map memory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hi,
In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
reasoning is that it's the player who should have
memory, not the character.
So, moving around and finding one's way will be
a challenge, and the player will have to mark
his way back to the village, etc. And I think
this should make the game more fun, as long as the
dungeon is not too complicated of course.

So what do you guys think about this?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

For the overworld, it's simple enough; follow the road, and it should
lead into town eventually... Or, hack down a bunch of trees as you go,
and make your own path so that you dont get lost.

However, for dungeons it's different. No one knows what makes one 5x5
room different from the 5x5 room they were just in, unless something is
on the floor or on the walls. Thus, every room should *try* to be
unique, and hallways somewhat similar.


The player runs down a corridor, and enters a 5x5 room. Runs down
another, into another 5x5 room. Runs down another, and into yet another
5x5 room. He's lost. He could've gone in a circle. However, if there
were some distinguishing mark in the three 5x5 tile rooms, he would
know that the third 5x5 room he entered was different from the first.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Doh, almost forgot, if you ARE going to have random levels, make sure
that they are either very short and direct, or very non-linear but
almost assured a way out/down at every "end"

Circles or circle-shapes in map-memory-less game = the enemy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Mechanoid wrote:
> For the overworld, it's simple enough; follow the road, and it should
> lead into town eventually... Or, hack down a bunch of trees as you go,
> and make your own path so that you dont get lost.
>
> However, for dungeons it's different. No one knows what makes one 5x5
> room different from the 5x5 room they were just in, unless something is
> on the floor or on the walls. Thus, every room should *try* to be
> unique, and hallways somewhat similar.
>
>
> The player runs down a corridor, and enters a 5x5 room. Runs down
> another, into another 5x5 room. Runs down another, and into yet another
> 5x5 room. He's lost. He could've gone in a circle. However, if there
> were some distinguishing mark in the three 5x5 tile rooms, he would
> know that the third 5x5 room he entered was different from the first.

I haven't decided much about my dungeon generator yet, but I'm sure
that there won't be 5x5 rooms, or any rectangular rooms in general,
it will look more like a cave than like a dungeon.

Also, the player can mark his way. Remember the guy who killed
Minotaur...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> My reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> memory, not the character.

That kind of reasoning rarely works in the gameplay.
Playing games is not same as being realistic. Automapping
was introduced, because it was a good invention.

> So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> his way back to the village, etc.

There could be manual mapping. Press 'm' to draw the current
area to your map scroll or something like that. Is that 'marking'
the same thing?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Krice wrote:
> Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> > My reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> > memory, not the character.
>
> That kind of reasoning rarely works in the gameplay.
> Playing games is not same as being realistic. Automapping
> was introduced, because it was a good invention.

True. games should be fun, not realistic, unless you can get the two to
coincide, or realism is the point in the first place
>
> > So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> > a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> > his way back to the village, etc.
>
> There could be manual mapping. Press 'm' to draw the current
> area to your map scroll or something like that. Is that 'marking'
> the same thing?

Actually, I like that the best: mark things on your map if you need to
know where they are, which uses up marker or charcoal or whatever. it
also allays the fear of an amnesia potion, because you wrote it down.
of course, a dip in the river can be a serious problemif it's written
down. sounds like a good idea for a 7drl, just to see if it actually is
more fun or what that way.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Shedletsky wrote:
> Depends. Do you want your player to have a good time with your game, or do
> you want to make him go crazy and gouge his eyes out?
>
> Seriously. If a feature isn't going to make your game more fun, don't add
> it. This isn't really a "feature", per se, because you are actually not
> providing a feature - automapping. But the principle is the same.

I don't look at it this way. The reason I'm writing a roguelike is
that
I have many ideas how things should be different. This is one of them.
And I'm going to try my best to make the game playable without mapping,
because I think that if I accomplish it my game will be more attractive
and innovative.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

> Hi,
> In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
> of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
> reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> memory, not the character.
> So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> his way back to the village, etc. And I think
> this should make the game more fun, as long as the
> dungeon is not too complicated of course.
>
> So what do you guys think about this?

Depends. Do you want your player to have a good time with your game, or do
you want to make him go crazy and gouge his eyes out?

