/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/ |
Re: The politics/philosphy of mapping | ||
Posted By: RyokoTK | Date: 8/16/06 6:00 p.m. | |
In Response To: Re: The politics/philosphy of mapping (rampancy) : At the same time, it takes the challenge out of a level if a pattern buffer
You're confusing abundance with ease of access. One single PB/Recharger centrally located will save a lot of headaches in a non-linear level. As I said before, distance or difficulty in reaching the PB/Recharger will not prevent anyone from doing so when one need it, it'll just piss me off more. Nobody should use annoyance as a barrier in a map, period. : Generally though, I thought recharrger/PB placement was fair - I can remember
: Still, I agree with some of the earlier points you make. I ended up totally
I agree with you, which is why I never tried to complete RED. And, in most cases, RX's PB/Recharger placement was reasonably good; certainly it kept enough of the game challenging. But Frog Blasting, to name one example, is absolutely hellish with those; not only are they not next to eachother (again, not preventing me from using both, just irritating me) but they're in the middle of frickin' nowhere. In fact, this is true of almost all of the earlier Pfhor Plank levels: sprawling, blandly-textured levels with really buried goals and distant PB/Recharger/terminal placement. Very, very bad. Salinger is a lot better in this regard.
|
|
Replies: |
|
Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12. |