Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you command the whole operation.
Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product will prove it wrong.
>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >command the whole operation.
>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >will prove it wrong.
I did play a couple of rounds of the demo, and pretty much decided I
won't be buying it, but then again I wasn't a big fan of the original,
so I figured my opinion is probably not worth a lot in this case; I'm
pretty sure this game is aimed at fans of the earlier games and has no
delusions of luring new players into the series.
Even if I was interested in the whole UFOs and aliens theme, a turn
based strategy game like this is probably not going to get much
attention from action gamers, at least not the way similar games did
in the mid 90s.
>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >command the whole operation.
Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >will prove it wrong.
I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
Not making that mistake again.
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>command the whole operation.
>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>will prove it wrong.
>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>Not making that mistake again.
>Xocyll
Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
> I did play a couple of rounds of the demo, and pretty much decided I
> won't be buying it, but then again I wasn't a big fan of the original,
> so I figured my opinion is probably not worth a lot in this case; I'm
> pretty sure this game is aimed at fans of the earlier games and has no
> delusions of luring new players into the series.
Okay, managed to download the demo and complete it.
I've played the first one a lot, this one seems to stray from the formula a lot. Soldier stats limited to four numbers, soldiers themselves limited to two actions per turn and yeah, team of four soldiers is kinda tiny too. Plus missions in the demo are like go from A to B and kill all the aliens inbetween. Fans of the earlier games may be a bit grumpy here.
> Even if I was interested in the whole UFOs and aliens theme, a turn
> based strategy game like this is probably not going to get much
> attention from action gamers, at least not the way similar games did
> in the mid 90s.
Yeah, it isn't a shooter - but it's fairly fast paced turn-based game, and it's flashy, with lots of cinematic bits.
Well if it turns out to be a stinker there's always Xenonauts, which is almost done - looks pretty cool and seems to be faithful to the original mechanics.
>>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>>command the whole operation.
>>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>>will prove it wrong.
>>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>>Not making that mistake again.
>>Xocyll
>Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
>attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
>gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
>games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
>larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
I would not be surprised in the slightest.
It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]
Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".
Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
best thing on TV"?
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
>>>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>>>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>>>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>>>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>>>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>>>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>>>command the whole operation.
>>>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>>>will prove it wrong.
>>>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>>>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>>>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>>>Not making that mistake again.
>>>Xocyll
>>Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
>>attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
>>gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
>>games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
>>larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
>I would not be surprised in the slightest.
>It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
>and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
>they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
>replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
>[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
>in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]
>Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
>just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
>"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".
>Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
>Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
>best thing on TV"?
Could be, at least with regard to games. PC gamers that have been
around since the beginning adopted the hobby at a time when an input
device like the mouse, if working at all, was not something to be
taken for granted. Just getting a game running sometimes was a
victory in itself and added to the fun. Thus, old school gamers
probably are fewer and farther between, but more likely to be
techincally/mechanically inclined than the newer crop of console-fed
gamers.
The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay. I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
between talent and mainstream popularity. I don't see that as much
with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
by the gameplay.
<bruno...@removethispart.o2.pl> wrote:
>W dniu 2012-09-26 14:29, Rin Stowleigh pisze:
>> I did play a couple of rounds of the demo, and pretty much decided I
>> won't be buying it, but then again I wasn't a big fan of the original,
>> so I figured my opinion is probably not worth a lot in this case; I'm
>> pretty sure this game is aimed at fans of the earlier games and has no
>> delusions of luring new players into the series.
>Okay, managed to download the demo and complete it.
>I've played the first one a lot, this one seems to stray from the >formula a lot. Soldier stats limited to four numbers, soldiers >themselves limited to two actions per turn and yeah, team of four >soldiers is kinda tiny too. Plus missions in the demo are like go from A >to B and kill all the aliens inbetween. Fans of the earlier games may be >a bit grumpy here.
>> Even if I was interested in the whole UFOs and aliens theme, a turn
>> based strategy game like this is probably not going to get much
>> attention from action gamers, at least not the way similar games did
>> in the mid 90s.
>Yeah, it isn't a shooter - but it's fairly fast paced turn-based game, >and it's flashy, with lots of cinematic bits.
