic key locations?

I think it's a bad idea. Want more key locations? Make more levels.

The strategic planning and placement of goals in levels is part of what makes playing through them fun.

The more you randomize, the less you funnize.

Besides, don't you want to be able to brag to all your buddies about how you can get through a certain area without getting hit?! =D

dunno what game you like to play suncho. but d3 singleplayer never sucked, imho it was very good and an big improvement over d1, d2. ever tried d3 coop? big big fun. you cant release a game this days with a singleplayer where every level has the same goal, the same scheme, the same way to win the level. you need variation to get the players attention for more then 30 minutes.

Suncho wrote:...Having all kinds of crazy objectives that have nothing to do with each other just seems boring. It's difficult to measure your progress when you don't know what the game is.

At least in Descent 1, you could tell how close you were to beating the level by how many keys you had.

The objectives are related to the story. In D3, you can tell how close you are to beating a level by how many objectives you completed (on the TelCom), so there's nothing different there.

Maybe it would be fun for a 6DoF FPA, but not a 6DoF FPS. I thought it was fun.

Anyone remember in D2 that you could accumulate lives? I always liked that. If you were good you could have enough spare lives that you never had to start a section over.

Suncho wrote:It's also good. Colored key cards are what made the Descent 1 singleplayer good and lack of them are a big part of what made the Descent 3 singleplayer suck.

Quite a blanket statement. Personally, I don't feel having 17 levels of key hunting would be that interesting. Go visit the Mars Caverns and find three keys. Go visit the CED moon base and find three keys. Go visit the Proving Grounds and find three keys. And in the amazing final level, go find three keys.

Key hunts are boring. Sure you can pull them once or twice, but crafting an entire game off of the exact same idea gets old. It's also clearly not what consumers are interested in buying. Sorry, but the gaming community at large likes their diverse mission objectives.

Suncho wrote:On the other hand, having all kinds of crazy objectives that have nothing to do with each other just seems boring.

In your opinion. I think hunting for keys across 30 levels is kinda' boring, myself.

Suncho wrote:It's difficult to measure your progress when you don't know what the game is.

Bring up Telcom -> Objectives. Done.

actually, blowing the reactor and racing for the exit was the most fun of single player D1. (it's the most intense part of the lvl, and the thing I miss most about Descent...especially in multiplayer).

When we played D1, we'd set the mine time limit for 15 minutes or so, and the ultimate part of the game, the most intense, was guarding the exit till the last second and making it out alive (slightly more satisfying was blowing up the other pilots in the exit room, or blocking their exit so they were destroyed with the mine).

I have very vivid memories of the mine blowing, the screen going white...so white you couldnt see anything...yet it gave you like 3 extra seconds in that white-state to get out....and it was exhilirating to stumble into the exit and get the exit sequence!

man...THAT was fun!

Neo wrote:The objectives are related to the story. In D3, you can tell how close you are to beating a level by how many objectives you completed (on the TelCom), so there's nothing different there.

If I want a story, I'll read a book. Did pacman have a story? Did breakout have a story? Did Asteroids have a story? Did Dig-Dug have a story? Were the objectives not the same in each level? Were these games not as addicting as hell?

DigiJo wrote:You need variation to get the players attention for more then 30 minutes.

Think about how many people in the world are Solitaire addicts. My mom used to play it for 6 hours a day.

Kyouryuu wrote:Personally, I don't feel having 17 levels of key hunting would be that interesting.

What about 100 levels... each one progressively harder than the last! Have you ever played robotron? =D

EDIT: So you didn't find Descent 1 singleplayer to be that interesting?

ReadyMan wrote:actually, blowing the reactor and racing for the exit was the most fun of single player D1. (it's the most intense part of the lvl, and the thing I miss most about Descent...especially in multiplayer).

I have to agree with ReadyMan. We need to bring back that accursed reactor. Many a time I didn't make it out of the mine before it blew, but the feeling of accompishment when you get alive can't be replicated by any D3 level today.

Suncho wrote: If I want a story, I'll read a book. Did pacman have a story? Did breakout have a story? Did Asteroids have a story? Did Dig-Dug have a story? Were the objectives not the same in each level? Were these games not as addicting as hell?

