How badly has the show dated for *you*?
Titan
I don't watch the show very often. But I watched it again at the
weekend, and I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated
since 1967, though, but rather *since I last saw it*.
For its time, The Prisoner was often ground-breaking. For one thing, it
was fast cut, pre-empting the trends we've seen over the last few years.
Don't get me wrong: it's still a stunning programme - but... it just
seemed to have *slowed down*. Compared to today's more conservative TV,
or *anything* over ten years ago, it is still fast-paced... and it still
doesn't drag - but it definately seems to have slowed down in the
intervening three or so years since I last watched!
Have you guys re-watched it, after a break of not seeing the show, to be
shocked at how *slow* it feels - relative to its former pace?
If it's just me, it can't be biological - I am slowing down with age! It
must surely be due to pop culture getting faster in the last few years.
If so, it's ironic that this once cutting-edge show has been overtaken
by everyday TV. But it's also testament to The Prisoner that it
maintained its lead for so long!
Andrew
Graeme
I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated since 1967, though,
but rather *since I last saw it*.
>>
The only part of the show that's dated is the ending of The General. But even
when it was new it wasn't very good, and would have played better on Star Trek
than on The Prisoner.
>>Have you guys re-watched it, after a break of not seeing the show, to be
shocked at how *slow* it feels - relative to its former pace?
>>
Nope. Never noticed that. Are you taking your familiarity with it into
account? There's certainly no element of surprise for you, but there would be
if you saw it for the first time today. That's not a question of the show
being dated, but just of it being personally familiar to you.
redcat
"Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17e9994d9...@news.ntlworld.com...
> OK, deliberately controversial thread title.
>
> I don't watch the show very often. But I watched it again at the
> weekend, and I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated
> since 1967, though, but rather *since I last saw it*.
Hmmm, I understand what you're asking. But I'm not sure what to say! OK, let
me say this: everytime I see a Prisoner ep I think "why don't they make
shows like that anymore?" As long as I have this feeling I can rightly say
that it has not slowed down for me. It's still eye-candy. I still enjoy the
story line and the dialogue.
Perhaps before you were completely familiar with the episodes it felt faster
because you had to think a lot more about "hey, what's going on now?" But
now you know the relationships so you don't have to be guessing and
surmising. Now you can just watch the show.
All in all, it remains my favorite show of any time. I have no feeling of it
being slow or dated.
Looking forward to the other replies!
redcat
Titan
says...
>
> Perhaps before you were completely familiar with the episodes it felt faster
> because you had to think a lot more about "hey, what's going on now?" But
> now you know the relationships so you don't have to be guessing and
> surmising. Now you can just watch the show.
As I responsed to Graeme, I have seen the series many times. It's only
this last time that I noticed a "slowing".
>
> All in all, it remains my favorite show of any time. I have no feeling of it
> being slow or dated.
It's still my favourite show as well. However, maybe these days I get
more enjoyment from thinking about it (and reading about it), rather
than actually watching it!
Maybe I've "talked it up" to myself so much in the years since I've last
dusted off my tapes that the reality could only be a let-down.
Titan
graem...@aol.compost says...
> >>I don't watch the show very often. But I watched it again at the weekend, and
> I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated since 1967, though,
> but rather *since I last saw it*.
> >>
>
> The only part of the show that's dated is the ending of The General. But even
> when it was new it wasn't very good, and would have played better on Star Trek
> than on The Prisoner.
LOL! Definately. Kirk was always making sentient computers self-destruct
by making them consider a moral paradox. As someone said to me recently:
how would he like it?
>
>
> >>Have you guys re-watched it, after a break of not seeing the show, to be
> shocked at how *slow* it feels - relative to its former pace?
> >>
>
> Nope. Never noticed that. Are you taking your familiarity with it into
> account? There's certainly no element of surprise for you, but there would be
> if you saw it for the first time today. That's not a question of the show
> being dated, but just of it being personally familiar to you.
>
I have seen it many times. And it's only on this last viewing that I
noticed a slowing. So, either I've "outgrown" it - I have done so with
other genre shows (although The Prisoner is still a show I respect/enjoy
thinking about a lot) - or I've become accustomed to faster television.
A good example is the opening sequence. That is pretty fast cut. It
packs in a lot of information into a short space of time. But it doesn't
feel fast-paced to me now. Odd. Maybe it's just my state of mind. :-)
Frankymole
Huh? "Modern" = "fast" now does it?? What about the slick and witty scripting
and dialogue, the evocative and well-edited music, the important themes? All
sadly lacking in most of today's telepap.
--
Frank
Frankymole
> In article <alo4h7$g72$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, red...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> >
> > Perhaps before you were completely familiar with the episodes it felt faster
> > because you had to think a lot more about "hey, what's going on now?" But
> > now you know the relationships so you don't have to be guessing and
> > surmising. Now you can just watch the show.
>
> As I responsed to Graeme, I have seen the series many times. It's only
> this last time that I noticed a "slowing".
>
God, that Shakespeare's sloooow and dated - yet it still makes moneyspinning
movies 400 years on!
--
Frank
Frankymole
> In article <20020911143524...@mb-fh.aol.com>,
> graem...@aol.compost says...
> > >>I don't watch the show very often. But I watched it again at the weekend,
and
> > I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated since 1967,
though,
> > but rather *since I last saw it*.
> > >>
> >
> > The only part of the show that's dated is the ending of The General. But
even
> > when it was new it wasn't very good, and would have played better on Star
Trek
> > than on The Prisoner.
>
> LOL! Definately. Kirk was always making sentient computers self-destruct
> by making them consider a moral paradox. As someone said to me recently:
> how would he like it?
>
Not just moral paradoxes. Any paradox. He once immobilised a shipload of
androids by saying "the next sentence I say will be true. The last sentence I
said was false."
At least "W.H.Y.?. It's insoluble, for *man*... or machine" (my emphasis) has a
deeper subtext. (As in why do we always ask why? Why are we the inquisitive
ape?).
--
Frank
Steve Dix
the group.com> wrote:
>
>"Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.17e9b86a1...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> In article <20020911143524...@mb-fh.aol.com>,
>> graem...@aol.compost says...
>> > >>I don't watch the show very often. But I watched it again at the weekend,
>and
>> > I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated since 1967,
>though,
>> > but rather *since I last saw it*.
>> > >>
>> >
>> > The only part of the show that's dated is the ending of The General. But
>even
>> > when it was new it wasn't very good, and would have played better on Star
>Trek
>> > than on The Prisoner.
>>
>> LOL! Definately. Kirk was always making sentient computers self-destruct
>> by making them consider a moral paradox. As someone said to me recently:
>> how would he like it?
>>
>
>Not just moral paradoxes. Any paradox. He once immobilised a shipload of
>androids by saying "the next sentence I say will be true. The last sentence I
>said was false."
>
Point of order. A Planetoid full of them. "Mudds Women".
--
http://www.mp3.com/simpletons http://www.mp3.com/sinistrals
http://www.snorty.net/ http://www.stevedix.de/
UKMG/(B)R[6x-]!M!S(J)(F) E8?1A3?2B2K2?1 GAS+ C= P= G= B+ R+/= M+ S++(--) r-(--)
Steve Dix
the group.com> wrote:
>
>Huh? "Modern" = "fast" now does it?? What about the slick and witty scripting
>and dialogue, the evocative and well-edited music, the important themes? All
>sadly lacking in most of today's telepap.
that's why it has to be so fast. To hide the fact that there's not
much there.
Ian McCall
> For its time, The Prisoner was often ground-breaking. For one thing, it
> was fast cut, pre-empting the trends we've seen over the last few years.
> Don't get me wrong: it's still a stunning programme - but... it just
Most of today's adventure stuff tends to have at least five gun battles,
four car chases and three bodies per episode. The Prisoner, err....'lacks'
these features. That might be part of the appearance of dating.
There are a few of bits that have dated for me though. Someone's already
mentioned the General's ending - poor. Mind you, modern films are no better.
Examples? To anyone who knows computers, Jurassic Park's infamous "Hey, this
is a Unix system - I know this!" whilst staring at a totally custom 3D
environment stands out as a classic of the genre. Pulling the plug to make
it all work indeed. At that time, the most likely response she'd have got
was "root file system corrupt, forcing fsck...", followed by a long list of
damaged files. Old-style Unix was -very- picky about such things.