>Well if it turns out to be a stinker there's always Xenonauts, which is >almost done - looks pretty cool and seems to be faithful to the original >mechanics.
I think the cinematic enactments of events are kind of a novelty
that's prone to wear off. I'm not saying it doesn't add something to
a turn based game to watch the move play out in 3D, I just see it as
something that adds a perception of action to a game which is not an
action game at all. It's kind of like comparing Civ5 to the original
Civilization.. Do the flashy graphics and animation really make the
game more fun? Not really, IMO. Don't get me wrong, it's the right
thing to do given the state of graphic technology available to these
games today, I just think that the nifty animations will become
tiresome to a player after the first few hours of gameplay, such that
they'd rather just tap out of them using ESC or whatever and get on
with the game.
>>>>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>>>>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>>>>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>>>>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>>>>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>>>>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>>>>command the whole operation.
>>>>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>>>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>>>>will prove it wrong.
>>>>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>>>>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>>>>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>>>>Not making that mistake again.
>>>>Xocyll
>>>Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
>>>attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
>>>gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
>>>games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
>>>larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
>>I would not be surprised in the slightest.
>>It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
>>and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
>>they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
>>replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
>>[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
>>in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]
>>Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
>>just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
>>"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".
>>Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
>>Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
>>best thing on TV"?
>Could be, at least with regard to games. PC gamers that have been
>around since the beginning adopted the hobby at a time when an input
>device like the mouse, if working at all, was not something to be
>taken for granted. Just getting a game running sometimes was a
>victory in itself and added to the fun. Thus, old school gamers
>probably are fewer and farther between, but more likely to be
>techincally/mechanically inclined than the newer crop of console-fed
>gamers.
I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
running it left me with _less_ memory available.
I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
>thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay. >I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
>seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
>there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
>frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
>fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
>between talent and mainstream popularity.
Yeah, young doesn't have to mean clueless or tasteless (or talentless
when it comes to making music.)
One of my current favorite bands is Cherri Bomb - an all-girl band, the
youngest member of whom just started high school, and I think the eldest
may have a driver's license by now. These girls have more talent than a
hundred Britneys or Justins but you never hear them on the radio, since
they play rock, not teen oriented pop. I don't do Much Music/MTV
anymore since they don't really play music anymore.
Old Fogy Voice on: Why I remember when Music Video stations actually
played Music Videos all day long. No game shows, no reality shows, no
other absurd crap, just music.
>I don't see that as much
>with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
>my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
>not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
>it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
>something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
>by the gameplay.
Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
with games that were so much more.
DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
gun" shooter.
It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
memories though.
How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
invoke.
It's why, I think, a lot of the indy remakes fail - they have all the
limited graphics and limited gameplay of the original, but none of the
associated memories.
So that gauntlet homage is quite like the original, but different enough
that those memories of playing Gauntlet in the arcade with friends just
don't get linked and the game is just, meh.
Speaking of memories and games - I played Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
all the time when playing Ultima Underworld.
I can't ever hear any song on that album without also instantly
remembering bits of the game. Instant mental picture.
Inextricably linked.
Funny how memory works.
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:40:35 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:
>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
Memmaker in DOS 6.
Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
more. :-P
>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>with games that were so much more.
>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>gun" shooter.
>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>memories though.
>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>invoke.
Not so sure about these comments... Every phone, pad and console
includes successful apps to play old games, and its not a new thing.
Midway and Atari packages keep showing back up with each new
generation of hardware. It can't be the same crew of old birds buying
them over and over.
I think there is an appeal to the simplicity of the core older games,
Centipede, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Tempest, Roboton... They are
initially simple, yet diverse and usually deeper than initially meets
the eye.
Atari 2600 stuff is a tougher sell than the faithful arcade ports and
consoles from the NES era on, but I think there are still plenty of
younger people that embrace it.
>>>>>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>>>>>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>>>>>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>>>>>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>>>>>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>>>>>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>>>>>command the whole operation.
>>>>>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>>>>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>>>>>will prove it wrong.
>>>>>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>>>>>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>>>>>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>>>>>Not making that mistake again.
>>>>>Xocyll
>>>>Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
>>>>attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
>>>>gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
>>>>games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
>>>>larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
>>>I would not be surprised in the slightest.
