You all misinterpreted my tone. What I proposed are very specific. These are things that seemed glaring to me after completing the demo for the 4th time. Were I distracted by new material these would be undefined irritances I couldn't quite arrticulate.
Thrawn's possibly right, the slow tomb raider side-step is possibly useless here, but the addition of straffing isn't. Despite what conclusion earl leaps to, these measures would bring Indy no where near something like a FPS. I didn't complain that the stone one moves only moves in a grid, you didn't read carefully. The alignment of the block is not what concerns me, it's one's character's orientation towards it! You don't actually disagree with me, LOR! Where did I contradict you? No where I can see (unless you said "both of you" to refer to earl and Thrawn).
Yes, I got stuck in a jump too: before the whip-swing in the lava room, that legde you swing from, below it is a ledge with a small stepa: Indy's legs got stuck in the small step when jumping forward from the lower ledge.
Though pure action is to be avoided, there is a larger design issue here. Should one feel helpless when a tiny scorpion rushes at ones feet? Certainly not. Some like earl seem to think an effective control scheme would defeat the puzzle aspect. But whether action sequences are painful irritances or minor inconvieniances, it begs the question why isn't this a straight adventure game. If this really isn't an action game, than it isn't anything more than LucasArt's first adventure game in which you can die! (you remember what playing King's Quest was like don't you?) We don't want an Indy deathmatch, but without an effective combat mechanism, Indy will have no replay value. Replay value!, the curse of the adventure gamer. I thought The Dig was brilliant, but even had it been SVGA I don't think I would play it again today.
Man! I like to type!