Seriously. If a feature isn't going to make your game more fun, don't add
it. This isn't really a "feature", per se, because you are actually not
providing a feature - automapping. But the principle is the same.

--
Blog:
Shedletsky's Bits: A Random Walk Through Manifold Space
http://www.stanford.edu/~jjshed/blog
"Michal Brzozowski" <rusolis@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:1125305184.499343.318090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski wrote:
> At 29 Aug 2005 01:46:24 -0700,
> Michal Brzozowski wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
> > of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
> > reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> > memory, not the character.
> > So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> > a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> > his way back to the village, etc. And I think
> > this should make the game more fun, as long as the
> > dungeon is not too complicated of course.
> >
> > So what do you guys think about this?
>
> Long time ago I played games like 'Adventure' with a pencil in my hand.
> I still have the old sheets of paper with maps, item descriptions, etc.
> somewhere on my shelf.
>
> It turns out it can get pretty fun, interesting and even addictive.
>
> But the key is that you need interesting maps, interesting items and their
> effects, etc. The items and monsters can be made interesting only the
> first couple of times you meet them -- when you can see new behavior.
>
> It's extremely difficult to generate automaticaly a level that's fun to
> map by hand. I'd even risk the statement that it's impossible.
>
> Note, that there are also other randomized ares of roguelike games that
> use the simulated player character's memory, instead of the player's
> memory: potion colors, scroll titles, ring kinds, etc.
>
> The fact that those 'secrets' are generated automatically makes them
> pretty uninteresting to note by hand -- so the note-taking is automated.

I don't think it is because they are generated automatically.

I think it is because it changes every single game.

In an Ultima game I might learn that Yellow is the Heal potion and then
apply that knowledge for my entire 30 hours of play. It thus becomes
useful to write that down in a separate note book and can add to the
enjoyment. The relationship of potions to effects could have been
created entirely randomly without affecting this mechanic.

In POWDER, I learn that Yellow is the Heal potion, die five moves
later, and the fact becomes another piece of scrap. I *don't* want to
remember yellow=heal as that memory is better suited to storing "heal
stops bleeding" or some other bit of meta-information that was
discovered.

> Note also, that, altrough you can disable the automated, in-game
> automapping, you can't forbid the player to make his own map and notes by
> hand.

I would think that would be the intent. To engage the player to engage
with the map-making half of the game.

We do see note taking occur in roguelikes when players reach a certain
level of stability. They start to record where there caches are, for
example, or where certain special levels are. It is also very common
for roguelike players to record the permament features.

Lack of a map recall would mean, IMHO, your characters should either
have a long life expectency or that the maps shouldn't be random.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 29 Aug 2005 01:46:24 -0700, "Michal Brzozowski" <rusolis@poczta.fm>
wrote:

>Hi,
>In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
>of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
>reasoning is that it's the player who should have
>memory, not the character.
>So, moving around and finding one's way will be
>a challenge, and the player will have to mark
>his way back to the village, etc. And I think
>this should make the game more fun, as long as the
>dungeon is not too complicated of course.
>
>So what do you guys think about this?

So then you tediously draw a map by hand, the way you had to do for
games before people figured out this wasn't all that fun and it made a
more entertaining game to let the computer do this busy-work for you.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 29 Aug 2005 01:46:24 -0700,
Michal Brzozowski wrote:

> Hi,
> In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
> of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
> reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> memory, not the character.
> So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> his way back to the village, etc. And I think
> this should make the game more fun, as long as the
> dungeon is not too complicated of course.
>
> So what do you guys think about this?

Long time ago I played games like 'Adventure' with a pencil in my hand.
I still have the old sheets of paper with maps, item descriptions, etc.
somewhere on my shelf.

It turns out it can get pretty fun, interesting and even addictive.

But the key is that you need interesting maps, interesting items and their
effects, etc. The items and monsters can be made interesting only the
first couple of times you meet them -- when you can see new behavior.

It's extremely difficult to generate automaticaly a level that's fun to
map by hand. I'd even risk the statement that it's impossible.

Note, that there are also other randomized ares of roguelike games that
use the simulated player character's memory, instead of the player's
memory: potion colors, scroll titles, ring kinds, etc.