>>>It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
>>>and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
>>>they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
>>>replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
>>>[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
>>>in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]
>>>Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
>>>just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
>>>"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".
>>>Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
>>>Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
>>>best thing on TV"?
>>Could be, at least with regard to games. PC gamers that have been
>>around since the beginning adopted the hobby at a time when an input
>>device like the mouse, if working at all, was not something to be
>>taken for granted. Just getting a game running sometimes was a
>>victory in itself and added to the fun. Thus, old school gamers
>>probably are fewer and farther between, but more likely to be
>>techincally/mechanically inclined than the newer crop of console-fed
>>gamers.
>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
>>thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay. >>I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
>>seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
>>there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
>>frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
>>fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
>>between talent and mainstream popularity.
>Yeah, young doesn't have to mean clueless or tasteless (or talentless
>when it comes to making music.)
>One of my current favorite bands is Cherri Bomb - an all-girl band, the
>youngest member of whom just started high school, and I think the eldest
>may have a driver's license by now. These girls have more talent than a
>hundred Britneys or Justins but you never hear them on the radio, since
>they play rock, not teen oriented pop. I don't do Much Music/MTV
>anymore since they don't really play music anymore.
>Old Fogy Voice on: Why I remember when Music Video stations actually
>played Music Videos all day long. No game shows, no reality shows, no
>other absurd crap, just music.
>>I don't see that as much
>>with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
>>my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
>>not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
>>it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
>>something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
>>by the gameplay.
>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>with games that were so much more.
>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>gun" shooter.
>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>memories though.
>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>invoke.
>It's why, I think, a lot of the indy remakes fail - they have all the
>limited graphics and limited gameplay of the original, but none of the
>associated memories.
>So that gauntlet homage is quite like the original, but different enough
>that those memories of playing Gauntlet in the arcade with friends just
>don't get linked and the game is just, meh.
>Speaking of memories and games - I played Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
>all the time when playing Ultima Underworld.
>I can't ever hear any song on that album without also instantly
>remembering bits of the game. Instant mental picture.
>Inextricably linked.
>Funny how memory works.
There was a time when I thought that the memories old games invoked
were the only thing that made them great. However, with the massive
amount of arcade ROMs available, I will occasionally stumble on some
obscure game I never played before, and instantly recognize what's
great about it. A lot of it lies in simplicity of design, and a
tighter focus on gameplay than "everything else".
In other words, those games were typically created by a single
developer or much smaller teams with a much smaller scope, which makes
it easier to quickly scrap some design element if its not working, and
try something else. When a large, multi-million dollar production is
underway, usually by the time same is realized, the investment in the
current path (and the number of people involved) make it too difficult
to just say "screw that, scrap it and start over".
Those games didn't have to worry about performance across varying
systems from different manufacturers. They had such limited resources
(memory and processing power), that when you're moving lo-fi sprites
around it really comes down to whether you have latency-free response
to the joystick or you don't. This was another fact that let them
focus on very well-honed experience.
And perhaps most importantly, these games were by-design intended to
draw the player into the game within the first thirty to sixty seconds
of play, and had motivation to want more. Thus, it made sense to make
replayability a top design goal, since ongoing quarter-munching was
the measure of success. Contrast that with today's games, where a
console game is usually judged by how many hours of gameplay it
provides before you've "finished" it. Good games were never truly
finishable -- perhaps that's what I like about multiplayer games.
Also, how many games these days draw the player in within the first
thirty to sixty seconds? You can't get past the marketing and
branding logos and crap in that amount of time. Hell, in the XCom
demo, it wants you to agonize through a good 20 minutes or so of
handholding tutorial before you have proven
...
>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>more. :-P
One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
stuff was bloated.
>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
well.
No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
>>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>>more. :-P
>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>stuff was bloated.
>>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
>The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
>things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
>your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
>When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
>it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
>well.
>No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.
The best part about jumpers was that every now and then you worked
without documentation, and it became like the old board game
Mastermind : "Let's see, I've tried these combinations and it wouldn't
work, so it must be......"
>>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>>with games that were so much more.
>>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>>gun" shooter.
>>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>>memories though.
>>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>>invoke.
