The Laird wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:03 pm
Crusty Starfish wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:53 pm
Lynx Gauntlet 3 article is, in my opinion not a particularly good effort and should have been researched a little more, so worth skipping that. The Lynx was a great system though and there are some excellent games worth giving a go (just avoid Gauntlet 3 unless you want some banging headaches)!
Please elaborate. What part was badly researched exactly?
Ah, didn't see that you'd done the article The Laird. Have they only just changed the articles to include 'words by whoever'?
Maybe not poorly researched, more a case of maybe better to get the 'making of' from more than one source?
Lynx Gauntlet III does seem to highlight the dangers of only using 1 source as a reference.
Jon's personal accounts made for some great reading, but aspects of explaining why the game has to be played sideways, don't tie in with accounts from other Epyx staff: e.g.
"Gauntlet the Third Encounter" was under development at the same time as Lynx hardware was. In fact, the game was most of the way finished in
development before we had hardware to test it on. We tried one game as a vertically based game as an experiment. We wanted to know what kind of features in the system we could take advantage of. Many things in the hardware design were changed because of the games that were being written for the system. By the time we knew that playing Gauntlet vertically would not be a good idea, it was "too late" to change the orientation to horizontal. All of the excuses in the world don't make the game any better for the consumer, but this is what happened."
Stephen H. Landrum
Stephen's account makes it look more like a bold experiment that was left in by accident and only stayed because they didn't have the time to fix it before final release.
Also..whilst the more favourable review scores from the UK Press were mentioned, i noticed the IGN (55) and EGM (70) scores were curiously absent.
The inventory system of the game was a nightmare.
Whilst the game allowed you to skip 5 levels at a time, upto level 20..level 21 had so many treasure chests you soon filled up your limited inventory and had to spend time finding areas to drop items off 1 by 1...which soon got tedious.
The games SP mode lacked the drama of the real Gauntlet games., creature A.I simply waited for you to trigger their attack zones and charged the player.
It's easily one of the weakest games to bear the Gauntlet name.
The sideways view in Lynx Gauntlet 3 gave people headaches after playing for long periods...Lots of bright colours used caused eye strain.
Since levels are presented in a fixed order, and the location of their contents never change, the game becomes static and predictable.
The frantic nature of Arcade Gauntlet is missing...
Progress can often be made by doing nothing more than standing still and holding down the attack button, which kills any need for strategy and increases the repetitive atmosphere of the game.
Characters are totally unbalanced...
The book-throwing nerd and the guitar-throwing punk rocker are essentially useless. (although you mention this in the boxout) only the more balanced avatars like the "Samurai" or the laser-shooting "Android" are really worth using.
It's little more than a solid arcade adventure type game, which Atari slapped the Gauntlet name on to add market value to.
I know some of the above was covered in your article and it was an ok read - maybe I'm just being picky thinking a 'making of' should be maybe more than one member of a team?
Bah! I'll just stop being so fussy I think.