I didn't like Pac-Man too much. Even D1 and D2 had a story. Descent 3 is just more story-driven. Don't you get it, Suncho? Single-player video games are fun because they're like books and movies because they have a story, but the player can control the main character and be a part of the action, unlike a book or movie. Don't like reading books? Don't like many movies? Well, then play a video game.

I liked D2 single-player regardless of the endless key trail. It was fun. I just think simple objectives or something similar would make it more interesting.

Storylines are great... as long as they do not get in the way, D3's storyline gets in the way.

Freespace2, storyline does not get in the way.

Descent 1, no storyline, just FRAGGING FUN W00T!

Neo, A good story will draw someone to single player, but if the actual gameplay sucks they will only ever play it once. Gameplay will give a title REPLAY VALUE, and you do not need a story for that. Actually a story does absolutely nothing for replay value, once you read a book or watch a movie it is just not as interesting the second time around.

Keys are not going to sell games.

Modern games need more of a goal then picking up an endless string of keycards. If Farcry was simply a big ass keyhunt, do you think world + dog would have it? I'd much rather be told to go destroy a coms tower then find the blue key, thank you very much.

I have a copy of Freespace sitting right here, still in the unopened box, sealed in plastic.

Is it worth playing, even after all this time?

Hells yeah. Especially if it's Freespace 2, cause then you can get the FS2 Open mod (thing?) with all sorts of modern graphic effects.

Suncho wrote:

Sirius wrote: Read my post further up for information on that... basically a ploy to make the game more playable for those that get disoriented by 6DOF shooters (e.g. mainstream FPS players).

But how would it help if there is no up or down?

Oh, there is an up and down, in a mechanical sense. There has to be one, or the computer has no way of drawing the scene.

If you mean there might as well not be an up and down, then fair enough, you'd turn it off. But such levels (even though I personally like them) could turn newbies/mouse players off.

Sirius wrote:Mainly because it looks pretty dumb.

How does floating powerups look dumb?

Oh, I dunno... do you see things floating around in mid-air in real life?

Now, if it was a zero-G environment (not all levels are; waterfalls cannot exist in zero-G, and in fact water and lava will be a lot less predictable as well) there would be an excuse. It wouldn't explain why people would leave things floating in zero-G, but it would not be so odd.

You will argue, no doubt, that realism doesn't matter a bit in making a fun game. Well, perhaps it doesn't. It can add an extra dimension to it, though, and unlike the old days, modern gamers are often turned off by unrealistic games.

Well, unless there's a good, and obvious, reason for it. (e.g. Enter the Matrix - never mind that it sucked anyway.)

Krom wrote:Storylines are great... as long as they do not get in the way, D3's storyline gets in the way.

I concur. =P

Neo, A good story will draw someone to single player, but if the actual gameplay sucks they will only ever play it once. Gameplay will give a title REPLAY VALUE, and you do not need a story for that. Actually a story does absolutely nothing for replay value, once you read a book or watch a movie it is just not as interesting the second time around.

That's where multiplayer comes in. =P

Sirius wrote:If you mean there might as well not be an up and down, then fair enough, you'd turn it off. But such levels (even though I personally like them) could turn newbies/mouse players off.

heh! Those levels don't turn me off; I'm a mouse player. And I'm a professional. ^_~

Keys are not going to sell games.

I agree. That's actually why I bought D3, because I read about the puzzle solving and the objectives back in 1998. I bought D3 for the single-player. I just thought I'd try multiplayer while I was stuck in single-player.

Suncho wrote:It's also good. Colored key cards are what made the Descent 1 singleplayer good and lack of them are a big part of what made the Descent 3 singleplayer suck.

Descent is a game, and in most games the object is always the same. If you know how to play Descent, you know you need to find the Blue, Yellow, and Red keys then destroy the reactor and find the exit. That's the game! Creating different levels with these objectives in different places are what keeps it interesting.

On the other hand, having all kinds of crazy objectives that have nothing to do with each other just seems boring. It's difficult to measure your progress when you don't know what the game is.

At least in Descent 1, you could tell how close you were to beating the level by how many keys you had.

yea but d3's goal system made it more of a challenge

plus you could then beat the level without going through all of it, which is nice for large levels like 15!