The fact that those 'secrets' are generated automatically makes them
pretty uninteresting to note by hand -- so the note-taking is automated.

Note also, that, altrough you can disable the automated, in-game
automapping, you can't forbid the player to make his own map and notes by
hand.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(..) 3 Bee!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Michal Brzozowski" <rusolis@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:1125305184.499343.318090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
> of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
> reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> memory, not the character.
> So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> his way back to the village, etc. And I think
> this should make the game more fun, as long as the
> dungeon is not too complicated of course.
>
> So what do you guys think about this?
>

Depends. But I think it is a bad idea in general; especially if there
is permadeath, this is insane tedium having to remap every dungeon level
after every death.

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jeff Lait wrote:
> Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski wrote:
> > At 29 Aug 2005 01:46:24 -0700,
> > Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > In my game I've decided not to draw visited parts
> > > of the map, only those that the PC can see. My
> > > reasoning is that it's the player who should have
> > > memory, not the character.
> > > So, moving around and finding one's way will be
> > > a challenge, and the player will have to mark
> > > his way back to the village, etc. And I think
> > > this should make the game more fun, as long as the
> > > dungeon is not too complicated of course.
> > >
> > > So what do you guys think about this?
> >
> > Long time ago I played games like 'Adventure' with a pencil in my hand.
> > I still have the old sheets of paper with maps, item descriptions, etc.
> > somewhere on my shelf.
> >
> > It turns out it can get pretty fun, interesting and even addictive.
> >
> > But the key is that you need interesting maps, interesting items and their
> > effects, etc. The items and monsters can be made interesting only the
> > first couple of times you meet them -- when you can see new behavior.
> >
> > It's extremely difficult to generate automaticaly a level that's fun to
> > map by hand. I'd even risk the statement that it's impossible.
> >
> > Note, that there are also other randomized ares of roguelike games that
> > use the simulated player character's memory, instead of the player's
> > memory: potion colors, scroll titles, ring kinds, etc.
> >
> > The fact that those 'secrets' are generated automatically makes them
> > pretty uninteresting to note by hand -- so the note-taking is automated.
>
> I don't think it is because they are generated automatically.
>
> I think it is because it changes every single game.
>
> In an Ultima game I might learn that Yellow is the Heal potion and then
> apply that knowledge for my entire 30 hours of play. It thus becomes
> useful to write that down in a separate note book and can add to the
> enjoyment. The relationship of potions to effects could have been
> created entirely randomly without affecting this mechanic.
>
> In POWDER, I learn that Yellow is the Heal potion, die five moves
> later, and the fact becomes another piece of scrap. I *don't* want to
> remember yellow=heal as that memory is better suited to storing "heal
> stops bleeding" or some other bit of meta-information that was
> discovered.
>
> > Note also, that, altrough you can disable the automated, in-game
> > automapping, you can't forbid the player to make his own map and notes by
> > hand.
>
> I would think that would be the intent. To engage the player to engage
> with the map-making half of the game.
>
> We do see note taking occur in roguelikes when players reach a certain
> level of stability. They start to record where there caches are, for
> example, or where certain special levels are. It is also very common
> for roguelike players to record the permament features.
>
> Lack of a map recall would mean, IMHO, your characters should either
> have a long life expectency or that the maps shouldn't be random.

certaintly it would get boring to map out everything by hand,
especially for a random map of essentially the same nature every time.
it can even get tedious exploring a map that you don't have to map. the
whole point of using a computer(for anything; not just adventuring) is
to remove tedium.
What I thought was meant by this suggestion was that the pc would have
less-than-perfect spatial memory and would have to carry a scroll of
notes with him/her. the player, OTOH would have simply to press M for
map, and the pc would take a turn or three to draw everything he could
see. Of course, it would be logical for the player to make sure that
said scroll doesn't get lost or wet.

This would add a level of strategy to the gameplay. you can't take the
time to write anything down while fleeing for your life, and you're not
likely to remember every detail in that situation either. so, you get
lost, wander the caves hopelessly untill you see something you
recognize. perhaps memory should record one square in fifty, every turn
it remains within you los. that would allow you to remember something,
and include more strategic detail.

