From jgranto@cise.ufl.edu Wed Oct  2 16:38:26 EDT 1996
Article: 185854 of comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Path: prism!gt-news!cc.gatech.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!metro.atlanta.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!usenet.cise.ufl.edu!usenet
From: jgranto@cise.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: MW2: Mercenaries  --  opinion after days of play
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 16:51:20 GMT
Organization: CISE Dept., University of Florida
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <52u6je$7ad@thunder.cise.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crappie.cise.ufl.edu
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Status: RO

After reading the info provided in this newsgroup, I thought I'd state
the following:


1.  Mercs has better graphics than MW2.
2.  The gameplay is pretty much the same as MW2 (I miss the magscan
	view).
3.  Sound is on par with MW2.
4.  For me, enjoyability is lower than MW2.  The whole concept of 
	fighting for the Clan, honor, etc, was more fun.
5.  Salvage rules suck.  Shooting a mech's leg off should count as a
	kill, and thus let you salvage it.

Now for the news I haven't really seen any reference to.  I have a
Micron Millennia P5-133, 32MB EDO RAM, and a Diamond Stealth 3D video
card.  Pretty fast.  With all the video options turned on, my machine
CRAWLS in the Windows 95 version.  This sucked.  So I installed the
DOS version, set the resolution to 640x480 with ALL options, and it is
nice and smooth.    I play the DOS version.

This is not a slam against Mercs, it is a slap in the face of Windows
95.  All this talk of Direct<blah> (DirectSound, DirectIn, Direct3D,
etc.) doesn't mean crap when your OS is sucking up as many resources
as Windows 95 does.  Windows 95 just can't run a complex game as fast
as DOS does.  Thus, I need a P5-200 to run Mercs in Windows 95 with
the same playablitiy as DOS with w P5-133.  I'm not even convinced a
P5-200 with an Imagine 128 series 2 card could do it right...