Realms of the Haunting??
LDames1173
Craig Hulett
csipg.action for much lively discussion as to it's worthiness. <g>
"LDames1173" <ldame...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010225211556...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
infoghost
there is quite a bit of exploring to do.
ROTS is my favorite game of all time, and I am really enjoying
undying.
ig
On 26 Feb 2001 02:15:56 GMT, ldame...@aol.com (LDames1173) wrote:
>Are there any games out there similar to ROTH???
J. Trimble
very similar atmosphere. A great game! I also liked ROTH a lot.
Jarno Kaarinen
>Ugggh.
>
>Please don't put ROTS and Lands of lore 3 on the same line, please.
Why not? It isn't like LOL3 was that bad, really...
infoghost
the quality of ROTH.
iG
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:46:36 GMT, Jarno Kaarinen <ja...@remotel.com>
wrote:
Revok
"infoghost" <info...@frail9.com> wrote in message
news:p93q9tcedbb54llbt...@4ax.com...
> If you liked it, more power to you. I didn't, and it is nowhere near
> the quality of ROTH.
While I am not disputing that - 3D action/adventure games are pretty thin on
the ground on the PC. Lands of Lore had almost identical gameplay to ROTH -
what it didn't of course have is the awesome atmosphere or well thought out
back story and acting.
basically - if you are desperate for another ROTH type game then LOL3 is
ROTH in a fantasy setting (with levels set in a haunted house and a C&C
base).
infoghost
perspective and a little adventure thrown in is like ROTH.
LOL3 did not have any of the class ROTH had. There levels were not as
well thought out, the gameplay was not as refined.
If you are looking for the next ROTH, Clive Barkers undying is it. And
even that's not as good as ROTH.
iG
Robert Norton
I use Netscape or Opera, and the site said it wouldn't work with either of my
browsers. It's too bad that there is nobody at that site who knows how to make a
standards-based web site that all browser users can enjoy. Maybe someday, eh?
don
Robert Norton wrote:
>
> infoghost wrote:
>
> > www.frail9.com
>
> I use Netscape or Opera, and the site said it wouldn't work with either of > my browsers.
It works fine for me with Netscape 4.75.
Jarno Kaarinen
>"infoghost" <info...@frail9.com> wrote in message
>news:p93q9tcedbb54llbt...@4ax.com...
>> If you liked it, more power to you. I didn't, and it is nowhere near
>> the quality of ROTH.
>
>While I am not disputing that - 3D action/adventure games are pretty thin on
>the ground on the PC. Lands of Lore had almost identical gameplay to ROTH -
>what it didn't of course have is the awesome atmosphere or well thought out
>back story and acting.
I thought the Haunted House level in LOL3 easily just as spooky and
well-done as the mansion in ROTH.
As for story, hmmm hard to say because they were so different. I
didn't find the story in ROTH that spectacular though, but it was
pretty detailed in both ROTH and LOL3. After all, it did come as a
surprise to me who was the baddie behind LOL3. And it also helped LOL3
had nice story continuation from both LOL1 and LOL2, having lots of
references to the earlier games.
Jarno Kaarinen
>If you liked it, more power to you. I didn't, and it is nowhere near
>the quality of ROTH.
I wasn't quite as enthralled by ROTH as you obviously were. It was
very good and spooky in the beginning, but lost its atmosphere for the
most part after you were mainly just shooting down monsters, among
them many silly looking monsters like those "James Bonds". And the
later parts of the game were not as spooky anyway. Wasn't it also this
game which had the very irritating level "hunt down the whole level
for 16 brains and feed them into a machine"?
LOL3 was a rather mediocre (but IMHO not quite poor) game, and ROTH
wasn't that spectacular either after all.
infoghost
I'd put lol3 on my worst of that year's releases list.
Apparently I am not alone, looking back at some of the reviews.
I will give you that ROTH was much better in the beginning than
towards the end.
ig
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:27:10 GMT, Jarno Kaarinen <ja...@remotel.com>
wrote:
>infoghost <info...@frail9.com> wrote:
Jarno Kaarinen
>You certainly are entitled to your opinion.
>
>I'd put lol3 on my worst of that year's releases list.