I don't believe that more detail is neccessarily goosd for a game, but
more strategic detail means more stuff to fiure out, which is fun, in
my opinion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 29 Aug 2005 07:59:39 -0700, "Michal Brzozowski" wrote:

>Shedletsky wrote:
>> Depends. Do you want your player to have a good time with your game, or do
>> you want to make him go crazy and gouge his eyes out?
>>
>> Seriously. If a feature isn't going to make your game more fun, don't add
>> it. This isn't really a "feature", per se, because you are actually not
>> providing a feature - automapping. But the principle is the same.
>
>I don't look at it this way. The reason I'm writing a roguelike is
>that
>I have many ideas how things should be different. This is one of them.
>And I'm going to try my best to make the game playable without mapping,
>because I think that if I accomplish it my game will be more attractive
>and innovative.

I see it can work, but is a little bothersome. You have many options
to make it fun. One is that you make a large world that you can't map
effectively, but you have some sort of way to port back to a safe
place.

Also, the maps *shouldn't* be small, as this would encourage mapping
everything. That would ruin the game for the player and the
game-mechanic.

As was said: if the maps are mid-size and you have to memorize them
they have to vary a lot.
But you could just make it so that you never have to go back, like the
abyss in crawl.
Plot idea: give the character a (random) description of some special
formation in the nature or in a cavern, guide him a little in that
direction and tell him to go some direction from there, and reward him
with a battle/riddle/treasure chest/compation/boss fight and another
note to continue onward.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <nq27h192eocjqj9rks96um25teo80e1he5@4ax.com>,
danhenry@inreach.com says...

> So then you tediously draw a map by hand, the way you had to do for
> games before people figured out this wasn't all that fun and it made a
> more entertaining game to let the computer do this busy-work for you.

It was often fun and challenging. Dungeon Master was enhanced by the
absence of an automap.

I think part of the reason for automapping is bad graphics. As modern
3D games become more photorealistic, the need for an automap will
disappear. DOOM had an automap - Half Life didn't need one. Or at
least automaps will become more impressionistic, looking like hand-
drawn maps rather than being directly derived from the map data.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>I think part of the reason for automapping is bad graphics. As modern
>3D games become more photorealistic, the need for an automap will
>disappear. DOOM had an automap - Half Life didn't need one.

DOOM didn't need one either.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ meteorites are outta sight but this one's place is in outer space
\ / if you wanna know i'll tell you why it's cause radiation makes you die
\/ -- Zombina and the Skeletones, "Meteorite"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie>:
>I think part of the reason for automapping is bad graphics. As modern
>3D games become more photorealistic, the need for an automap will
>disappear. DOOM had an automap - Half Life didn't need one.

I don't think graphics are the only significant factor here. Half-Life
was certainly aided by the increased distinctiveness of its locations, [2]
but was also enormously more linear; when there's only one place to go,
you don't need a map. Also, a 3D map is inherently harder to do well;
Descent's automap was a complete nightmare.

I can't think of any game with meaningful geometry [1] that would not be
improved by an automap. In particular I cannot imagine why you think
Dungeon Keeper was bettered by the lack.

[1] eg, you can't provide an automap for classic text adventure mazes.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, August.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>Quoting Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie>:
>>I think part of the reason for automapping is bad graphics. As modern
>>3D games become more photorealistic, the need for an automap will
>>disappear. DOOM had an automap - Half Life didn't need one.
>I don't think graphics are the only significant factor here. Half-Life
>was certainly aided by the increased distinctiveness of its locations, [2]

Ahem.

[2] Although outside of some bits of Episode 1, Doom's locations are
pretty distinct in a way Wolfie 3D's locations were not. Any screenshot of
E2 or E3 that isn't pressed up against a wall, I can tell you where it
is.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, August.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Gerry Quinn a écrit :
> In article <nq27h192eocjqj9rks96um25teo80e1he5@4ax.com>,
> danhenry@inreach.com says...
>
>
>>So then you tediously draw a map by hand, the way you had to do for
>>games before people figured out this wasn't all that fun and it made a
>>more entertaining game to let the computer do this busy-work for you.
>
>
> It was often fun and challenging. Dungeon Master was enhanced by the
> absence of an automap.
>
> I think part of the reason for automapping is bad graphics. As modern
> 3D games become more photorealistic, the need for an automap will
> disappear. DOOM had an automap - Half Life didn't need one. Or at
> least automaps will become more impressionistic, looking like hand-
> drawn maps rather than being directly derived from the map data.
>
> - Gerry Quinn
>

Doom had somewhat complex levels with an easy to draw automap. Half-Life
was more complex so hard to draw a map, and it was just one long
corridor so a map was useless.