>Not so sure about these comments... Every phone, pad and console
>includes successful apps to play old games, and its not a new thing.
>Midway and Atari packages keep showing back up with each new
>generation of hardware. It can't be the same crew of old birds buying
>them over and over.
You never know.
Arcade games are one thing - the old console games with their horrible
blocky graphics are another - and half of those were knock offs of
arcade games anyway.
>I think there is an appeal to the simplicity of the core older games,
>Centipede, Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Tempest, Roboton... They are
>initially simple, yet diverse and usually deeper than initially meets
>the eye.
>Atari 2600 stuff is a tougher sell than the faithful arcade ports and
>consoles from the NES era on, but I think there are still plenty of
>younger people that embrace it.
I have my doubts but it probably wouldn't look too bad displayed on a 2"
by 3" phone screen. and if it's cheap or free...
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:58:17 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:
>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>stuff was bloated.
Holy crap Xocyll I remember doing *exactly* that to get Ultima 7
running. IIRC, that smaller mouse driver was enough to get that damn
game going so I know you aren't kidding about Microsoft bloat!
>>>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>>>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>>>more. :-P
>>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>>stuff was bloated.
>>>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>>>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>>>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
>>The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
>>things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
>>your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
>>When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
>>it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
>>well.
>>No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.
>The best part about jumpers was that every now and then you worked
>without documentation, and it became like the old board game
>Mastermind : "Let's see, I've tried these combinations and it wouldn't
>work, so it must be......"
Heh, I never worked without documentation.
I build my own computers and I bought individual parts not packages
specifically so I got documentation for each and every part.
Most PC stuff was pretty good about labeling on the parts themselves
too, although I did have to pull some parts to see the labels when
working on other systems.
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
>>>>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>>>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>>>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>>>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>>>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>>>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>>>>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>>>>more. :-P
>>>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>>>stuff was bloated.
>>>>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>>>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>>>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>>>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>>>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>>>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>>>>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>>>>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
>>>The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
>>>things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
>>>your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
>>>When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
>>>it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
>>>well.
>>>No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.
>>The best part about jumpers was that every now and then you worked
>>without documentation, and it became like the old board game
>>Mastermind : "Let's see, I've tried these combinations and it wouldn't
>>work, so it must be......"
>Heh, I never worked without documentation.
>I build my own computers and I bought individual parts not packages
>specifically so I got documentation for each and every part.
>Most PC stuff was pretty good about labeling on the parts themselves
>too, although I did have to pull some parts to see the labels when
>working on other systems.
Ah, I see you've never had the joy of either working on a technically
challenged friend's PC, or going to a discount parts store in a pinch
to buy a drive where all you got for the money was a drive handed to
you in a static-free sleeve, with no accompanying documents.
>>>>>>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>>>>>>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>>>>>>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>>>>>>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>>>>>>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>>>>>>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>>>>>>command the whole operation.
>>>>>>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>>>>>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>>>>>>will prove it wrong.
>>>>>>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>>>>>>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>>>>>>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>>>>>>Not making that mistake again.
>>>>>>Xocyll
>>>>>Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
>>>>>attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
>>>>>gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
>>>>>games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
>>>>>larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
>>>>I would not be surprised in the slightest.
>>>>It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
>>>>and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
>>>>they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
>>>>replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
>>>>[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
>>>>in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]
>>>>Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
>>>>just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
>>>>"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".
>>>>Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
>>>>Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
>>>>best thing on TV"?
>>>Could be, at least with regard to games. PC gamers that have been
>>>around since the beginning adopted the hobby at a time when an input
>>>device like the mouse, if working at all, was not something to be
>>>taken for granted. Just getting a game running sometimes was a
>>>victory in itself and added to the fun. Thus, old school gamers
>>>probably are fewer and farther between, but more likely to be
>>>techincally/mechanically inclined than the newer crop of console-fed
>>>gamers.
>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>>The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
>>>thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay. >>>I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
>>>seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
>>>there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
>>>frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
>>>fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
>>>between talent and mainstream popularity.
>>Yeah, young doesn't have to mean clueless or tasteless (or talentless
>>when it comes to making music.)