The other bits are the 'exotic' bits - Engerdine's party and Peter
Wyngarde's amazing karate chop for example. I suspect The Girl Who Was Death
looked dated even when it arrived, and the western whose name temporarily
escapes me must have had one of the most cliched justifications of all time.
"Give him love, make him crack" my foot. You just fancied filming a western
that day.
Most of it hasn't dated in the slightest for me though. Arrival in
particular always remains very sharp, and is probably my personal favourite.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian McCall
"Ian McCall" <i...@eruvia.org> wrote in message
news:UgPf9.2850$3h7.126466@newsfep2-gui...
>
> Someone's already
> mentioned the General's ending - poor. Mind you, modern films are no
Replying to my own post, but I -knew- there was another example and I've
just remember what it is.
In Goldeneye, Bond gets onto a computer system and traces a hacker to
somewhere in Russia. Which came as a bit of a surprise to me, because I
looked at the same traceroute output he did and traced the evil hacker to an
American university...
Cheers,
Ian
redcat
> In article <alo4h7$g72$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, red...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> >
> > Perhaps before you were completely familiar with the episodes it felt
faster
> > because you had to think a lot more about "hey, what's going on now?"
But
> > now you know the relationships so you don't have to be guessing and
> > surmising. Now you can just watch the show.
>
> As I responsed to Graeme, I have seen the series many times. It's only
> this last time that I noticed a "slowing".
Yes, I got that. You have reached your saturation point, your personal
tipping point. OR -- were you in a different mind set? Pre-occupied with
something personal? I find that makes me a little impatient. Watch it again
in a happy-go-lucky mood and let us know if you feel differntly.
> It's still my favourite show as well. However, maybe these days I get
> more enjoyment from thinking about it (and reading about it), rather
> than actually watching it!
I still get a kick out of watching it. Reading about it does add to the
enjoyment. It's a different thing. Putting on the Priz, I still find I
burrow comfortably into the chair or the sofa: I still feel I'm "in for a
real treat".
>
> Maybe I've "talked it up" to myself so much in the years since I've last
> dusted off my tapes that the reality could only be a let-down.
I do that to music! I play songs in my head and jazz them up or punk them
up, and when I put them on again they're not up to my personal expectations.
I also do it with art: like playing up in my mind the Surrealists show I'd
then seen at the Metropolitan here in NYC. I sharpen the colors, I enlarge
the canvas, I personalize the message. I guess I just do what other cockeyed
optimists do.
Final word: Enjoy that silly show. It's still the best (as you know!),
redcat
redcat
"Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on the group.com> wrote in message
news:alochb$rkr$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
with the Priz, we all know what happens at the end of each of the plays.
It's interesting that you mention Shakespeare, b/c the Priz is good
literature. The dialogue is excellent for the most part (there are lapses,
and that's due to time constraints).
rc
Paul Guglietta
>"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote
>in message news:04gvnu4d8elfh5tvf...@4ax.com...
>>>LOL! Definately. Kirk was always making sentient computers
>>>self-destruct by making them consider a moral paradox.
>>>As someone said to me recently: how would he like it?
>>>
>>
>>Not just moral paradoxes. Any paradox.
>>He once immobilised a shipload of androids by saying
>>"the next sentence I say will be true. The last sentence I
>>said was false."
>>
>Point of order. A Planetoid full of them. "Mudds Women".
2nd Point of order - Kirk told android Norman, "Everything Harry Mudd
tells you is a lie." Then Mudd told Norman, "I am lying."
To the main point - I don't see why a weekly series must move,
literally or figuratively, at warp speed to be interesting. If the
subject matter is interesting and thought-provoking enough, it will
hold your interest better than any series that flashes lots of action
scenes and fancy graphics and says nothing (or, to quote Shakespeare,
"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing").
I say this as a 35-year fan of Star Trek and 34-year fan of The
Prisoner.
BCNU
PCG6
Titan
Of course it also ties into the Speedlearn aspect of the epsiode. I
interpret it as arguing that learning in schools is usually of the "who,
where and when" variety, rather than going any deeper and asking "why".
I think this was probably more true in The Prisoner's day than it is
now. I know my parents seemed to be made to learn a series of "facts"
off by heart - whereas in the 80s we often went into the whys and
wherfores - and I suspect this is still the case now.
Titan
Attempting to get their work back, they repeatedly hammer one of the
function keys. Their friends arrives, and gets their document back with
a series of keystrokes.
Another technology thing that annoys me is locking doors behind you - or
opening them - in science fiction movies. Shooting the controls can
either jam a door shut (from either side) or open it depending on what
the heros want to do.
Titan
st...@stevedix.de says...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:26:35 +0100, "Frankymole" <Frank@Ask for it on
> the group.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Huh? "Modern" = "fast" now does it?? What about the slick and witty scripting
> >and dialogue, the evocative and well-edited music, the important themes? All
> >sadly lacking in most of today's telepap.
>
> that's why it has to be so fast. To hide the fact that there's not
> much there.
>
>
>
just notices TV getting faster. As ever, most programmes are terrible,
while a few are decent. One example of great programming that was very
challengingly filmed for its day was Homicide: Life on the Street.
Everthing else seems to have emulated its style now, so it seems a
little less "cutting edge", but as with The Prisoner, it's still a great
show.
Titan
says...
>
> "Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17e9b9523...@news.ntlworld.com...
> > In article <alo4h7$g72$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, red...@ix.netcom.com
> > says...
> > >
> >
> > As I responsed to Graeme, I have seen the series many times. It's only
> > this last time that I noticed a "slowing".
>
> Yes, I got that. You have reached your saturation point, your personal
> tipping point. OR -- were you in a different mind set? Pre-occupied with
> something personal? I find that makes me a little impatient. Watch it again
> in a happy-go-lucky mood and let us know if you feel differntly.
>
Fair point. That's probably it - I'm going through a lot of stress
changing jobs at the moment.
>
> > It's still my favourite show as well. However, maybe these days I get
> > more enjoyment from thinking about it (and reading about it), rather
> > than actually watching it!
>
> I still get a kick out of watching it. Reading about it does add to the
> enjoyment. It's a different thing. Putting on the Priz, I still find I
> burrow comfortably into the chair or the sofa: I still feel I'm "in for a
> real treat".
> >
> > Maybe I've "talked it up" to myself so much in the years since I've last
> > dusted off my tapes that the reality could only be a let-down.
>
> I do that to music! I play songs in my head and jazz them up or punk them
> up, and when I put them on again they're not up to my personal expectations.
> I also do it with art: like playing up in my mind the Surrealists show I'd
> then seen at the Metropolitan here in NYC. I sharpen the colors, I enlarge
> the canvas, I personalize the message. I guess I just do what other cockeyed
> optimists do.
Sometimes it works the other way too - sometimes it's better than I
remember for exactly the reverse reasons.
>
> Final word: Enjoy that silly show. It's still the best (as you know!),
>
Thanks. I haven't rewatched all the episodes yet (although these were
most of the best ones - I'm 4 into the "original 7" order) - but maybe
when I watch more this weekend my experience will be very different.
Steve Dix
wrote:
>
>"Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.17e9994d9...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> For its time, The Prisoner was often ground-breaking. For one thing, it
>> was fast cut, pre-empting the trends we've seen over the last few years.
>> Don't get me wrong: it's still a stunning programme - but... it just
>> seemed to have *slowed down*
>
>Most of today's adventure stuff tends to have at least five gun battles,
>four car chases and three bodies per episode. The Prisoner, err....'lacks'
>these features.
But you have to admit it makes up for them at the end. ;->
Philip R. Food
>
> I don't watch the show very often. But I watched it again at the
> weekend, and I was shocked at how much it had dated.... it had not dated
> since 1967, though, but rather *since I last saw it*.
>
> For its time, The Prisoner was often ground-breaking. For one thing, it
> was fast cut, pre-empting the trends we've seen over the last few years.
> Don't get me wrong: it's still a stunning programme - but... it just
> seemed to have *slowed down*.
Compared to just about anything on MTV or wherever, I think the
opening title sequence or, say, the accellerating 3rd act of 'Fallout'
holds its own as far as editing speed. I don't feel the show has
dated in this aspect.