I didn't even get to level 15 because it was BOOOORING.

While I will agree that the D3 singleplayer campaign was not as exciting as it could have been, I think D3's goal-based system has much more potential than the standard grab-keys, kill-reactor-or-boss, escape of the first two games. They were fun, but after 12 or 13 levels or so, it just got to be a chore. For comparison, take a look at some of the Mercenary levels. Levels 2, 3, and 6, in particular, had some unique gameplay elements, like guarding a convoy of Mini-Bosses, escaping from an exploding station, or going incognito with no weapons or energy. Another problem I had with D3 singleplayer is that its storyline seemed lacking at times and could get in the way of the mission, as Suncho mentioned. I don't think this is a fault in D3's design, but instead I think that the singleplayer campaign could have been re-worked to be more engaging.

Krom, it's funny you mentioned the Freespace games. I consider Freespace 1 and 2 to have the greatest singleplayer storyline ever created, hands down. The Shivans, as a race, are so enigmatic and seemingly invincible, it can almost boggle the mind. I enjoy playing through the Freespace campaigns mre than I enjoy watching many movies. As Krom said, this fantastic plot doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. Instead, it makes every mission you fly have a greater sense of importance and urgency. The storyline itself is driven by what happens in-mission. In contrast, I often had the feeling in D3 that the missions were being made as a result of what the storyline dictated. If D3 had had a more directly engaging storyline and more spontaniety in the levels, I would have enjoyed it much more.

I played through the entire D1 singleplayer because I found it engaging. In each level I knew what I had to do. I didn't have to read silly mission briefings. I was playing Descent so I did what I had to do to win at Descent. =)

Top Gun wrote:While I will agree that the D3 singleplayer campaign was not as exciting as it could have been, I think D3's goal-based system has much more potential than the standard grab-keys, kill-reactor-or-boss, escape of the first two games. They were fun, but after 12 or 13 levels or so, it just got to be a chore. For comparison, take a look at some of the Mercenary levels. Levels 2, 3, and 6, in particular, had some unique gameplay elements, like guarding a convoy of Mini-Bosses, escaping from an exploding station, or going incognito with no weapons or energy. Another problem I had with D3 singleplayer is that its storyline seemed lacking at times and could get in the way of the mission, as Suncho mentioned. I don't think this is a fault in D3's design, but instead I think that the singleplayer campaign could have been re-worked to be more engaging.

Krom, it's funny you mentioned the Freespace games. I consider Freespace 1 and 2 to have the greatest singleplayer storyline ever created, hands down. The Shivans, as a race, are so enigmatic and seemingly invincible, it can almost boggle the mind. I enjoy playing through the Freespace campaigns mre than I enjoy watching many movies. As Krom said, this fantastic plot doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. Instead, it makes every mission you fly have a greater sense of importance and urgency. The storyline itself is driven by what happens in-mission. In contrast, I often had the feeling in D3 that the missions were being made as a result of what the storyline dictated. If D3 had had a more directly engaging storyline and more spontaniety in the levels, I would have enjoyed it much more.

yea the freespace series also had no real limit on where you could fly, thus allowing fights to get intense!

Actually, if you got to far out command would have you "terminated".

Descent 1's campaign is interesting by virtue of that fact that everything was new. It's the first game that had 360º combat as we know it and it was produced in a time when keyhunts were common. Even Doom relied on them.

But Descent 2 started to grate on me somewhere around the ice levels. Same old thing. Go hunt for the Blue Key, invariably encounter the Thief Bot, chase the Thief Bot and watch half of the level fly by, get the Yellow Key, get the Red Key, blow the Reactor.

But times have changed. It sounds more exciting to go to some dark, unused communications center to find some lost scientist that it does to "find the blue/yellow/red keys and push the button at the end of the level!" Maybe the repetition doesn't bother you, but it bores me.

Kyouryuu wrote:But Descent 2 started to grate on me somewhere around the ice levels. Same old thing. Go hunt for the Blue Key, invariably encounter the Thief Bot, chase the Thief Bot and watch half of the level fly by, get the Yellow Key, get the Red Key, blow the Reactor.

Descent 2 started to grate on me too. In fact I didn't even finish it. Why? The levels got too big and too complicated. If there were no guidebot, no theifbot, and the levels were kept to a relatively compact size, Descent 2 would have been as fun as Descent 1.

