somebody wrote:
> If by technology you mean the stills and some videos, yes, I remember being
> impressed with those, and I believe that's the only reason people bought it.
> I wouldn't consider those technology, but the game art. Visual artists did a
> good job for sure, but any single beginner programmer could have coded the
> game itself in a matter of days.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure it's fair to distinguish the level design 
from the "game", since I have no doubt that the vast majority of the 
development time was spent designing the levels.  Sure the interaction 
was very simple, but that was the first time that I saw anything that 
really did a good job of visually emulating a virtual world.

Not that I can't understand why you wouldn't like it, and I agree that 
the visuals are the only really interesting part, I just found the 
visuals impressive and engrossing enough (at the time) that I still 
regard it as a groundbreaking game.

Post a reply to this message