As far as datedness, there are certain aspects of cinematography that
just yell out 'the sixties' really loud, like Hawaii Five-0 snap zooms
and Batman dutch angles. The Prisoner makes use of these, but
sparingly & tastefully.
The technology and design used by Shampan, the costumes, plus the
spooky Giorgio-de-Chirico way Portmerion is used make for a look that
seems indefinable as far as time-period. The result is something that
seems weirdly outside time, like an alternate-universe 20th century.
It still has a fascinating immediacy.
The thing that dates it for me is in the writing. I don't want to seem
like I tow some kind of knee-jerk politically correct line, but the
low-level he-man misogyny of the series is so daftly 60s. I watched it
with my girlfriend about 6 months ago, and there were certain
embarrasing moments where women are depicted as ineffectual,
diabolical, or dumb. Most obvious example: the infamous 'even the four
legged variety' line in 'Dance,' but there are several other
instances. This is where the Prisoner really shows age.
Steve Dix
wrote:
>
One of my friends in uk.music.guitar has a sig :
"Working in public volunteer television has spoiled some things for
me, like the fact that I now know that Alderaan was destroyed by a
video mixer."
Or words to that effect.
Lew Stringer
doubt a modern version would have the Village in pitch darkness and Number
Six stumbling around with a torch (X-Files, Buffy, Enterprise......etc etc).
:-)
Steve Dix
>Another technology thing that annoys me is locking doors behind you - or
>opening them - in science fiction movies. Shooting the controls can
>either jam a door shut (from either side) or open it depending on what
>the heros want to do.
How about.... (and TP is equally guilty of this...)
The Ventilation shaft!
Want to get out of somewhere because you're being pursued by
Stormtroopers/aliens? Go there every time! Want to get in to a
high-security experimental establishment in a secret community? Hey
kids, expelair is your friend!
Lew Stringer
st...@stevedix.de wrote on 12/9/2002 8:37 AM:
>> Most of today's adventure stuff tends to have at least five gun battles,
>> four car chases and three bodies per episode. The Prisoner, err....'lacks'
>> these features.
>
> But you have to admit it makes up for them at the end. ;->
Just be grateful it wasn't made in the 1970's. We'd have Number Six rolling
over car bonnets and asking the Village pimp what "The word on the street"
was. :-)
Lew Stringer
st...@stevedix.de wrote on 12/9/2002 8:43 AM:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:26:23 +0100, Titan <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Another technology thing that annoys me is locking doors behind you - or
>> opening them - in science fiction movies. Shooting the controls can
>> either jam a door shut (from either side) or open it depending on what
>> the heros want to do.
>
> How about.... (and TP is equally guilty of this...)
>
> The Ventilation shaft!
>
> Want to get out of somewhere because you're being pursued by
> Stormtroopers/aliens? Go there every time! Want to get in to a
> high-security experimental establishment in a secret community? Hey
> kids, expelair is your friend!
>
>
Why are ventilartion shafts always so sparkling clean in movies anyway? (Not
to mention big enough to fit Bruce Willis in).
Titan
st...@stevedix.de says...
>
> How about.... (and TP is equally guilty of this...)
>
> The Ventilation shaft!
>
> Want to get out of somewhere because you're being pursued by
> Stormtroopers/aliens? Go there every time! Want to get in to a
> high-security experimental establishment in a secret community? Hey
> kids, expelair is your friend!
>
Alas, ventilation shafts are big in video games, too. I didn't enjoy the
highly-regarded Half Life, partly because it felt I spent half the game
crawling around in air ducts.
Another TV/movie annoyance crops up when the hero wants to knock an
enemy out. In a fist/kicking fight, a single punch to the face suffices
in all cases.
Steve Dix
>
>Alas, ventilation shafts are big in video games, too. I didn't enjoy the
>highly-regarded Half Life, partly because it felt I spent half the game
>crawling around in air ducts.
>
Personally I enjoyed it until you got to the alien world. Then I lost
interest.
Titan
st...@stevedix.de says...
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:28:49 +0100, Titan <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Alas, ventilation shafts are big in video games, too. I didn't enjoy the
> >highly-regarded Half Life, partly because it felt I spent half the game
> >crawling around in air ducts.
> >
>
> Personally I enjoyed it until you got to the alien world. Then I lost
> interest.
>
>
It did go downhill then. But I also didn't enjoy the ducts, as I said,
plus the jumping around. For me, a first person shooter shouldn't
contain platforming elements - you can't see your character's feet, so
you can't judge jumps properly. Still, the intro sequence and the man in
the suit were memorable.
Bringing it screeching back on topic:
Could a good Prisoner computer game be made? What type of game would it
be? A Role-playing game seems to be the most suitable genre, with
interaction between the player and the other Village residents, action
sequences when the player attempts to escape and many puzzles to solve.
Perhaps character progress (i.e. levelling up) could be tied into
finding out information about the Village rather than the usual
defeating monsters. It would have to offer a fair amount of freedom of
action for the player, while having excellent set pieces (escape
attempts, plots by Number Two to trick the player and so on).
I fear a typical development company with a Prisoner game license would
do it as follows:
Level 1
Racing level - as Number 6, you need to drive the Lotus through London
to HQ within an arbritary time limit in order to resign. Essentially a
sub-par racing level.
Levels 2-19
Sub-par third-person "puzzle" game, in the veign of Tomb Raider. Finding
switches, climbing, jumping, shooting and, of course, crawling through
ducts would all feature promintently.
Final level
Third-person or first-person shooter as Number 6 escapes the village.
Try to get to the exit (i.e. the trailer) whilst fighting off the
Miltary-Police style guards.
Ian McCall
news:<alq0ls$vk9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> I take the *shaft* as a necessary device of the
> filming industry -- like those phones that only need 5 numbers
> to make a call.
I thought that was partially to prevent obssessives working out the number
and then calling it to see who was there.
Cheers,
Ian
redcat
"Lew Stringer" <Lew.St...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:B9A60526.10A69%Lew.St...@btopenworld.com...
Really! I guess we have to think of ventilation shafts as wrinkles in time:
we need to get the hero somewhere, but it would take far too much film to
show the actual way a person would need to go to get from point A to point
B. I take the *shaft* as a necessary device of the filming industry -- like
those phones that only need 5 numbers to make a call.
redcat
>
>
redcat
"Philip R. Food" <food...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:97faba91.02091...@posting.google.com...
> Titan <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.17e9994d9...@news.ntlworld.com>...
> > OK, deliberately controversial thread title.
> >
>
>
> The thing that dates it for me is in the writing. I don't want to seem
> like I tow some kind of knee-jerk politically correct line, but the
> low-level he-man misogyny of the series is so daftly 60s. I watched it
> with my girlfriend about 6 months ago, and there were certain
> embarrasing moments where women are depicted as ineffectual,
> diabolical, or dumb. Most obvious example: the infamous 'even the four
> legged variety' line in 'Dance,'
But I especially agree with this. OK, it's true, some of the women are dumb.
But so are some of the men. Lookit the Rook, for example. Back to the point,
the worst breakdown of dialogue *is* that line you point out above "... even
the four legged variety." I couldn't believe my ears when I heard PMG
deliver that line. It's so unlike him. He was so tight and sure about what
Number Six should be like, especially regarding relationships with women.
This line belied the times he would go to help a damsel in distress, not to
mention this line being a cheap shot not at all worthy of Six.
I'd like to snip that line right out of the series!
redcat
David Mackenzie
time:
> we need to get the hero somewhere, but it would take far too much film to
> show the actual way a person would need to go to get from point A to point
> B. I take the *shaft* as a necessary device of the filming industry --
like
> those phones that only need 5 numbers to make a call.
And work *everywhere*, and never run out of battery.
And has every number in the world programmed into it.
etc.
--
David.
CBoldman
> > > The Ventilation shaft!
> >
> > Want to get out of somewhere because you're being pursued by
> > Stormtroopers/aliens? Go there every time! Want to get in to a
> > high-security experimental establishment in a secret community? Hey
> > kids, expelair is your friend!
While we're at it, how about that all-purpose weapon, the fire extinguisher? I
wish someone would catalogue all the movies and shows where the villain is
blinded by, or conked in the head with one. TP resorts to that too, in the last
ep.
