Author Topic: One-way bridges  (Read 2163 times)

SpaceRain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
One-way bridges
« on: November 05, 2001, 05:11:56 AM »
Chillum wrote (in another thread): "Some people prefer to make some kind of structure that just drops into place, and isn't attached to the anchors at all..."

You've got to be kidding me. What fun is that? My friend was trying to get past one of those one-way levels the other day and you know what he said? "Now I know why bridges aren't dropped from planes." The first time we saw a level like that, we solved it, but the train actually fell down to the bridge and "jumped" back up onto the tracks and we were like "What? Surely, this can't be how this level was meant to be completed, because up until now, this has been a really cool game."

I've seen how people get flamed on game forums, whenever they bring up the word "realism". I know Pontifex isn't realistic, I really do, but it's (at least) a simulation of realism when you build a bridge that a train has to cross, even if very few things are like in the real world. That's why it's so totally uncool to build a bridge that has to "fall into place", or where the train actually has to jump on either side of the tracks. Come on people, what would be the fun of trying to "throw" your train across the river? The cool part is getting it to ride as smoothly as possible.

I love Pontifex, I really do. I play it all the time and I have been for some time. I LOVE building really cool bridges, that look somewhat realistic (this of course includes that the train can cross the bridge in either direction), that's why I also hate those one-way bridges so much. They're boring, unrealistic, ugly, stupid, time-consuming, pointless and generally annoying. Did I mention unrealistic?

I've gotten to somewhere in the map pack, playing on hard, but over and over again my experience is ruined when I get to another one of those levels, where there's just no way to build a proper bridge, and if you build one that "falls into place", there's no way you'll ever get a good bridge out of it, even if you complete the level.

Bottom line: Pontifex is the coolest game ever, realistic or not. Why ruin it with one-way bridges, that are no fun what-so-ever? If you read the thread "When is a clean bridge not a clean bridge?" you'll see that everybody seems to try and build bridges that are as realistic, cheap, beautiful and perfect as possible. People don't want broken links, they don't want a wet train and they definitely don't want the train cars to be lying on the side when the train has crossed the bridge, even if they still complete the level.

That's just how I feel about it, I would like to hear what everybody else thinks.

SpaceRain.


falkon2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
One-way bridges
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2001, 05:57:49 AM »
Dude, you have no idea how much I agree with you. The records for those types of bridges are more of a hit-or-miss case than I'd like to think of.

Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
    • http://www.bridgebuilder-game.com
One-way bridges
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2001, 08:06:32 AM »
I think one-way bridges don't ruin the game. They only add more variety. Maybe they shouldn't be included in the standard level sets, but as an option - why not? Some people like doing unrealistic fun stuff - like building towers instead of bridges. It's the complete freedom to build whatever you like that makes Pontifex even more unique as a game.

I don't really like those levels myself, but having to solve them just once in your life doesn't hurt much, does it?

http://www.bridgebuilder-game.com
Shut up, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip! -- Homer Simpson

mendel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
One-way bridges
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2001, 08:07:31 AM »
I think "dirty" and "clean" Pontifex are two different games, much as "Deathmatch" and "Capture the Flag".
Both can be fun, and some people only like one of those.

I agree that a map pack should perhaps not mix the two, i.e. either have levels that are all realistic, or state up front that you have to expect "dirty" work to complete these.

Personally, I like "dirty" levels better...


VRBones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
One-way bridges
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2001, 05:05:55 PM »
To me the game is all about problem solving. When I first saw the suspended anchor points and one-way bridges I went "Cool !!". Not because of the unrealistic nature, but because it added a new dynamic into the solution space. Some of the levels I have been impressed with most are the levels exhibiting these properties because you know the solution is going to be non-standard, and could even break down assumptions you unconsciously built up during the easy levels.

Maybe they needed to be seperated a little more, as mendel mentioned, but I'd like to say that not everyone sees them as a 'hindrance'


Andy24

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
One-way bridges
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2001, 06:07:56 PM »
I personallay agree that the game is about problemn solving and that maybe the one way bridges arent such a bad Idea. It is fine with me if other people want to spend hours trieing to make a bridge that can go both ways but an levels that don't require it I dont think that we should make a big deal about how levels are solved but instead we should look at the cost and how well they work.

I think that if any rules will be implemented for the records the contest ones would work really well because they are clear cut. also these rules were made by pontifex so they probably fit their Idea about how the game should work and what a clean bridge is.