>>One of my current favorite bands is Cherri Bomb - an all-girl band, the
>>youngest member of whom just started high school, and I think the eldest
>>may have a driver's license by now. These girls have more talent than a
>>hundred Britneys or Justins but you never hear them on the radio, since
>>they play rock, not teen oriented pop. I don't do Much Music/MTV
>>anymore since they don't really play music anymore.
>>Old Fogy Voice on: Why I remember when Music Video stations actually
>>played Music Videos all day long. No game shows, no reality shows, no
>>other absurd crap, just music.
>>>I don't see that as much
>>>with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
>>>my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
>>>not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
>>>it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
>>>something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
>>>by the gameplay.
>>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>>with games that were so much more.
>>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>>gun" shooter.
>>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>>memories though.
>>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>>invoke.
>>It's why, I think, a lot of the indy remakes fail - they have all the
>>limited graphics and limited gameplay of the original, but none of the
>>associated memories.
>>So that gauntlet homage is quite like the original, but different enough
>>that those memories of playing Gauntlet in the arcade with friends just
>>don't get linked and the game is just, meh.
>>Speaking of memories and games - I played Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
>>all the time when playing Ultima Underworld.
>>I can't ever hear any song on that album without also instantly
>>remembering bits of the game. Instant mental picture.
>>Inextricably linked.
>>Funny how memory works.
>There was a time when I thought that the memories old games invoked
>were the only thing that made them great. However, with the massive
>amount of arcade ROMs available, I will occasionally stumble on some
>obscure game I never played before, and instantly recognize what's
>great about it. A lot of it lies in simplicity of design, and a
>tighter focus on gameplay than "everything else".
Well within the hardware limitations of the time they had to be simple
in design and execution - complexity just wasn't possible in a lot of
cases.
>In other words, those games were typically created by a single
>developer or much smaller teams with a much smaller scope, which makes
>it easier to quickly scrap some design element if its not working, and
>try something else. When a large, multi-million dollar production is
>underway, usually by the time same is realized, the investment in the
>current path (and the number of people involved) make it too difficult
>to just say "screw that, scrap it and start over".
>Those games didn't have to worry about performance across varying
>systems from different manufacturers. They had such limited resources
>(memory and processing power), that when you're moving lo-fi sprites
>around it really comes down to whether you have latency-free response
>to the joystick or you don't. This was another fact that let them
>focus on very well-honed experience.
>And perhaps most importantly, these games were by-design intended to
>draw the player into the game within the first thirty to sixty seconds
>of play, and had motivation to want more. Thus, it made sense to make
>replayability a top design goal, since ongoing quarter-munching was
>the measure of success. Contrast that with today's games, where a
>console game is usually
>>>>>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>>>>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>>>>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>>>>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>>>>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>>>>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>>>>>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>>>>>more. :-P
>>>>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>>>>stuff was bloated.
>>>>>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>>>>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>>>>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>>>>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>>>>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>>>>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>>>>>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>>>>>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
>>>>The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
>>>>things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
>>>>your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
>>>>When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
>>>>it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
>>>>well.
>>>>No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.
>>>The best part about jumpers was that every now and then you worked
>>>without documentation, and it became like the old board game
>>>Mastermind : "Let's see, I've tried these combinations and it wouldn't
>>>work, so it must be......"
>>Heh, I never worked without documentation.
>>I build my own computers and I bought individual parts not packages
>>specifically so I got documentation for each and every part.
>>Most PC stuff was pretty good about labeling on the parts themselves
>>too, although I did have to pull some parts to see the labels when
>>working on other systems.
>Ah, I see you've never had the joy of either working on a technically
>challenged friend's PC, or going to a discount parts store in a pinch
>to buy a drive where all you got for the money was a drive handed to
>you in a static-free sleeve, with no accompanying documents.
No I did mention that in the last paragraph - having to pull out parts
to see the on-part labels. Every HD/Floppy/CD/DVD drive I've ever
bought had the jumper settings printed right on the drive - and most of
those were bought OEM and came with nothing more than a driver disk (if
that.)
Documentation printed right on the device is still documentation - you
just generally can't read it while the device is in use.