Christopher Browne
> Could a good Prisoner computer game be made? What type of game would it
> be? A Role-playing game seems to be the most suitable genre, with
> interaction between the player and the other Village residents, action
> sequences when the player attempts to escape and many puzzles to solve.
> Perhaps character progress (i.e. levelling up) could be tied into
> finding out information about the Village rather than the usual
> defeating monsters. It would have to offer a fair amount of freedom of
> action for the player, while having excellent set pieces (escape
> attempts, plots by Number Two to trick the player and so on).
Already exists, several times.
See:
http://www.cyberroach.com/analog/an16/prisoner.htm
http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/035/sftwre.htm
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/advocacy.html
FLORIDA: Relax, Retire, Re Vote.
Vincent van Moppes
> "Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17e9994d9...@news.ntlworld.com...
>
>>For its time, The Prisoner was often ground-breaking. For one thing, it
>>was fast cut, pre-empting the trends we've seen over the last few years.
>>Don't get me wrong: it's still a stunning programme - but... it just
>>seemed to have *slowed down*
>
>
> Most of today's adventure stuff tends to have at least five gun battles,
> four car chases and three bodies per episode. The Prisoner, err....'lacks'
> these features. That might be part of the appearance of dating.
When I watched the show for the first time about two years ago, the most
dated aspect to me were the fights in The Prisoner. Usually when a fight
started, I thought "oh, here we go again with the obligatory and totally
predictable fight sequence", which I usually don't have in modern TV
shows (even though they usually are that too :P ). I think it would've
looked less dated if they skipped most fights altogether. It doesn't
really need them, in my opinion.
Other things that date the program for me are the sometimes very obvious
studio sets and the occasional props (the brainwashing machine in Once
Upon A Time? not to mention the entire brainswapping process in Do Not
Forsake Me...). And the title music in the alternate Chimes, but I guess
that doesn't count. :) Apart from that, I think the series looks and
feels remarkably fresh.
Vincent
thre...@webtv.net
another thing that always bugs me about the good guy(s) hiding from the
bad guy(s), the convenient closet, storage room, etc. The hiding place
is in plain sight. The reaction of the bad guy(s) is always the same:
Should I/we check in there just in case? Nope, sorry, can't do that.
It's not in the script! :-)
We respectfully request that you take us to Eden -- Doctor Sevrin :-)
redcat
photography point of view) I am amazed at how well it is lit. Especially
something like the on-location night scene where he (probably Frank as 6)
jumps off of his back balcony (Dance). That must have taken forever to set
up so it doesn't look like it's being lit by spots and things.
Have fun in Norway!
redcat
Titan
says...
> Quoth Titan <a...@b.com>:
> > In article <60r0ouc5alp9tcj40...@4ax.com>,
> > st...@stevedix.de says...
> > Bringing it screeching back on topic:
> > Could a good Prisoner computer game be made? What type of game would it
> > be? A Role-playing game seems to be the most suitable genre, with
> > interaction between the player and the other Village residents, action
> > sequences when the player attempts to escape and many puzzles to solve.
> > Perhaps character progress (i.e. levelling up) could be tied into
> > finding out information about the Village rather than the usual
> > defeating monsters. It would have to offer a fair amount of freedom of
> > action for the player, while having excellent set pieces (escape
> > attempts, plots by Number Two to trick the player and so on).
I'd forgotten about them!
Talking about things dating, computer games suffer worse than TV or
film. However, it might be worth digging out an emulator and playing
these...
I would really like to see an up-to-date Prisoner game, as long as it
was done well. The location is there for the developers to capture (at
least, the exteriors are). However, it would need a very different
approach from the established genres.
*If* there was a movie, we would fairly likely get a game - but then it
would reflect the location, characters and events of the movie, rather
than the series. And movie licenses almost always make for terrible,
hastily-developed games. The Blade Runner game, however, springs to mind
as an excellent game in the spirit of the source material.
Philip R. Food
> "Philip R. Food" <food...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:97faba91.02091...@posting.google.com...
> > Titan <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.17e9994d9...@news.ntlworld.com>...
> > > OK, deliberately controversial thread title.
> > >
> >
> [snip] And I agree with your points that were snipped here..
> >
> > The thing that dates it for me is in the writing. I don't want to seem
> > like I tow some kind of knee-jerk politically correct line, but the
> > low-level he-man misogyny of the series is so daftly 60s. I watched it
> > with my girlfriend about 6 months ago, and there were certain
> > embarrasing moments where women are depicted as ineffectual,
> > diabolical, or dumb. Most obvious example: the infamous 'even the four
> > legged variety' line in 'Dance,'
>
> But I especially agree with this. OK, it's true, some of the women are dumb.
> But so are some of the men.
True. But the men aren't as awkwardly or uncomfortably written.
>Lookit the Rook, for example.
The Rook, to me, actually had a certain nobility... As a portrait of
someone who's behavior had been traumatized by intensive
quasi-pavlovian stuff, I thought he was well-written, and especially
well acted.
>Back to the point,
> the worst breakdown of dialogue *is* that line you point out above "... even
> the four legged variety." I couldn't believe my ears when I heard PMG
> deliver that line. It's so unlike him. He was so tight and sure about what
> Number Six should be like, especially regarding relationships with women.
> This line belied the times he would go to help a damsel in distress, not to
> mention this line being a cheap shot not at all worthy of Six.
>
> I'd like to snip that line right out of the series!
Well, that's the thing, you kind of can't. That sort of retroactive
tampering or censorship is *more* reprehensible than the original
problem. Best to leave things as they were and view it with a cynical,
anthropological eye.
(Help me out--Who was it a couple of years ago who put forth the idea
of digitally erasing cigarettes and actors smoking from old films? Was
that a Turner thing? Ugh.)
What's kind of sad is that the Everyman Films team put so much effort
into making something that trancended its day and age in so many ways,
but they couldn't get past that one aspect to go the full distance.
It's not like there wasn't intelligent sexual progressiveness in a lot
of lit and film of the time-- It's probably that Markstien's boys
network of script dudes just weren't hip to it.
Philip R. Food
RPG, 1st person and puzzle-solving elements, in 3D environments. With
Non-player characters to gather information and disinformation from.
Anyone played Deus Ex? Something like this would work.
(I thought DX was splendidly cool. The only video game that I've ever
had quote Noam Chomsky & Jean Baudrillard at me.)
Titan <a...@b.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.17eb24eb4...@news.ntlworld.com>...
Rusty Magic
With the right visuals and music and sound effects (as with all games
I guess), it could be very spooky to play.
Any programmers around?
David Mackenzie
>
> See:
>
> http://www.cyberroach.com/analog/an16/prisoner.htm
> http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/035/sftwre.htm
A couple of years back, a guy called David Sansom created a multi-media
style game. It was reviewed in ITV. It featured clips & music from the
series, etc. I never managed to complete it.
That's probably the most recent effort.
--
David.
Ian McCall
> Talking about things dating, computer games suffer worse than TV or
> film.
Just like literature - the classics never die. This year's trip in
Portmeirion saw our cottage (Belvedere) playing Pong, both in spiced-up
Playtstation mode and original black'n'white nostalgia heaven mode.
Worms as well. That's got to be about seven years old now too.
Cheers,
Ian
Titan
Food...@mac.com says...
> I could see it as a pretty intensely hybridized genre-bent game, with
> RPG, 1st person and puzzle-solving elements, in 3D environments. With
> Non-player characters to gather information and disinformation from.
The problem with 1st person is that the emphasis would likely be on
strafing about to avoid enemies. Not really in the spirit of the show.
>
> Anyone played Deus Ex? Something like this would work.
That was still combat-oriented though (even if you chose to avoid the
combat with stealth). A Prisoner game should be about character
interaction and problem solving.
>
> (I thought DX was splendidly cool. The only video game that I've ever
> had quote Noam Chomsky & Jean Baudrillard at me.)
>
Wow. Wish I'd stuck with it. I couldn't run it to any decent level of
graphics - leaving me sneaking around with blank, untextured grey walls
all around me. And it was STILL jerky. 'Twas not the developers' fault:
I was trying to run it on an underspeced machine.
If I get a better machine I'll dig this game out again.
Titan
i...@eruvia.org says...
>
> "Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17eb24eb4...@news.ntlworld.com...
> > In article <alq9t9$5pfk$1...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>, cbbr...@acm.org
> > says...
