Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
Tubelectric 2: Yes, the good fix is to lower the treasure count; let's also remove the out-of-bounds treasure because we're editing this file anyway. Then it will agree with the auto-counter.
|
Personally, I would leave the out of bounds treasure alone, and only change the 100% numbers. It's not like anyone is going to run into it in normal gameplay; if they're running cheats, though, I say let 'em find an extra item. It's just like the messages written outside the bounds. It's an easter egg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
Nippius 2: Since the path doesn't branch, I'm considering to rearrange the treasures. Otherwise, players will agonize over the visibly missed cones. One possibility is to put the cones in a vertical line directly over the rightmost spring, if you deem that within the map's spirit.
|
That's a valid solution too. The purist in me wants to preserve the level's original layout, but if 1.0, 1.2a, and vanilla 1.3 are in the goodies anyway, it's not like we're erasing the original, and it's only a minor change.
So, yes, I agree. Good call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
Battleships 2: Thanks for the opinion. I'll have to sleep over it, and over the findings. I like the spirit that 100% should be doable without weird tech, but it will dilute the meaning of "100%". It's also conceivable to change the map to clearly allow/disallow certain backtracking.
|
For me, the meaning of "100%" is the maximum number of items a player could collect in a single playthrough. It's a constructed idea, it exists in the design of the level itself, so it shouldn't bend to obscure, unexpected behaviour that take a certain mastery of the mechanics to achieve.
But, that's just my view. Either way, I would resist changing the layout of the level.
__________________
|