Of course that's buying from an actual computer parts store not a
"discount parts store" so maybe your experience is different in that
regard. None of my parts "fell off the back of the truck" as the saying
goes or were illegally imported and have the on-part labels in another
language since they were meant for another country.
Hell these days, as long as you have internet access and a part number
you can find documentation of one form or another.
Xocyll
-- I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
>>>>>>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>>>>>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>>>>>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>>>>>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>>>>>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>>>>>Memmaker in DOS 6.
>>>>>>Then you were better then me, because Memmaker always left me with
>>>>>>more. :-P
>>>>>One of the main things was using a non-MS mouse driver - even then MS
>>>>>stuff was bloated.
>>>>>>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>>>>>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>>>>>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>>>>>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>>>>>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>>>>>I was never like this. I will never miss playing with jumpers, DIP
>>>>>>switches, configuring my memory settings or any of the other things I
>>>>>>did back in the DOS days. Good bye and good riddance.
>>>>>The reason I liked dip switches and such was that you only had to set
>>>>>things up once. When the only way to make a setting change is physical,
>>>>>your settings _can't_ change without you changing them.
>>>>>When the OS is setting things up it can change those settings any time
>>>>>it wants to - and there is the possibility of malware doing that as
>>>>>well.
>>>>>No malware in the world can change a jumper or dip switch.
>>>>The best part about jumpers was that every now and then you worked
>>>>without documentation, and it became like the old board game
>>>>Mastermind : "Let's see, I've tried these combinations and it wouldn't
>>>>work, so it must be......"
>>>Heh, I never worked without documentation.
>>>I build my own computers and I bought individual parts not packages
>>>specifically so I got documentation for each and every part.
>>>Most PC stuff was pretty good about labeling on the parts themselves
>>>too, although I did have to pull some parts to see the labels when
>>>working on other systems.
>>Ah, I see you've never had the joy of either working on a technically
>>challenged friend's PC, or going to a discount parts store in a pinch
>>to buy a drive where all you got for the money was a drive handed to
>>you in a static-free sleeve, with no accompanying documents.
>No I did mention that in the last paragraph - having to pull out parts
>to see the on-part labels. > Every HD/Floppy/CD/DVD drive I've ever
>bought had the jumper settings printed right on the drive - and most of
>those were bought OEM and came with nothing more than a driver disk (if
>that.)
>Documentation printed right on the device is still documentation - you
>just generally can't read it while the device is in use.
Between the mid-late 80's and early 90's, I installed countless drives
and miscellaneous hardware (SCSI, sound, scanner, musical hardware
related cards) that had no jumper setting labeling available on the
parts themselves or the mobo. Some of them did, but a good percentage
of the time they did not.
>Of course that's buying from an actual computer parts store not a
>"discount parts store" so maybe your experience is different in that
>regard.
That typically makes a big difference. For example if you walk into a
big box retailer and buy a Seagate drive off the shelf, it's
guaranteed to have a diagram / manual.
It's just that back then, we didn't have big box computer parts stores
in the USA at least. Assuming you were the one purchasing for your
own system (not always the case in the scenarios I described above,
where the purchasing might have already taken place and documentation
discarded long before I got my hands on it), you basically had these
choices:
1. Order from a mail order place listed in Computer Shopper or other
mag at a decent price (too slow if you needed the part right then)
2. Walk into a "bigname" retailer (somewhere like Computerland,
Radioshack, or some place in a shopping mall) and pay way more than
you should.
3. Wait for a computer show to come to the area (probably every
weekend if you lived in a big city)
4. Go to one of the smaller local discount specialty stores (folks
that didn't live smaller towns probably did not even have these back
then) that offered prices that were somewhat competitive with mail
order (maybe a little higher). These places often bought in bulk, so
for example if you bought a hard drive, and wanted the best gear for
the best price, you were probably limited to an OEM part that was
designed for system builders rather than John Q. Public to purchase
from a retail shelf.
>None of my parts "fell off the back of the truck" as the saying
>goes or were illegally imported and have the on-part labels in another
>language since they were meant for another country.
