08-30-2010, 02:47 AM
I don't know. I'd think you'd hedge your bet and split it down the middle, and have a mix of long and short. One of the comments I had while working on DDD Hard was that I would have liked it if there were two types of save point:
1.) The traditional kind from MM1 and 2 which could be used once, and provided additional lives.
2.) A new type that could be used more than once, and provided *no* additional lives. It was just a save point. I might have used that more than the first kind if I'd had that option. If this isn't provided, then how about allowing the player to save wherever they wished? No actual save point.
I have to admit that I'm also not crazy about the change in direction, though it would depend on how it's done (more on that in a minute). Most of all, I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. In conversations we've had in the past, you emphasized your preference in being able to wander and explore. I can't help but think that this change would push mansions to being more dense and puzzle-oriented rather than less.
20-30 rooms seems pretty limiting. That's about the size of the treasure vault in DDD Hard, and...each of the other 5 sub-areas.
It might push the game to be closer to games such as Archibald's Adventures (which I also like, but for different reasons), but in so doing lose something that is unique to MM.
I think it's a little sad that mansions such as Mt Peril would be lost under this scenario...
Still, there are other mansions that might not be completely lost depending on how it's done. For example, many of the mansions are fairly linear, each having subsections that are aprox. 20-30 rooms (or less). If you're suggesting segmenting a mansion into smaller sub-sections, that wouldn't be all that different from now except that each subsection would be a mini-ending of sorts, and would be broken up by save points. Each of these subsections wouldn't necessarily have to end in a vault - would they?
It could also be that the increased resolution would provide more game area to be displayed in a single room. Presently, each room can support 3 floors reasonably well. Under a high resolution screen, and shrinking things down a bit, I suppose it would be possible to double that and increase the amount of game area viewed at a time.
Yet another possibility would be if a single
Out of curiosity... have you had a large number of complaints about the size? I work some pretty long hours, and have never had an issue with using the suspend option. Were there times when I wished I could save wherever/whenever I wished as many times as I wanted? Sure... but I've never wished that the mansions were shorter.
Anyhow... just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
1.) The traditional kind from MM1 and 2 which could be used once, and provided additional lives.
2.) A new type that could be used more than once, and provided *no* additional lives. It was just a save point. I might have used that more than the first kind if I'd had that option. If this isn't provided, then how about allowing the player to save wherever they wished? No actual save point.
I have to admit that I'm also not crazy about the change in direction, though it would depend on how it's done (more on that in a minute). Most of all, I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. In conversations we've had in the past, you emphasized your preference in being able to wander and explore. I can't help but think that this change would push mansions to being more dense and puzzle-oriented rather than less.
20-30 rooms seems pretty limiting. That's about the size of the treasure vault in DDD Hard, and...each of the other 5 sub-areas.
It might push the game to be closer to games such as Archibald's Adventures (which I also like, but for different reasons), but in so doing lose something that is unique to MM.
I think it's a little sad that mansions such as Mt Peril would be lost under this scenario...
Still, there are other mansions that might not be completely lost depending on how it's done. For example, many of the mansions are fairly linear, each having subsections that are aprox. 20-30 rooms (or less). If you're suggesting segmenting a mansion into smaller sub-sections, that wouldn't be all that different from now except that each subsection would be a mini-ending of sorts, and would be broken up by save points. Each of these subsections wouldn't necessarily have to end in a vault - would they?
It could also be that the increased resolution would provide more game area to be displayed in a single room. Presently, each room can support 3 floors reasonably well. Under a high resolution screen, and shrinking things down a bit, I suppose it would be possible to double that and increase the amount of game area viewed at a time.
Yet another possibility would be if a single
roomwas larger than what could be displayed in a single screen, and would move with Jack as he walked towards the edge. I know there have been times when I felt somewhat constrained by the size of a room. This larger size would offset the lower number of rooms.
Out of curiosity... have you had a large number of complaints about the size? I work some pretty long hours, and have never had an issue with using the suspend option. Were there times when I wished I could save wherever/whenever I wished as many times as I wanted? Sure... but I've never wished that the mansions were shorter.
Anyhow... just a few thoughts off the top of my head.