Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!ispd-newsserver!hoffmann
From: hoffmann@acl.kodak.com (marty hoffmann)
Subject: Rick Dangerous (was Re: REVIEW : Prehistorik)
Message-ID: <1991Jun17.122815.13565@ssd.kodak.com>
Originator: hoffmann@wotan
Sender: news@ssd.kodak.com
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 12:28:15 GMT

In article <1991Jun17.092407.27666@hollie.rdg.dec.com> 
jamie@sievax.enet.dec.com (Jamie Badman) writes:
>[...] I also think that Rick Dangerous I is a very good game too,
>though it's not really similar to either GG or Prehistorik (so what it's
>doing here, I don't know!). However, I thought that Rick Dangerous II
>was really poor. I'd expected something better than RD1 but it never
>happened; the graphics were a step backward and I felt the gameplay was
>not as good. Now if they'd have made RDII to be as significantly better
>than RDI as Switchblade 2 was to SB1 then it'd have been a winner.

I have to disagree.  Although RDII was not much of a step forward from
RDI, it was certainly not a step backward.  I think the graphics were
just as good as RDI, and the game play was slightly improved.  

The sliding grenades were an excellent replacement for the dynamite.
The rocket sleds were a great idea too -- unfortunately, they aren't
used enough in the game.

I much prefer the forest world of RDII to the Nazi castle of RDI.  There
are three or four separate ways to complete the forest world, compared 
to the Schwarzdumpf castle, which is just a somewhat confusing maze.

I tend to look at RDII as just a set of extra levels for RDI, so I guess
I didn't expect it to be significantly better.

							MRH
-- 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
| Martin R Hoffmann        | Opinions expressed above are | 
| (hoffmann@acl.kodak.com) | not Kodak's (blah blah blah) | 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