See OEM bulk scenario above. While I was known to occasionally use
that cliche in order to get a few bucks off (i.e. "hey this sleeve has
a small scratch, can I at least get ten bucks off in case it fell off
a truck?"), the truth was there was nothing wrong with the parts, they
simply came in a box of a few dozen drives, likely with one set of
documentation for the whole lot, because the assumption was that they
would typically go to a VAR / retail system builder who was looking
for the lowest price possible, and didn't need a color-printed box and
manual for each drive.
>Hell these days, as long as you have internet access and a part number
>you can find documentation of one form or another.
Yes, access to the web and being able to get at old documentation via
.pdf direct from the manufacturer or whatever really changed things
alot. Back then, when you had something requiring a diagram, your
best bet was to scour BBS systems with your dial up modem (there was
no search engine that aggregated across all of them), or maybe
Compuserve or Prodigy if those were your thing.
I remember one time modifying a mobile police scanner to pick up
locked out frequency ranges using an ASCII diagram I stumbled across
on a BBS by chance, so that it would pick up cell phone conversations
(tricky board soldering involved in that case). :) It worked a champ
when I was done though, and I ended up selling that scanner for about
2x what I paid for it.
>>>>>>>>Official previews are favourable - but browsing the comments of people >>>>>>>>that did play the demo (I didn't manage to download it yet) worries me a >>>>>>>>bit. Discussions at RockPaperShotgun paint the picture of a game that's >>>>>>>>ADHD version of turn-based strategy - with tiny squads (max 6 dudes >>>>>>>>sound rather weak), simplified stats and many decisions removed from >>>>>>>>your hands. Far cry from the original X-Com where you really feel you >>>>>>>>command the whole operation.
>>>>>>>Oh so it's the Diablo3 of X-Com games is it?
>>>>>>>>Even if it's only a demo it doesn't bode well. Hope the final product >>>>>>>>will prove it wrong.
>>>>>>>I'll wait for the final product to be released and properly reviewed
>>>>>>>before I make a decision. Should have done that with D3, but I'd just
>>>>>>>assumed it would be the way the previous games were.
>>>>>>>Not making that mistake again.
>>>>>>>Xocyll
>>>>>>Part of the issue driving some of the trends we're seeing might be
>>>>>>attempts to appeal to the "modern gamer" (folks whose initiation to
>>>>>>gaming was via a console or casual games like facebook or tablet/phone
>>>>>>games). I think subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to cash in on that
>>>>>>larger audience are leaving old school gamers disappointed.
>>>>>I would not be surprised in the slightest.
>>>>>It's similar to what the TV/movie people keep doing - remake a classic
>>>>>and "update" it. 99.9% of the time it turns out to be utter crap since
>>>>>they lost what made the original a classic in the first place while
>>>>>replacing it with dreck and pop culture references.
>>>>>[Is there any TV/movie producer that even understands what people liked
>>>>>in the old movies and TV shows? Sure doesn't seem like it.]
>>>>>Sometimes I wonder if the remakers ever even saw/played the originals or
>>>>>just heard about them and/or read a review or something before
>>>>>"reinterpreting" it for a "modern audience".
>>>>>Is "modern audience" a code phrase for "people who think Justin Bieber,
>>>>>Britney Spears et all are creative geniuses" and "Reality Shows are the
>>>>>best thing on TV"?
>>>>Could be, at least with regard to games. PC gamers that have been
>>>>around since the beginning adopted the hobby at a time when an input
>>>>device like the mouse, if working at all, was not something to be
>>>>taken for granted. Just getting a game running sometimes was a
>>>>victory in itself and added to the fun. Thus, old school gamers
>>>>probably are fewer and farther between, but more likely to be
>>>>techincally/mechanically inclined than the newer crop of console-fed
>>>>gamers.
>>>I don't think I ever had much trouble getting a game to run - although
>>>some of the buggier ones wouldn't necessarily _stay_ running.
>>>The whole "free up enough low memory" was never a problem for me - in
>>>fact when MS released their automated tool (in dos 5 or 6 I think,)
>>>running it left me with _less_ memory available.
>>>I get your point though - I miss the days of dip switches and manual
>>>settings - you could set up the computer _exactly_ the way you wanted
>>>instead of letting MS "wizards" and such attempt to do it for you (with
>>>results like that of the memory tool in dos - great for those who can't
>>>do it themselves, inferior to those who can.)