So, the reason for the disapearances of automaping are :
- more complex levels which make an automatic map harder to create
- much simpler levels and gameplay which make a map useless

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell a écrit :
> Quoting David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>>Quoting Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie>:
>>
>>>I think part of the reason for automapping is bad graphics. As modern
>>>3D games become more photorealistic, the need for an automap will
>>>disappear. DOOM had an automap - Half Life didn't need one.
>>
>>I don't think graphics are the only significant factor here. Half-Life
>>was certainly aided by the increased distinctiveness of its locations, [2]
>
>
> Ahem.
>
> [2] Although outside of some bits of Episode 1, Doom's locations are
> pretty distinct in a way Wolfie 3D's locations were not. Any screenshot of
> E2 or E3 that isn't pressed up against a wall, I can tell you where it
> is.

I'm sure I can answer faster than you.

Heretic on the other hand ! Now that one really needs an automap

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <eJr*TyCXq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>you don't need a map. Also, a 3D map is inherently harder to do well;
>Descent's automap was a complete nightmare.

Huh. I thought it was pretty neat, myself, if a little low-res.

Alan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting R. Alan Monroe <amonroejj@yahoo.com>:
>damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>you don't need a map. Also, a 3D map is inherently harder to do well;
>>Descent's automap was a complete nightmare.
>Huh. I thought it was pretty neat, myself, if a little low-res.

Like teaching a dog to ride a bicycle, the remarkable thing was that it
was done at all. Compare to Doom's automap; Tab Tab and in that
half-second glance you know health, armour, ammo, and the immediate
surroundings.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Thursday, August.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 02 Sep 2005 12:40:47 +0100 (BST),
David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting R. Alan Monroe <amonroejj@yahoo.com>:
>>damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>>you don't need a map. Also, a 3D map is inherently harder to do well;
>>>Descent's automap was a complete nightmare.
>>Huh. I thought it was pretty neat, myself, if a little low-res.

> Like teaching a dog to ride a bicycle, the remarkable thing was that it
> was done at all. Compare to Doom's automap; Tab Tab and in that
> half-second glance you know health, armour, ammo, and the immediate
> surroundings.

Well, in the case of Descent's maps you woudn't know your surroundings at
a glance even if you had a model of the map standing on your desk.
It's not because the automap was bad -- it because the maps in Descent are
pretty twisted. You're comparing oranges and apples.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(Qq) 3 Sob?
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski <sheep1 % sheep.prv.pl>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting R. Alan Monroe <amonroejj@yahoo.com>:
>>>damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>>>you don't need a map. Also, a 3D map is inherently harder to do well;
>>>>Descent's automap was a complete nightmare.
>>>Huh. I thought it was pretty neat, myself, if a little low-res.
>>Like teaching a dog to ride a bicycle, the remarkable thing was that it
>>was done at all.
>It's not because the automap was bad -- it because the maps in Descent are
>pretty twisted. You're comparing oranges and apples.

That's sort of where I started when I said "a 3D map is inherently harder
to do well".
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Thursday, August.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At 02 Sep 2005 15:30:48 +0100 (BST),
David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski <sheep1 % sheep.prv.pl>:
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>Quoting R. Alan Monroe <amonroejj@yahoo.com>:
>>>>damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>you don't need a map. Also, a 3D map is inherently harder to do well;
>>>>>Descent's automap was a complete nightmare.
>>>>Huh. I thought it was pretty neat, myself, if a little low-res.
>>>Like teaching a dog to ride a bicycle, the remarkable thing was that it
>>>was done at all.
>>It's not because the automap was bad -- it because the maps in Descent are
>>pretty twisted. You're comparing oranges and apples.
> That's sort of where I started when I said "a 3D map is inherently harder
> to do well".
Right. Sorry. I just love Descent

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(`') 3 Grrr!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .