Donny Viszneki wrote:I'm saying I can't relate to the desire to play classic games with "enhanced" multimedia (ie. "hi-res textures" and "hi-res sound.")
It's partially an issue of nostalgia: I want to reproduce the experience I had with the game when I originally played it.
But it's also probably simply an artistic issue: The multimedia in my favorite classic games was designed carefully! If you asked the original authors to update the multimedia for more modern computers, it would certainly take more time than what is typically put into these "hi-res" media packs. It takes hard work and ingenuity to translate conventional artistic talent into the low fidelity formats that work for resource constrained gaming platforms, do you think you can just pluck that careful work out of its intended context, smooth some edges, and get something of higher quality? I think not.
karx11erx wrote:As this boils down to indirect criticism of the features of D2X-XL, may I ask whether you know the sounds and hires textures of D2X-XL, or the other features of this program?
Because currently you sound like you are just posting from theory without really knowing what you are talking about.
As far as your die hard nostalgia goes: I suppose you never play any newer sequel of an old classic you loved then? Because that would inevitably stray from the experience you had when you first played the game.
Dude, until you prove otherwise I really think that your above remark is plain and simply clueless. I am working on D2X-XL and DLE-XP (D1+D2 level editor) for at least 5 years (actually lost track of it). I probably know this program and workings better than the original authors. I have rewritten a great part of the code (which was a mess), and added a lot of new code.
Do you think you can tell me anything about the validity of my efforts and of all the contributors of sounds, textures, new game models and levels, and whether they convey the original spirit of this game with rejuvenated and improved graphics?
You may be playing Descent to see it in all it's pixelated originality to recall some feelings you had when you were way younger. Many people play D2X-XL because they want to have the original, awesome gameplay of Descent with at least somewhat modern graphics and effects.
To be open: I don't think that there is anything you can tell me about my all time favorite game, about the effort that went into it, and most of all about what makes Descent Descent. As far as I am concerned: Descent is made Descent by its gameplay in the first place, not by its graphics. That's why so many Descent 1 players don't even like Descent 2, and many Descent 1 and 2 players don't like Descent 3. It's because of gameplay issues, not because of the graphics. The argument that a game is made by its graphics is either poor in itself, or the game is a poor game.
I am a professional software developer and in the programming business for almost 30 years. Sure, D2X-XL could be better or even need another engine. That doesn't mean I don't know my business though. It just means I don't have that much time (or texture, sound, model and level artists at hand).
Now before you even reply: Go get the current D2X-XL version *plus* hires content and play it! There's a very stable beta release of the latest version available (see www.descent2.de/forum).
Actually Donny Viszneki's post boils down to clueless prejudices packaged in educated wording.