>
> > Talking about things dating, computer games suffer worse than TV or
> > film.
>
> Just like literature - the classics never die.
Not really - with an old classic book, it is still available. An old
movie can be purchased on DVD, rented or watched when it is rebroadcast.
Computer games are more transitory. Yes, you can emulate an old game (or
sometimes buy a remake). But it takes considerable effort to get into a
classic, due to the dated style. Take any of the old Spectrum/C64/BBC B
classics froms the 80s. You can play them now, but it is shock when you
first go back to them. And how willing would someone weened on modern
games be to give them a second look?
Only when true photo-realism at 100-ish Frames Per Second is achieved -
maybe 5-10 years - will games be on par with movies/TV in terms of
lasting value. And only then will a substantial number of developers
really start to be creative (rather than striving for as near to photo-
realism as possible).
Steve Dix
>Computer games are more transitory. Yes, you can emulate an old game (or
>sometimes buy a remake). But it takes considerable effort to get into a
>classic, due to the dated style. Take any of the old Spectrum/C64/BBC B
>classics froms the 80s. You can play them now, but it is shock when you
>first go back to them. And how willing would someone weened on modern
>games be to give them a second look?
>
Well I don't know about you, but I'm currently playing the old Scott
Adams and Brian Howarth adventures.
Titan
st...@stevedix.de says...
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:25:15 +0100, Titan <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Computer games are more transitory. Yes, you can emulate an old game (or
> >sometimes buy a remake). But it takes considerable effort to get into a
> >classic, due to the dated style. Take any of the old Spectrum/C64/BBC B
> >classics froms the 80s. You can play them now, but it is shock when you
> >first go back to them. And how willing would someone weened on modern
> >games be to give them a second look?
> >
>
> Well I don't know about you, but I'm currently playing the old Scott
> Adams and Brian Howarth adventures.
>
>
>
Yay! They were great! Even wrote a text adventure myself last year, as a
nostalgia trip. However, outside of a tiny niche audience, no-one plays
them anymore. Doesn't mean they're bad, but they have dated.
Whereas dating in movies, TV and music happens more slowly. Yes, people
are put off by dating in these media. But not nearly as much in video
games. It's a shame - but at least, as I noted in my previous post, it
will happen less and less.
With regard to the old Prisoner games - I would like to play them. But
it does take a special effort. I have to track down and run emulators.
Doesn't happen with music, movies and TV (at least for those
programs/albums that are reissued on current formats).
Ian McCall
> Only when true photo-realism at 100-ish Frames Per Second is achieved -
> maybe 5-10 years - will games be on par with movies/TV in terms of
> lasting value.
Well now, interesting point this. I personally think that the large-scale
CGI found in current films actually decreases shelf life, not aids it.
Because, as you say, graphics improve so rapidly. Today's "oooooh" is
tomorrow's cringeworthy "err, well it looked alright at the time".
Despite, or perhaps because of, my job as a computer
programmer/analyst/consultant/<insert currently fashionable term here> I'm
pretty much a luddite when it comes to CGI in films. In most cases, I much
prefer models and puppetry. Take the classic example of Star Wars, for
instance. I much prefer the original's model-based spacecraft to the ones
featured in Attack of the Clones. To my mind, CGI models still look too
perfect, their lines too clean and their lighting still too bright and hard
to integrate into the non-CGI imagery in the same scene. That's why, to my
mind at least, films like Toy Story that are pure CGI work well - there's no
comparison to the real world and so you're quickly immersed in the fully
animated environment.
>And only then will a substantial number of developers
> really start to be creative (rather than striving for as near to photo-
> realism as possible).
Again, I tend to find I like the abstract games more than the
photo-realistic stuff. This means, for example, that I prefer my game of
pong to most of the current crop of 3D FPS's. I'm not saying that graphical
advancement is a waste of time - clearly it isn't - but I am saying that a
game which relies mostly on graphics for its appeal probably hasn't got much
future. Case in point? Quake. Not Quake II which had the multiplayer
features, but the original Quake which relied purely on graphics for its
appeal. My list of great abstracts would include games like Pong, Tetris,
Worms, Super Monkey Ball (a Marble Madness remake if you're a purist...),
Zelda::A Link to the Past, Sentinel, any of the text adventures...even card
games if you want to be really picky.
I understand your point - that having achieved photorealism game designers
would have to go back to designing games, rather than making people go 'coo'
at the latest graphical trick. I'm just adding that I don't think that
photorealism is a necessity for a good game.
Cheers,
Ian
Graeme
sometimes buy a remake). But it takes considerable effort to get into a
classic, due to the dated style. Take any of the old Spectrum/C64/BBC B
classics froms the 80s. You can play them now, but it is shock when you first
go back to them.
>>
Oh, hardly. I recently re-played Monkey Island 1 and 2, and they were a sheer
joy. The gameplay is what matters, not graphics. In fact sometimes more
simplistic graphics actually fit the mood of the game BETTER. Take comic
strips, for example. Would B.C., The Wizard of Id, or Peanuts be funnier if
they were drawn to look like Prince Valiant? No, they'd be less funny.
Same with strategy games and wargames. Better graphics really don't improve
them much. They can even hurt gameplay if the designer gives in to using too
may of them. REALLY primitive looking wargames suffer, true. Those old
mid-80's games with ascii characters for the counters and hexes were truly hard
to read. But anything even remotely good is good enough. Panzer General is as
good a game as Panzer General II and III. The later ones look better, but it's
just frosting.
The only time graphics REALLY matter is for something like a flight simulator,
where you want it to look as much like the real thing as possible. Even there,
there are exceptions. The original Red Baron is still extremely playable, and
remained the best World War I sim on the market for years and years, even after
better looking ones like the execrable Dawn Patrol came along.
>>And how willing would someone weened on modern games be to give them a second
look?
>>
Someone weened on Baywatch probably wouldn't give The Prisoner a second look.
But that would be their loss. But even the general public rises above this
thing sometimes. For example, which do you think is more popular? The
original Lost in Space series, with all of it's camp, cheese, and low-grade
effects, or the high-budget movie? If you think anyone will care about that
movie in 30 years, think again.
SteveDix wrote:
>>Well I don't know about you, but I'm currently playing the old Scott Adams
and Brian Howarth adventures.
>>
On the other hand, I have to admit that I could never get into the Scott Adams
adventures. They might be the very best games that could be written for 4k of
memory, but that's still not very good. Adventureland positively put me to
sleep. No story, no logic, just a set of random puzzles that we're told is
happening to a character.
Now, the Infocom games on the other hand are, for the most part, a sheer joy,
even today. They haven't aged a day (words on a page look exactly the same now
as then), they have great stories, great puzzles, and text games in general
have more of a feel of being there than graphic games, just because it's so
easy to make responses for trivial actions. Want to know what happens if your
character sticks his hand in the toilet? It takes 10 seconds to write a funny
response for that. With a graphic game, you'd have to animate a whole
sequence, which is usually not worth it.
Graeme
nostalgia trip. However, outside of a tiny niche audience, no-one plays them
anymore. Doesn't mean they're bad, but they have dated.
>>
It's the Be-all-you-can-be syndrome. If people pay $2000 for a computer, they
want to use software that stretches their processing power to the limit, so as
to feel that they got their money's worth.
Imagine buying a Pentium 4 with a gig of Ram, and using it to play nothing more
complicated than Planetfall, a game that you can play just as well on an old
XT, with 64k of RAM and a green-screen monochrome monitor. Sort of like buying
a Lotus 7, and only using it to go buy groceries every Sunday. You want to
unleash that puppy and see what it can do.
Take Myst. It's barely a game at all. Just a book of picture postcards, with a
little hot lever-pulling action masquerading as gameplay. But it was hugely
popular, because look at those great graphics!!! People who would never in a
million years have gone gaga ogling a REAL postcard book went gaga over Myst,
because after all, it's on the COMPUTER!
I've read lots of retrospective articles and things that try to claim things
like "Nobody would have thought 15 years that we'd have such great graphics
quality, yada, yada, yada." Bull. Ever since the original Star Trek, computer
people have dreamed of photo-realistic graphic quality. Computer users have
always suffered from an acute case of TV Envy.
Text adventures are the only type of old game that HASN'T dated. Borrowed Time
and The Wizard and the Princess look dated because the graphics we have now are
so much better than the graphics we had then. But with text adventures, words
on a page now look exactly like they did then. There's been no increase in
quality whatsoever. The problem is just getting people to play them at all,
similar to the problem of getting someone to read a book instead of just watch
TV.
Titan
i...@eruvia.org says...
> CGI found in current films actually decreases shelf life, not aids it.
> Because, as you say, graphics improve so rapidly. Today's "oooooh" is
> tomorrow's cringeworthy "err, well it looked alright at the time".
Agreed. To use your Star Wars example, the "Special Editions" featured
some very ropey CGI - I'm sure Jabba in A New Hope looks appalling now.
If I can bring myself to re-watch Phantom Menace, I suspect I'll find
that Jar Jar looks pretty "pasted in" too.
Still, if we are going to get perfectly-blended CGI, people need to use
it in films - it's the only way the tech. can be developed.
Same thing for games as well. Developers need to push the graphical
envelope in the name of progress (even if their real goal is to wow the
potential buyers and sell more than the other games in the genre).
>
> Again, I tend to find I like the abstract games more than the
> photo-realistic stuff. This means, for example, that I prefer my game of
> pong to most of the current crop of 3D FPS's.
Most FPS these days seem to rely on graphics and gore to sell. Halo is
an exception, with not only great graphics, but a well-executed (if
hardly original) storyline, stunning attention to detail and jaw-
dropping set-pieces. All this coupled with state-of-the-art AI that
really brings your enemies and allies to life.
> I'm not saying that graphical
> advancement is a waste of time - clearly it isn't - but I am saying that a
> game which relies mostly on graphics for its appeal probably hasn't got much
> future. Case in point? Quake. Not Quake II which had the multiplayer
> features, but the original Quake which relied purely on graphics for its
> appeal. My list of great abstracts would include games like Pong, Tetris,
> Worms, Super Monkey Ball (a Marble Madness remake if you're a purist...),
> Zelda::A Link to the Past, Sentinel, any of the text adventures...even card
> games if you want to be really picky.
>
Again, agreed.
As a digression: Monkey Ball is great. Never have my nerves been tested
so much due to the pressure of a countdown! Sadly, none of the people I
show it too are very impressed. Adults (men at least) seem to be far
more swayed by Halo's "realism".
Most of today's big movies also seem to be eye-candy pieces. A well-
filmed movie can have enormous appeal later. The Sergio-Leone
(spelling?) Westerns are a good example. Whereas relying on special
effects is a swift ticket to non-lastability. Who's really going to be
watching Independence Day or Men In Black in even 10 years (to name two
effects driven big box office hits of the last few years)?
> I understand your point - that having achieved photorealism game designers
> would have to go back to designing games, rather than making people go 'coo'
> at the latest graphical trick. I'm just adding that I don't think that
> photorealism is a necessity for a good game.
>
Very true. But it helps to market the game. There are exceptions - e.g.
Monkey Ball - which are hits despite being neither "realistic" nor
graphically flash. Thus most developers go for graphical polish - or
sometimes just rely on a movie license - often at the expense of
gameplay.
Titan
@NOSPAMhotpop.com says...
> On 12 Sep 2002 14:55:37 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >> Could a good Prisoner computer game be made? What type of game would it
> >> be?
>
> Nearly every computer has a DVD drive yet nobody is writing games
> complex enough to use up 3 or 4 gigabytes.
>
Not sure if you're being ironic here.
Assuming you aren't, I wouldn't worry. DVDs will be filled up soon
enough albeit with graphical and audio fireworks. It's unlikely games
will get longer - or deeper - as market pressures continue to force
developers to hit tight deadlines, while the pressures on developers to
produce ever more detailed graphics and immersive worlds grows all the
time. The pressure is to look better than the other games, not to
produce a deeper experience. There are exceptions, of course. Lionhead
is one developement studio that aims high - even if it doesn't always
hit the mark in terms of gameplay.
Nintendo is now producing shorter games so it can create titles with the
necessary graphical punch in a reasonable length of time. Other
developers are doing the same. With the PC games market in a weak
position, it's unlikely PC game developers are going to be filling that
extra space on the DVD with anything but graphical and audio wizardry.
To reiterate my caveat: there are always exceptions.
Titan
graem...@aol.compost says...
> >>Computer games are more transitory. Yes, you can emulate an old game (or
> sometimes buy a remake). But it takes considerable effort to get into a
> classic, due to the dated style. Take any of the old Spectrum/C64/BBC B
> classics froms the 80s. You can play them now, but it is shock when you first
> go back to them.
> >>
>
> Oh, hardly. I recently re-played Monkey Island 1 and 2, and they were a sheer
> joy. The gameplay is what matters, not graphics. In fact sometimes more
> simplistic graphics actually fit the mood of the game BETTER. Take comic
> strips, for example. Would B.C., The Wizard of Id, or Peanuts be funnier if
> they were drawn to look like Prince Valiant? No, they'd be less funny.
Some games get away with it better than others. The 2D Mario games (e.g.
Mario Bros 3 from about 1990) will stand the test of time because they
are great games, and because they are about as good, graphically, as you
can get in 2D. Wheras Mario 64, which is held by many to be the best
Mario game, has dated since its release in, I think, 1996.
You may not find it a culture shock going from a current state-of-the-
art game to a (graphically) realtively crude 1980s effort but I do. I'm
more forgiving than most, and willing to perservere with something that
looks "dated". I have found that once I go back to an old game from my
childhood, I am first shocked by its primitive appearence - and then I
can go back to it many times without this surprise - I have acclimatised
to its appearence. Your mileage may (and does seem to) vary.
Speaking of this, if you live near London I recommend a visit to the
Game On exhibition at the Barbican. It's been on since April and moves
on this month. It's got a lot of retro games (old cabinets from the
heyday of the arcades as well as console and PC games from the last 25
years). With its range of classic games past and present for the
playing, it's a good way to test this issue!
> >>And how willing would someone weened on modern games be to give them a second
> look?
> >>
>
> Someone weened on Baywatch probably wouldn't give The Prisoner a second look.
Not a valid analogy, unless you are arguing that all graphically-state-
of-the-art games are junk. You have to pick an intelligent modern
programme, like the Sopranos or Six Feet Under. Would a "typical" viewer
of these give The Prisoner a second look? I have to admit, I don't know.
>
>
> SteveDix wrote:
> >>Well I don't know about you, but I'm currently playing the old Scott Adams
> and Brian Howarth adventures.
> >>
>
> On the other hand, I have to admit that I could never get into the Scott Adams
> adventures. They might be the very best games that could be written for 4k of
> memory, but that's still not very good. Adventureland positively put me to
> sleep. No story, no logic, just a set of random puzzles that we're told is
> happening to a character.
The better text adventures did have a plausible world. Twin Kingdom
Valley springs to mind. But the surrealness of the early Scott Adams and
Brian Howarth games was part of the appeal. Feasibility Experiment? What
was that about? To me, at the time, this was the whole point!
Fall Out?
Steve Dix
>
>On the other hand, I have to admit that I could never get into the Scott Adams
>adventures. They might be the very best games that could be written for 4k of
>memory, but that's still not very good. Adventureland positively put me to
>sleep. No story, no logic, just a set of random puzzles that we're told is
>happening to a character.
Fair enough, but remember that this was probably the original
adventure for small computers - Colossal Cave required disk drives -
and didn't have much of a plot either. As a beginner adventure, it's
quite good - and some of the later Scott Adams are notoriously
difficult in comparison.
>Now, the Infocom games on the other hand are, for the most part, a sheer joy,
>even today. They haven't aged a day (words on a page look exactly the same now
>as then), they have great stories, great puzzles, and text games in general
>have more of a feel of being there than graphic games, just because it's so
>easy to make responses for trivial actions. Want to know what happens if your
>character sticks his hand in the toilet? It takes 10 seconds to write a funny
>response for that. With a graphic game, you'd have to animate a whole
>sequence, which is usually not worth it.
The infocom games are good, but sometimes I find them a bit tedious.
The original trilogy never really pulled me in. Perhaps I ought to
get them and have another go.
Steve Dix
wrote:
>Despite, or perhaps because of, my job as a computer
>programmer/analyst/consultant/<insert currently fashionable term here> I'm
>pretty much a luddite when it comes to CGI in films. In most cases, I much
>prefer models and puppetry. Take the classic example of Star Wars, for
>instance. I much prefer the original's model-based spacecraft to the ones
>featured in Attack of the Clones. To my mind, CGI models still look too
>perfect, their lines too clean and their lighting still too bright and hard
>to integrate into the non-CGI imagery in the same scene. That's why, to my
>mind at least, films like Toy Story that are pure CGI work well - there's no
>comparison to the real world and so you're quickly immersed in the fully
>animated environment.
A lot of the FX in the latest star wars weren't actually computer
generated. They still use "traditional" models quite a bit.
Steve Dix
wrote:
>future. Case in point? Quake. Not Quake II which had the multiplayer
>features, but the original Quake which relied purely on graphics for its
>appeal.
Actually, Quake had multiplayer options. I should know, we spent
enough time playing it at Gamesdomain in lunch-hour. Multiplayer
network options go right back to Doom.
Steve Dix
wrote:
>On 12 Sep 2002 14:55:37 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>> Could a good Prisoner computer game be made? What type of game would it
>>> be?
>
>I find it disheartening that games are still basic enough to fit on a CD.
>Nearly every computer has a DVD drive yet nobody is writing games
>complex enough to use up 3 or 4 gigabytes.
>
That's probably because of market forces - there are a lot of
computers out there which still don't have DVD drives, and so
releasing a game on DVD is likely to cut out a whole section of your
market.
Even Suse linux pro is supplied on 8 CDs and 1 DVD (if you have a
DVD...)
Acid Queen
graem...@aol.compost says...
> >>Yay! They were great! Even wrote a text adventure myself last year, as a
> nostalgia trip. However, outside of a tiny niche audience, no-one plays them
> anymore. Doesn't mean they're bad, but they have dated.
Just for information, these two ngs are a good source:
rec.arts.int-fiction
rec.games.int-fiction
People are still writing these.
> It's the Be-all-you-can-be syndrome. If people pay $2000 for a computer, they
> want to use software that stretches their processing power to the limit, so as
> to feel that they got their money's worth.
>
> Imagine buying a Pentium 4 with a gig of Ram, and using it to play nothing more
> complicated than Planetfall, a game that you can play just as well on an old
> XT, with 64k of RAM and a green-screen monochrome monitor. Sort of like buying
> a Lotus 7, and only using it to go buy groceries every Sunday. You want to
> unleash that puppy and see what it can do.
>
> Take Myst. It's barely a game at all. Just a book of picture postcards, with a
> little hot lever-pulling action masquerading as gameplay. But it was hugely
> popular, because look at those great graphics!!! People who would never in a
> million years have gone gaga ogling a REAL postcard book went gaga over Myst,
> because after all, it's on the COMPUTER!
Nah. The fascination with Myst was filling in the story for yourself.
It requires even greater imagination than text adventures.
> I've read lots of retrospective articles and things that try to claim things
> like "Nobody would have thought 15 years that we'd have such great graphics
> quality, yada, yada, yada." Bull. Ever since the original Star Trek, computer
> people have dreamed of photo-realistic graphic quality. Computer users have
> always suffered from an acute case of TV Envy.
>
> Text adventures are the only type of old game that HASN'T dated. Borrowed Time
> and The Wizard and the Princess look dated because the graphics we have now are
> so much better than the graphics we had then. But with text adventures, words
> on a page now look exactly like they did then. There's been no increase in
> quality whatsoever. The problem is just getting people to play them at all,
> similar to the problem of getting someone to read a book instead of just watch
> TV.
It really depends whether you get more involved or immersed by watching
a movie or reading a book. I haven't quite decided if that comes from
the availability of video stuff in the last 30 years or so. Having been
raised on books and radio, I find that media more satisfying, and so
I'm less impressed with whiz bang graphics. Especially when story gets
sacrificed.
--
AQ
To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise
above your morals
Acid Queen
> sometimes buy a remake). But it takes considerable effort to get into a
> classic, due to the dated style. Take any of the old Spectrum/C64/BBC B
> classics froms the 80s. You can play them now, but it is shock when you first
> go back to them.
> >>
>
> Oh, hardly. I recently re-played Monkey Island 1 and 2, and they were a sheer
> joy. The gameplay is what matters, not graphics. In fact sometimes more
> simplistic graphics actually fit the mood of the game BETTER. Take comic
> strips, for example. Would B.C., The Wizard of Id, or Peanuts be funnier if
> they were drawn to look like Prince Valiant? No, they'd be less funny.
I agree with this. Do you remember the Sierra re make of the original
Quest for Glory game? I played the updated version first, and recently
acquired the original version. It was better. Kinda like colorising B&W
movies seems to detract from them.
>
> Same with strategy games and wargames. Better graphics really don't improve
> them much. They can even hurt gameplay if the designer gives in to using too
> may of them. REALLY primitive looking wargames suffer, true. Those old
> mid-80's games with ascii characters for the counters and hexes were truly hard
> to read. But anything even remotely good is good enough. Panzer General is as
> good a game as Panzer General II and III. The later ones look better, but it's
> just frosting.
>
> The only time graphics REALLY matter is for something like a flight simulator,
> where you want it to look as much like the real thing as possible. Even there,
> there are exceptions. The original Red Baron is still extremely playable, and
> remained the best World War I sim on the market for years and years, even after
> better looking ones like the execrable Dawn Patrol came along.
Ever tried Origin's "Wings of Glory"? It's a combo rpg/flight sym.
Graeme
Nearly every computer has a DVD drive yet nobody is writing games complex
enough to use up 3 or 4 gigabytes.
>>
Good thing, too. They'd just be (slightly) interactive movies, like most of
the multi-CD games that came out (Star Trek: Borg, anybody?) The best
computer games ever written were under 200k, and could run on 64k of memory.
Graeme
small computers - Colossal Cave required disk drives - and didn't have much of
a plot either. As a beginner adventure, it's quite good - and some of the
later Scott Adams are notoriously difficult in comparison.
>>
Now Colossal Cave I liked. Not much plot, but it's all about atmosphere, and
it has lots of that.
>>The infocom games are good, but sometimes I find them a bit tedious. The
original trilogy never really pulled me in. Perhaps I ought to get them and
have another go.
>>
Zork 1 is the best of the trilogy. Zork 2 is good, but Zork 3 came up
decidedly short for me. The later Enchanter Trilogy is really better than the
Zork trilogy. Also Planetfall, Stationfall, Trinity, Hitchhiker's Guide,
Bureaucracy, Leather Goddesses of Phobos, Nord and Bert Couldn't Make Head or
Tail of It, Wishbringer, Beyond Zork, Sherlock... actually, that's quite a lot
of greatest ones. Even Plundered Hearts, their romance novel game was a good
play.
Christopher Browne
> On 12 Sep 2002 14:55:37 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>> Could a good Prisoner computer game be made? What type of game would it
>>> be?
>
> Nearly every computer has a DVD drive yet nobody is writing games
> complex enough to use up 3 or 4 gigabytes.
/I/ find it disheartening that the only improvements game-makers think
to make when moving from 16K of memory to 660MB of storage is to add
in "movies."
I can remember 16K of ROM (or even cassette tape) being quite
sufficient to contain a /good game/.
On the old TRS-80 Model I's, they fit credible versions of Galaxians,
Asteroids, and Defender onto machines with 16K of RAM, and a display
with 64x16 text lines or 128x48 pixels.
On the Atari 8 bit machines, imagining how Star Raiders got fit into
8K of ROM is /still/ staggering to imagine. And _Star Raiders 2_, for
the Atari ST, requiring 512K of RAM and 1.44MB of disk, was an
/inferior game/ despite having flashier graphics and a whole lot more
hardware to work with.
The only /real/ merit in having a DVD drive is to throw in a movie.
And if that's what gets added, I think I'd rather sink back in the
sofa to watch it as a movie.
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/x.html
"A good rule of thumb is never to use PROG under any circumstances for
anything." -- Dave Moon
redcat
"Acid Queen" <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Hey, Acid Queen, weren't you on this n.g. many years ago? I haven't seen
your moniker in quite some time.
redcat
Acid Queen
says...
>
> "Acid Queen" <acidq...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
> Hey, Acid Queen, weren't you on this n.g. many years ago? I haven't seen
> your moniker in quite some time.
