Topic: Is it Descent or is it... not?

[-<WillyP>-]

Let's hear about what you think is the Future Of Descent!

And as for me, I chose... (drumroll please) Both! Though I admit I do lean towards SolC, I am also excited to see what the guys from Descendant Studios are cooking up.

[VANGUARD]

Is there a good video or at least a few good pictures of the SOL game? That may help me decide on my vote. Descent underground did not impress me much at all. Looking at the video a few times, it is somewhat now. Maybe it's just the lasers shooting.

[Scyphi]

Oooohhhh, I can't in clear conscience make this vote just yet. I'm leaning more towards SolC myself at the moment, but I don't want to rule out DU just yet either. Unfortunately, it's much too soon for me to make a comfortable ruling just yet.

...think I'll abstain for now. Maybe once DU's got a bit more to show off...

[Pumo]

I voted for Both, everything regarding Descent is good news to me.

[-<WillyP>-]

Is there a good video or at least a few good pictures of the SOL game? That may help me decide on my vote. Descent underground did not impress me much at all. Looking at the video a few times, it is somewhat now. Maybe it's just the lasers shooting.

SolC (closed test):

[Scyphi]

Keep in mind, of course, that vid was made before SolC received the infamous cease and desist order from Interplay; the game will no longer feature the Pyros and other iconic objects from Descent because of that. However, the gameplay WILL remain perfectly the same as shown in the vid.

[Kaiaatzl]

I voted for both... I lean a little more toward Sol Contingency but that's only because I'm involved in the development.  I'm looking forward to seeing an interesting game develop without my direct input too though.  Lately all the projects I've been interested in have had me end up on the dev team somehow.

[Scyphi]

I will laugh, then, if you ever end up on the Descent Underground team. How are things on the SolC side of things anyway, since you're technically an insider (of which I am very jealous  )?

[Hunter]

that vid was made before SolC received the infamous cease and desist order from Interplay;

I'm starting to think Interplay perhaps 'over reached' with that C&D letter. It's been clearly indicated numerous times now that Interplay only own the rights to the trademark Descent, and NOT any of the ingame assets such as the Pyro-GX. I'm left wondering exactly what legal ground they are standing on without those asset rights. Perhaps it's because SolC is lead by a European developer (?), and Interplay DO own the rights to the Pyro-GX in Europe? Keep in mind that each country has it's own trademark and copyright rules - and some countries allow you to register trademarks and copyrights accordingly. Technically, I could launch a Descent game here in Korea for the Korean market with the title Descent, and Interplay couldn't do anything about it because they have no legal standing in Korea, and do not own the rights to the 'Descent' title in Korea (Incase your curious I didn't check this, but I doubt they do, and I've seen numerous copycat products in Korea) - So long as I didn't distribute the game in the USA or anywhere the title is licensed already, then I'd be immune. So the question is: If SolC had ignored the letter and proceed anyway, would Interplay even be able to fund a cross-border lawsuit?

Btw, as a point of interest, I checked with the intellectual propety office in the UK regarding the name 'Descent', and the status is listed as Dead for the Descent trademark registered by Interplay. It expired in 2005. The only active license by that name is a bottled water product named Descent. This is just to highlight that Interplay do not necessarily own everything they claim to own, especially when dealing with other countries.

[Pumo]

BTW, there's a new gameplay video of Descent: Underground (although it's still very WIP and pre-alpha):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCoP9HJkNg

(Sorry for the cross-posting, but I think it's relevant  )

[-<WillyP>-]

One thing I noticed... and this is true of both SolC and D:U... it the tendency of very large areas. I think even D3 had this issue, and I know I sometimes did the same when making maps for D3, it's very easy to get caught up in the large, grandiose areas. As Drakona pointed out in the post she wrote on the D:U forum, D1/D2 were all about tight spaces, and the large areas changes the dynamics dramatically. As Drakona put it, in D1/D2 you had tunnels to fight in that were twice as high and twice as wide as a ship's hit box... meaning you only had four locations to move to to dodge an incoming missile. And likewise when shooting, four possible locations an opponent could move to. And even the large rooms in D3 weren't as large as the areas shown in the SolC/D:U vids.

[Kaiaatzl]

The areas on the map in Sol C look pretty open in the video but when you play the game it is pretty tight.  Much closer to the D1/D2 proportions compared to the ship size than D3.
And this is even moreso in Homeyduh's ice map which we haven't shown off in videos to my knowledge.

And you can trust me, I've played it.

[Scyphi]

And from what I've seen, even SolC has smaller rooms than the blippin' cathedrals DU's showing off. I mean, even the hallways feel positively massive. 

[VANGUARD]

I'm the only one that voted for Sol only?  Descent underground looks nice but that new video I saw from Sol made me miss Descent.

[-<WillyP>-]

I hear ya, but keep in mind D3 was quite a departure from D2 at the time... so there's no reason to think a D4 should, or rather, would, stick to the D1/D2 formula, no matter how much we want it to. If we plotted deviance on a scale of D1, D2, D3, then it would be quite a sharp curve upwards for D4. In other words, we should expect D4 to be quite devious.