RE: Vector programming

> So the better you are, the faster you die? Hmm... a strange reward.
>
Well, not exactly... Tearing through the "easier" levels allows you to
build up "reserve" score for an assault on the harder levels, and presumably
you're not losing as many lives along the way.

It's really kinda like existing games that don't let you start at an
advanced level to begin with. You go through the easy levels (presumably
relatively quickly compared to a beginner) and then hit the hard stuff and
get whacked. Instead of building up extra lives though you're building up
your score. I think it's just a variation on a theme, but kinda "different"
if nothing else...

> Or is this more like: "You are a worthy opponent and for this I offer
> you a quick and painless death!" (Can I do the voice over? Please? ;^)
>
Probably 'cause it was just on TV, but this reminds me of Braveheart for
some reason. (Spoiler alert-- don't read farther if you haven't seen the
movie and don't want to know. ;-) (So at the end when Mel Gibson's
character is being drawn and quartered and they keep giving him a chance to
renounce his beliefs and embrace the rule of the king in exchange for just
getting his head lopped off instead of being eviscerated...)

-Clay

> ---
>
> I don't know, this would probably piss me off in the long run. I have
> to agree with Paul, eventually you're going to get to a level where
> you can't make it past (assuming the game gets progressively harder
> like Tempest), and all your points are going to be dwiddled away
>
> Yet in order to get better at the game you must play it until all your
> points are gone (the default way of dying assuming none of the
> "baddies" get you).
>
> So to get a high score you have to become suicidal right when the game
> starts getting challenging. I like to play a game, and each time see
> my high score get better and better. If I had to play for weeks
> (maybe months) at "zero points" to get good enough to suicide out at a
> high enough level to get my initials up there for the first time, I'd
> lose interest in the game.
>
> I understand the "panic" reasoning (the "Evil Otto" and "Baiters"
> analogy), but still having the guy who last the longest end up with
> the lowest score, that would suck.
>
> I suppose you could keep track of the highest level achieved, but if
> people started using this as the basis of skill judging, then the
> "scoring" would be reduced to a "fuel" analogy. (Who cares about the
> score, it's more important to get to the next higher level.)
>
> Just my highly opinionated, biased, "What do you mean the world
> doesn't revolve around me?" view of things. :^)
>
> -Zonn
>
> >
> >-Clay
> >
> >(When Defender first came out I used to just *dread* taking too long and
> >having those damn Baiters show up. My pulse probably ticked up 20% when
> I
> >thought they were getting close to appearing... Evil Otto too... ;-)
>
Received on Wed Oct 13 19:47:28 1999