Elite Force 2 Q&A

There's a Star Trek Elite Force 2 Q&A on Computer and Video Games (thanks HomeLan Fed) talking about the upcoming Trekkie shooter sequel in the works at Ritual Entertainment with Doug Pearson, publisher Activision's producer on the project. The conversation covers an introduction to the project, missions, the challenges of introducing "away" missions to the game, enhancements being made to the Quake III engine, multiplayer support, improvements over the original game, and more.
View : : :
18.
 
Re: oh well
Jan 4, 2003, 01:01
18.
Re: oh well Jan 4, 2003, 01:01
Jan 4, 2003, 01:01
 
Honestly I have never understood this talk of EF (or Heavy Metal) being short. I played it in a few days time... and loved every minute of the game. I ended up playing through it like 4 times. Now I got my time out of that game. But come on, I also played through Quake in a few days time. There are just not many FPS ACTION games that take 2 weeks to play through (bring on 89 examples). Too short? What do you expect when you blaze through a designer’s month of work in 10 minutes and don't stop to look around?

But, OK. I DO look forward to more interactive environments in games to alleviate this constant nag by some gamers.

Edit: Oh.. and I would have played The Fallen, but I never got that crappy demo of the game to play on my wonderful computer. And I don't say it was crappy because of gameplay (I have no idea if was any good), but because of the horror of texture problems I had even with my NVidia card and latest drivers.

This comment was edited on Jan 4, 01:03.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
3.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
2.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
4.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
9.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
5.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
6.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
7.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
11.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
12.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
8.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
10.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
21.
Jan 4, 2003Jan 4 2003
13.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
14.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
15.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
16.
Jan 3, 2003Jan 3 2003
 18.
Jan 4, 2003Jan 4 2003
  Re: oh well
19.
Jan 4, 2003Jan 4 2003
20.
Jan 4, 2003Jan 4 2003
    Re: oh well
17.
Jan 4, 2003Jan 4 2003