It's funny, because the Descent 2 levels never actually went past 700 cubes as far as I recall, and rarely passed 500. But Parallax seemed to be aces of mammoth low-cube-count structures without making them look featureless.

I'm not sure how good the Thiefbot was for the game either. As an adversary it is not too bad, except perhaps a little -too- annoying in D2. However, where it screws things up is that people have this urge to chase it until it dies... which is really the best way to kill it anyway.

Obviously, that does make the level go by faster... but it also means the sense of menace in D1 is gone as soon as that Thief starts running loose.

The guidebot. Um. I never used it really. Even when I was a complete n00b at the game I quickly realised it was more fun exploring the level for yourself.

The only time I can recall that the Guidebot was really useful was in Obsidian level 4, where if you weren't a fairly solid SP player you could easily get lost before you had time to complete all the objectives. But in most levels that kind of thing didn't matter much.

If you give them enough rope......

Guys.... you turned this thread into a puddle of goo with your one sided living in the past arguments. Stop crying about these things. Make a suggestion and sit on your hands....

------------------- BACK ON TOPIC ---------------------

I suggest player vote for level changes and player kicks.... which is becoming a standard in mutiplayer games.

See how that works

I suggest we all stop posting and let High Octane make a good game.

I will gladly endorse level votes, since that seems to work nicely, but the player kick votes I don't like. It seems that most people will simply vote "yes" just for the fun of seeing someone get kicked rather then consider if there's as actual reason to kick the guy. Or atleast that's how it works in Desert Combat.

Other things I would like would be advanced server searching options. For example, a filter that shows only populated servers, or a filter that shows only dedicateed servers. A favorites list for servers would also be really quite nice.

If high octane took descent 3, removed all weapons except super lasers, plasma, fusion, and vuass, took out black sharks n napalm (replacing with murcury and who knows what) gave it a netcode (becuase right now d3 doesn't have a net code. It sends a postcard saying "ship x is somewhere in this level" and hopefully you hit them), deleted all the ships except the pyro, and gave the graphics a bit of a facelift, it would be a truly fantastic game. No need for a single player, even, though it would be nice. If they did this I would never stop playing. As it is, I got tired of checking my mail for postcards, and crossing my fingers that my fusion would hit.

BUBBALOU wrote:If you give them enough rope......

Guys.... you turned this thread into a puddle of goo with your one sided living in the past arguments. Stop crying about these things. Make a suggestion and sit on your hands....

------------------- BACK ON TOPIC ---------------------

I suggest player vote for level changes and player kicks.... which is becoming a standard in mutiplayer games.

See how that works

We're not crying, we're discussing. =P We're still on topic.

Voting for player kicks and bans is stupid and unfair. I suggest more active (and competent) server operators. =P

DCrazy wrote:I suggest we all stop posting and let High Octane make a good game.

I suggest you shut up and let us talk. =P

Rhino, that would be a lame game.

I think the SP whould either be like half-life, where it is one continuous mission, or like Q3A, with simple tiers of bots. I think both of those types of SP are a lo0t funner than D3's puzzles or D1's keyhunts.

i always thought all the descents had sucky singleplayer. it was the modem to modem games in d1 with human opponents that hooked me.

Evil Bob wrote:I think the SP whould either be like half-life, where it is one continuous mission, or like Q3A, with simple tiers of bots. I think both of those types of SP are a lo0t funner than D3's puzzles or D1's keyhunts.

They already said it was a maze-based game.

kurupt wrote:i always thought all the descents had sucky multiplayer.

*COUGH*

The only reason the d3 multiplayer sucks: there's no such thing as netcode. It's fire and an x% chance to hit, if you're lucky. ><

I guess some of us were "lucky" on a pretty consistent basis...

Or maybe we just don't have 56k modems anymore?

D3's handling of lag leaves much to be desired.

Weird as it may sound, Rhino's suggestion - even if it was tongue-in-cheek - sounds half-decent to me; although you'd be stuck with a measly four primary weapons and very few secondaries, you would at least have a game balance again.

Only if they give me my spreadfire.

the D1 r0x0r kind, not the D2 Neutered kind.