Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!noao!stsci!berry
From: berry@stsci.EDU (Jim Berry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Another (long) F/A-18 Interceptor review
Message-ID: <361@obi-wan>
Date: 16 Jun 88 16:16:54 GMT
References: <3019@louie.udel.EDU>
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218
Lines: 55

From article <3019@louie.udel.EDU>, by smith@nrl-aic.arpa (Russ Smith):
> 
> Interceptor doesn't just require the use of the code wheel on program
> INVOCATION, it requires the damn thing to be used over and over and over
> again throughout the use of the program. This made my mood go from
> shocked surprise that the wheel was required "again?", to frustration
> when I misread the hard-to-read OCR-type font, to gross disappointment
> in the lack of forethought of the writers. The code wheel, being composed
> of three disks of thin cardboard attached together with a rivet, will
> wear out long before the user is ready to stop using the game, that is
> if the user doesn't throw the game out in anger (I think I used the wheel
> 20+ times at one sitting in the space of about two hours that I tried
> the package out...YOU extrapolate that). No good at all.

I dunno.  Compared to standard game disk copy protection, I think this
code wheel stuff is a step in the right direction, and certainly 
preferable to looking up a word in the manual.  Since I very seldom
complete a mission in 6 min (20 times / 2 hours; it usually takes me more
like a half an hour), I haven't gone through the 'wheel frenzy' that
you describe.  You're right though, it would be nicer to only do it
once - and the font sucks.

> Third, scenarios unchanging. I LOVED the plots. Really neat. JET will
> now be a drag when I retry it. BUT...how hard would it be to put the
> downed pilot in a different location each time? Couldn't the 2 stolen
> f-16s fly a different course?  Same applies to the presidential plane.
> I found the above to be only slightly dissappointing I have to admit, but
> such details ARE what make or break a game as far as THIS typer is
> concerned. I don't want to "win" a game anytime soon. After you've
> successfully been through the above scenarios, the next time through
> rapidly becomes rote. Variation would, well, add variation...

The pilot IS in a different place the second time through.  The cruise missle
comes from a different direction (and doesn't fly straight), the stolen
F16's are not as likely to turn back for you, the Mig pilots fly better,
etc...

> Interceptor uses it. The HUD is definitely first rate (but no attitude
> indication when aimed skyward! A minor lacking...). Missiles are

That minor lacking is one of my 2 major complaints.  It can be really 
difficult to maneuver in a dogfight without the attitude display when all
you see throught the window or in the artificial horizon is solid blue.
My other complaint is that, like JET, at some altitude (in this case about
50000') the plane just stops going up.  I wish they had implemented an
altitude ceiling the way it is in FSII - with the plane just kind-of
nosing over as it reaches the ceiling.

Anyway, I recommend the game highly, it is as polished a piece of work
as I have seen in some time.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Berry                         | UUCP:{arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!berry
Space Telescope Science Institute | ARPA:   berry@stsci.edu
Baltimore, Md. 21218              | SPAM:   SCIVAX::BERRY, KEPLER::BERRY