ZylonBane on 24/10/2006 at 17:50
Something more involved to do than mindlessly floating around, shooting things, and collecting gold coins.
Cyberspace was obviously intended to be an arcadey fast-action segment, and it would have been fine as that, but unfortunately they implemented it with the same clunky awkward controls as the rest of the game. So it's more annoying than fun.
neuromancer on 24/10/2006 at 18:40
well, i realy dont know where i first encountered with the name os SS1, but im sure ive started reading about it in DLH (he he :D).
i intentionally skipped the spoiler parts, and instead tried to read something about the game description.
the fact that there is cyberspace present in the game was one of the strongest factors that made me to play this game.
it is very unique, and has very simple structure, which makes you think that this kind of cyberspace might be possible (visually) in the future.
it doesnt have that "big city of data with living programs" like in TRON (while that is a realy cool movie/game too!), it just has simple gridlines and good old cubeness...
but the best cyberspace i found was in the old game, Neuromancer.
i liked the fact that there they separated console mode "surfing" and "VR" cyberspace, where things are nearly like in the book.
tungsten on 24/10/2006 at 20:12
I wonder if they'll include good ol' cyberspace into Boishock.
The SS1 cyberspace was great as a part of the game, although ZB has a point with the critic about "shooting things and collecting coins". But then, cyberspace back then was just pacman 3D, no?
ZylonBane on 24/10/2006 at 20:44
Cyberspace back then was exactly the same thing as it is now: A made-up word from a novel.
RocketMan on 24/10/2006 at 23:27
Just out of curiosity (since some would consider ss1 a 2.5D engine) did the engine work any differently for the cyberspace sequences.....a different mode of operation perhaps or was the free floating 3D all something that could have been done seamlessly at any time and any point in the game?
C0rtexReaver on 25/10/2006 at 15:22
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Something more involved to do than mindlessly floating around, shooting things, and collecting gold coins.
Cyberspace was obviously intended to be an arcadey fast-action segment, and it would have been fine as that, but unfortunately they implemented it with the same clunky awkward controls as the rest of the game. So it's more annoying than fun.
SS1 had awesome controls. Surely this is not a popular opinion to the FPS/twitch-shooter generation, but SS1's interface allowed for far greater freedom of movement and posture than SS2.
Looking Glass began that interface and Ultima Underworld and perfected it with SS1.
-CR
C0rtexReaver on 25/10/2006 at 15:23
Quote Posted by tungsten
I wonder if they'll include good ol' cyberspace into Boishock.
Doubtful. . . Bioshock's setting is an underwater city built in the 1940s.
-CR
ZylonBane on 25/10/2006 at 15:52
Quote Posted by C0rtexReaver
SS1 had awesome controls.
You're a loony.
Hollowtip on 25/10/2006 at 17:12
Quote Posted by RocketMan
Just out of curiosity (since some would consider ss1 a 2.5D engine) did the engine work any differently for the cyberspace sequences.....a different mode of operation perhaps or was the free floating 3D all something that could have been done seamlessly at any time and any point in the game?
There is absolutly no difference in the engine when rendering cspace apart from the wireframes. Though the physics would have been slightly different (no gravity, little friction and force being applied in the 3D direction you look, instead of just a 2D look direction)
2.5D can refer to:
- The use of use of 2D character and object sprites in a 3D environment, in which case SS1 is 2.5D due to all enemies and pickups are sprites
- The inabilty to have multiple rooms on top of each other, which is true of SS1 (although they did hack things like collidable sprite floor sections to produce this effect anyway, though the level geometry itself was still 2.5D)
- Finally it can refer to a number of hacks that allow the engine to render at extremely fast speeds, but this usually means that it is impossible to look up or down without stretching the sceen to (poorly) simulate perspective, which usually limits maximum angles of around 30 to 45 degrees). In this instance SS1 is NOT a 2.5D engine, it is a true 3D graphics engine that was unable to use many of the 2.5D hacks that existed in Doom and Duke3D. In SS1, you can look almost straight up or down (probably about 80 to 85 degrees) with no distortion what-so-ever, hence, it is NOT 2.5D. (This is actually one of the major reasons I have the huge respect I do for LG, they produced a 3D polygon based engine, without the speed hacks of 2.5D, and got it to render at amazing speeds, in high resolution (for the time), on machines that simply shouldn't have been able to achieve those results by any conventional means)
I think that the CRs being linked is a great idea (one i've always wanted as well, though maybe killing them in CS should only weaken them in the real world, because I found them incredibly weak in CS), and I'm sure everyone realises how easy th CRs are by now, so could we move on.
Just a quick recap, suggestions so far are:
- Better controls
- Cortex Reavers (CR) being linked to thier realworld counterparts
- Improved final battle (I hated that as well, I'm still not totally sure how it works)
- And (if I'm reading into neuromancer's comments correctly) more like Neuromancer
ZylonBane on 25/10/2006 at 17:55
Quote Posted by Hollowtip
2.5D can refer to:
- The use of 2D sprites in a 3D environment, in which case SS1 is 2.5D due to all enemies and pickups are sprites
No. By that reasoning, any current 3D engine would really be "2.5D", because they all still support 2D sprites.
You seriously overthought your answer. The simple and more correct response is, "A 2.5D engine is one that looks like it's 3D, but isn't." ("3D" being defined as supporting arbitrary geometry and render angles).
SS1 has a 3D renderer, but a 2.5D world database.