It would always help if you could explain why. But who cares,
everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Robert Norton
> Robert Norton wrote:
> >
> > I use Netscape or Opera, and the site said it wouldn't work with either of my browsers.
>
> It works fine for me with Netscape 4.75.
I didn't say the site didn't work with my browsers, for all I know it might work. It just says
"...Internet Explorer 4.0 or above. Other browsers may not display properly." Since I can't
really tell what I'm not seeing or hearing at the site, there's not much point. There are web
standards, why would anybody write a web site that turns people away?
don
Robert Norton wrote:
> I didn't say the site didn't work with my browsers, for all I know it might work. It just says
> "...Internet Explorer 4.0 or above. Other browsers may not display properly." Since I can't
> really tell what I'm not seeing or hearing at the site, there's not much point. There are web
> standards, why would anybody write a web site that turns people away?
Oh, I see what you're saying. Well, the site looks exactly the same
with IE or Netscape, so I assume he's just a Microsoft fanboy who's
promoting their browser. I wonder how many people are put off by such
notices. I've always just ignored them.
I guess my biggest pet peeve is when sites require plug-ins which I
don't have and don't care to download just to view one site. I often
wonder why companies use Shockwave on their web sites. It seems like
every other time I hit a site that uses it, I have to download a new
version to view it.
Robert Norton
> I guess my biggest pet peeve is when sites require plug-ins which I
> don't have and don't care to download just to view one site. I often
> wonder why companies use Shockwave on their web sites. It seems like
> every other time I hit a site that uses it, I have to download a new
> version to view it.
<rant> The one I hate most is the "comet cursor" I think. I've heard it is spyware, just to top it
off. I also don't like sites that require special fonts to view them. </rant> I don't mind Flash
though.
don
Robert Norton wrote:
> <rant> The one I hate most is the "comet cursor" I think. I've heard it is spyware, just to top it
> off. I also don't like sites that require special fonts to view them. </rant> I don't mind Flash
> though.
I don't know what a comet cursor is, so I probably haven't run across it
yet. My problem with the Shockwave sites comes mainly at work where I
have a 486 which connects at about 26 K. All I want to do is look at a
company's site for ordering information, an address, or a phone number,
and once it starts loading the plug-in, my computer is absolutely
useless for at least 5 minutes.
It wouldn't be so bad if it just tied up my browser, but I can't even
work on anything else until it's finished loading. Some Java scripts do
the same thing to my computer. I wouldn't complain if I were visiting a
multimedia company's site and they were showing off their programming
skills, but when I want to check the price of a wrench at Acme Tools, I
don't expect a bunch of fancy animated graphics.
Jenny100
And woe betide you if you should encounter one of those fancy
pages that automatically updates a lot of fancy animations and
timing devices. The poor little 486 will get further and further behind
trying to process and redraw the page and will eventually freeze solid.
A couple of years ago I had no trouble browsing the web with
a 486. But now I have to turn off nearly all options in order to
avoid a freeze. The processor speed is more limiting than the
28K modem. Fortunately it's not my only computer. But even
with a 56K modem it's a pain in the butt to have to wait for
all the fancy applications to load just to find out one tiny bit
of information like an address.
Jason Travis
> a 486. But now I have to turn off nearly all options in order to
> avoid a freeze. The processor speed is more limiting than the
> 28K modem. Fortunately it's not my only computer. But even
> with a 56K modem it's a pain in the butt to have to wait for
> all the fancy applications to load just to find out one tiny bit
> of information like an address.
Companies are making palmtop versions of their websites
with no graphics and "just the facts"...would be neat if they
could allow you to log in there with a desktop browser.
Robert Norton
> A couple of years ago I had no trouble browsing the web with
> a 486. But now I have to turn off nearly all options in order to
> avoid a freeze. The processor speed is more limiting than the
> 28K modem. Fortunately it's not my only computer. But even
> with a 56K modem it's a pain in the butt to have to wait for
> all the fancy applications to load just to find out one tiny bit
> of information like an address.
Jenny, give Opera a try! It is amazing how well it runs on really old machines,
even on tough web pages. It is lean and efficient, not with the "bloat" of
Netscape or <shudder> IE.
www.opera.com
Jenny100
news:3aa2fd5f$0$46005$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Next time my newer computer is indisposed and I have to use the
486 to browse the web, I'll give it a shot.