>>>>The "modern audience" (or maybe I should say mainstream audience)
>>>>thinks gaming is more about cut scenes and story lines than gameplay. >>>>I don't know why gaming is like this, while other forms of media & art
>>>>seem to transcend the phenomenon. Taking music for example -- while
>>>>there are no doubt Justin Bieber and Britney Spears followers, I
>>>>frequently run into folks half my age (or even younger) that do in
>>>>fact have a good ear for good music, and can recognize the difference
>>>>between talent and mainstream popularity.
>>>Yeah, young doesn't have to mean clueless or tasteless (or talentless
>>>when it comes to making music.)
>>>One of my current favorite bands is Cherri Bomb - an all-girl band, the
>>>youngest member of whom just started high school, and I think the eldest
>>>may have a driver's license by now. These girls have more talent than a
>>>hundred Britneys or Justins but you never hear them on the radio, since
>>>they play rock, not teen oriented pop. I don't do Much Music/MTV
>>>anymore since they don't really play music anymore.
>>>Old Fogy Voice on: Why I remember when Music Video stations actually
>>>played Music Videos all day long. No game shows, no reality shows, no
>>>other absurd crap, just music.
>>>>I don't see that as much
>>>>with PC gamers half my age, and I do meet quite a few of them between
>>>>my visits to teamspeak and vent servers run by old clanmates. It's
>>>>not to say that none of them know a good modern game when they see it,
>>>>it's just that it is almost impossible for most of them to load up
>>>>something like M.U.L.E. or some old arcade games in MAME and be wow'ed
>>>>by the gameplay.
>>>Well a lot of the old games wee liked we liked because of when they came
>>>out. It's old, slow, low res now, but state of the art then.
>>>It's hard to like the very old and very limited stuff when you grew up
>>>with games that were so much more.
>>>DOOM or Wolfenstein, while impressive in their day, aren't so much once
>>>you've played Half-Life or any other more modern "does more than run and
>>>gun" shooter.
>>>It's kind of impossible to explain to the PS3/X-Box 360 generation, the
>>>appeal of the early, blocky Atari console games.
>>>We play those and we have memories. Yeah the game kinda sucks, but the
>>>memories it invokes do not (usually.) The younger set don't have those
>>>memories though.
>>>How can they get excited about those old games, when their PHONE is more
>>>powerful than the old consoles and has far more exciting games?
>>>Lets face it, half the attraction for us is the memories those old games
>>>invoke.
>>>It's why, I think, a lot of the indy remakes fail - they have all the
>>>limited graphics and limited gameplay of the original, but none of the
>>>associated memories.
>>>So that gauntlet homage is quite like the original, but different enough
>>>that those memories of playing Gauntlet in the arcade with friends just
>>>don't get linked and the game is just, meh.
>>>Speaking of memories and games - I played Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger
>>>all the time when playing Ultima Underworld.
>>>I can't ever hear any song on that album without also instantly
>>>remembering bits of the game. Instant mental picture.
>>>Inextricably linked.
>>>Funny how memory works.
>>There was a time when I thought that the memories old games invoked
>>were the only thing that made them great. However, with the massive
>>amount of arcade ROMs available, I will occasionally stumble on some
>>obscure game I never played before, and instantly recognize what's
>>great about it. A lot of it lies in simplicity of design, and a
>>tighter focus on gameplay than "everything else".
>Well within the hardware limitations of the time they had to be simple
>in design and execution - complexity just wasn't possible in a lot of
>cases.
>>In other words, those games were typically created by a single
>>developer or much smaller teams with a much smaller scope, which makes
>>it easier to quickly scrap some design element if its not working, and
>>try something else. When a large, multi-million dollar production is
>>underway, usually by the time same is realized, the investment in the
>>current path (and the number of people involved) make it too difficult
>>to just say "screw that, scrap it and start over".
>>Those games didn't have to worry about performance across varying
>>systems from different manufacturers. They had such limited resources
>>(memory and processing power), that when you're moving lo-fi sprites
>>around it really comes down to whether you have latency-free response
>>to the joystick or you don't. This was another fact that let them
>>focus on very well-honed experience.
>>And perhaps most importantly, these games were by-design intended to
>>draw the player into the game within the first
