gameplay styles

W

wankski

Spaceman
hey ppl,

i'm sure its nothing new to say.. but i just played wc1 for the first time today (up to mission 3 or 4) and i have to say that i preferred the older style of play as opposed to wc3 and 4...

so far my observations are that the fighters seem to be much more vulernable to enemy fire, and i like how just 1 asteriod is enough to splat you.. sure its repetitive and annoying, but u get the hang of it..

and the mission when u first take on a fralthi (sp?) destroyer.. its pretty good how the flak in wc1 is so much more potent than what i remember from 3 and especially 4...

but mostly i like teh instant karma ! even in light fighters it doesnt take too much to down the enemy wings... much more preferable to fighting in teh arrow for ex... firing and firing away.. heh its especially fun being in a scimitar and blasting teh crap outta dilrathi medium fighters....

sorry about spelling, i'm not that into the details.. i like the series and the story - but that's as far as i'll go ! ;) ,,, just wondering which style of gameplay u prefer, and generally if u ppl thought that as visuals, FMV etc etc went up in the series, it was at the cost of gameplay, and in retrospect - do u feel a little dissappointed that games like wc1 and 2 are so playable even today, and feel that they should have at least improved some gameplay aspects in development for 3 and 4, (and ESPECIALLY 5, since that story was so weak, hehe) ???

cheers

joe
 
I'd have to say I liked WC3 and WC4 on the upper skill levels better, gameplay wise. In all the other WC games, you could take out 2 dozen craft without taking a scratch. I prefered the more "realistic" difficulty of WC3 and especially WC4. The enemy fighters actually felt "threatening" for the first time to me.

C-ya
 
I'd have to say I prefer WCP, simply because it combines the best elements of the previous flight models. Your shot accuracy is a little (but not much) more forgiving, such as wc1. Capships must be dealt with in a tactful manner (a combination of preparation using 3 & 4 style turret whacking, then attacking with torpedos . . from bombers which must be escorted, which is more realistic). Enemy AI is decent. I also like the renewed capability to do some really wicked Shelton slides.

However, WCP lacked atmospheric missions, which were something of a let-down, physics-wise, but still cool. WCP also lacked wc3 style manual landings, which I really enjoyed. Also, asteroids still don't have the potency (or field density) as was in WC1 and 2 (though, I'm sure that has more to do with sprite counts and system resources, right? . . for numbers, anyway) And, whatever happened to minefields? Those were wicked!

One thing that I felt was . . . not as fun about WCP was that it didn't look as 'real' to me as wc3 and 4 did. Especially wc4. The colors and shapes in wcp reminded me more of playing wc2. To me, wc2 always felt like I was flying "underwater". Perhaps it's just how things show up on this crappy computer of mine, but these are just things I've noticed.
 
yeah, u guys are right after thinking about it...

wcp had much better cap ship engagements.. i guess i just felt a bit let down by the lack of development since wc1 in the gameplay dept...

yeah minefields were cool !

just wondering if u ppl thought that gameplay in other titles like perhaps freespace 2 or similar was better than wc series?

i heard there was a more immersive environment like nebulas that affect flight/fight etc etc.. i havent played it..

cheers

joe
 
i heard there was a more immersive environment like nebulas that affect flight/fight etc etc.. i havent played it..
Click to expand...

Descent: Freespace is second only to Crest SuperWhiteners: The Molar Wars in properly blending space combat and accurate toothpaste simulation.
 
Don't worry LOAF. With the sourcecode modifications, it doesn't look like the original Freespace2 at all. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top