🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct15.214453.28392@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, vputz@nyx.cs.du.edu (Victor Putz) writes:
|> baylor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Baylor) writes:
|> 
|> >	Am I correct in assuming everyone loved the Ultima format?
|> >	Me personally, I can't stand it - it was too complex, mouse or no,
|> >and I couldn't do anything. I don't want to have to read a tome of 
|> >instructions before i can enjoy a game.
|> >	For me, it wasn't intuitive, it was just confusing. Maybe i'm just
|> >not game-minded, but i couldn't get into the game because of it's interf
|> ce.
|> >							- baylor
|> >ps - this isn't an IBM specific question - how neat
|> ..
|> Hmm... I don't think Brian was referring to the clumsy, confusing
|> which-button-does-what interface of Ultima7, just the quasi-isometric view
|> where you look down on the characters.  This is surprisingly easy to do
|> (see my icons.arj demo; now about 5x faster with xlib03) and looks great!
|> 
|> -->Vputz
|> 

I also liked the look-down view; it makes the game more
two-dimensional.  If you look at Nintendo games, they are somewhat two
dimensional, but the vertical dimension just doesn't give you
everything --- the movement is basically left or right.  In Ultima,
you get much more out of the screen space, and you can walk in circles
more easily.  :)



			Amit,
			waiting to get home to try icons.arj

-- 
/\\ Amit J Patel, amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
\\/ Is it just me, or did OS/2 2.0 adopt Ultima Underworld's mouse
    button behavior?  (Quattro for Windows, too!)