Probably, although there are others I think! I lurk here mainly. But I
certainly recognize you. :)
Graeme
requires even greater imagination than text adventures.
>>
been.
Acid Queen
graem...@aol.compost says...
Played it - great game, too short. I didn't enjoy it as much as Myst,
but possibly because I played Myst first. I do have the Prisoner games,
BTW (she said, in a less than subtle attempt to get this back OT). Not
great. One thing that strikes me is that these and the Infocom games
relied to some extent on the reading material that came with them to
set the stage.
Frankymole
Movies/Films are 24 frames per second...
--
Frank
Frankymole
> In article <HdOg9.2605$rO5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
> i...@eruvia.org says...
>>
>> "Titan" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.17ec69fdd...@news.ntlworld.com...
>>
>>
>> Well now, interesting point this. I personally think that the
>> large-scale CGI found in current films actually decreases shelf
>> life, not aids it. Because, as you say, graphics improve so rapidly.
>> Today's "oooooh" is tomorrow's cringeworthy "err, well it looked
>> alright at the time".
>
> Agreed. To use your Star Wars example, the "Special Editions" featured
> some very ropey CGI - I'm sure Jabba in A New Hope looks appalling
> now.
He does, but he did when it came out. Anyway the (evilly black-clad) Declan
Mulholland clip is better (and the guy has Skiffy Monster credentials, naming
the Sea Devils and playing an Igor-like hunchback henchman in Doctor Who in the
70s).
The bit where Han "steps" on his tail is particularly bad. And why is Jabba
about one fifth of his "Jedi" size???? Did he go on a bloater of an eating
binge?
--
Frank
Titan
> Movies/Films are 24 frames per second...
>
That's as maybe. But proudly tell any First Person Shooter fan on the PC
that you can run Quake III at 24 FPS and prepare for the laughter...
For video games, higher frame rates are expected.
Titan
> > Agreed. To use your Star Wars example, the "Special Editions" featured
> > some very ropey CGI - I'm sure Jabba in A New Hope looks appalling
> > now.
>
> He does, but he did when it came out.
Agreed.
>
> The bit where Han "steps" on his tail is particularly bad. And why is Jabba
> about one fifth of his "Jedi" size???? Did he go on a bloater of an eating
> binge?
>
Agreed on all points. Jabba is the Godfather of the a whole region of
the galaxy - but he tolerates someone who owes him money stepping on his
tail - and just pulls a funny face!!??? It's obvious Lucas' claim that
he always intended the Hutt to be a slug is a lie - it was always meant
to be a human - until they changed it for Jedi.
As for his size, Jabba is huge in Menace, we don't know what size he'll
be in Part 3 (if he's in that installment), was tiny in Hope and huge
again in Jedi. I know he's an alien, and there were decades between
Menace and Hope, but it's still silly.
Graeme
extent on the reading material that came with them to set the stage.
>>
Some did, some didn't. Like the goodies that came with the Zork trilogy were
all added in later. The game doesn't really need them. And most of Infocom's
stuff was just fun. You don't really NEED the glow-in-the-dark Wishbringer
stone, or the lucky palm tree swizzle stick to play, they were just fun. Most
of it was just for mood setting. Though there are exceptions. The Lore and
Legends of Quendor from Beyond Zork will help you get through some bits.
Nobody would ever think of squeezing moss without reading that book.
And in the LucasFilm game Zak McKraken and the Alien Mindbenders, just about
every story in their National Enquirer-like newspaper provides some kind of
clue, even the story about how hard boiled eggs can be exploded in the
microwave.
Graeme
playing it at Gamesdomain in lunch-hour. Multiplayer network options go right
back to Doom.
>>
Actually multiplayer goes back at least as far as M.U.L.E., a Commodore 64 only
game that people still rave about today. (Computer Gaming World put it in
their top 5 games of all time several years back. Don't know if there were any
kind of network options or if it was hotseat play. David Gerrold talked about
playing a multiplayer maze game (probably similar to Doom, but with wire-frame
graphics) back in the early 70's.
Steve Dix
>
>As for his size, Jabba is huge in Menace, we don't know what size he'll
>be in Part 3 (if he's in that installment), was tiny in Hope and huge
>again in Jedi. I know he's an alien, and there were decades between
>Menace and Hope, but it's still silly.
Isn't it obvious? Slightly before Episode IV, all the other Hutts
were laughing at him behind his back, so he went on the "magic frog
soup" diet, and combined with the worry of losing all that spice
thanks to Han Solo, lost pounds.
By the time of Jedi, he's a little older, married, and taken to
staying in at nights watching the Rancor, stuffing himself with choice
frogs, and his weight has tripled.
Steve Dix
You used to get a multiplayer maze game as part of Novel netware 2,
ISTR.
Ian McCall
"Steve Dix" <st...@stevedix.de> wrote in message
news:40u8ou4g6b97d0nm0...@4ax.com...
> Actually, Quake had multiplayer options...Multiplayer
> network options go right back to Doom.
Oh yeah, I know it had them. My point was that Quake was primarily a single
player game, with multiplayer thrown in, which relied in its graphical
appeal. Compare to Quake 2 and obviously 3, which are primarily multiplayer
games with a single mode thrown in. Quake has faded into obscurity because,
once you'd gone coo at the graphics, the single player game was dull. The
other two have stayed alive because the multiplayer options retain the
interest.
I played -hours- of networked Doom. And back before that I was playing
Falcon 3 and Stunt Car on ST/Amiga link-ups. And Populous too, come to think
of it. There was MidiMaze on the ST, but I'm not aware of any earlier
non-mainframe/Unix networked games.
Mind you, I don't really play PC games anymore, except the odd piece of
emulation. Don't have the time to lock myself in the study for a few hours -
our daughter Sarah rather demands that I'm available at all times. I'm
basically a console person now.
Cheers,
Ian
Titan
i...@eruvia.org says...
> Oh yeah, I know it had them. My point was that Quake was primarily a single
> player game, with multiplayer thrown in, which relied in its graphical
> appeal. Compare to Quake 2 and obviously 3, which are primarily multiplayer
> games with a single mode thrown in. Quake has faded into obscurity because,
> once you'd gone coo at the graphics, the single player game was dull. The
> other two have stayed alive because the multiplayer options retain the
> interest.
>
Surely some mistake? Quake had great multi-player for the time, and was
the game that saw internet deathmatches really take off. The single-
player game was an afterthought.
Quake II tried to redress the balance, with a much better single-player
mode (the assualt on the Stroggs' homeworld). Don't know much about the
multi, but I believe it was a dissapointment for fans of the first game.
Quake III is obviously multi-player oriented - the single player mode is
even more bolted on than its counterpart in the original Quake.
Doom, by the way, is far better than any of them.
Frankymole
> In article <am58dl$lp6$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Frank@Ask says...
> > > Agreed. To use your Star Wars example, the "Special Editions" featured
> > > some very ropey CGI - I'm sure Jabba in A New Hope looks appalling
> > > now.
> >
> > He does, but he did when it came out.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > The bit where Han "steps" on his tail is particularly bad. And why is Jabba
> > about one fifth of his "Jedi" size???? Did he go on a bloater of an eating
> > binge?
> >
>
> Agreed on all points. Jabba is the Godfather of the a whole region of
> the galaxy - but he tolerates someone who owes him money stepping on his
> tail - and just pulls a funny face!!??? It's obvious Lucas' claim that
> he always intended the Hutt to be a slug is a lie - it was always meant
> to be a human - until they changed it for Jedi.
>
As can be told from the Alan Dean Foster novelisation of the first film,
published in 1977 as being written by "George Lucas" (ghost-written I guess),
which has the Jabba scene - and he's human.
--
Frank
Frankymole
>
> As for his size, Jabba is huge in Menace, we don't know what size he'll
> be in Part 3 (if he's in that installment), was tiny in Hope and huge
> again in Jedi. I know he's an alien, and there were decades between
> Menace and Hope, but it's still silly.
Maybe, since you mention the "Godfather" aspect, it is a 'family' business -- so
Menace had Jabba Senior and the original trilogy has the developing Jabba
Junior???
--
Frank
Titan
>
[Jabba the Hutt]
> >
> As can be told from the Alan Dean Foster novelisation of the first film,
> published in 1977 as being written by "George Lucas" (ghost-written I guess),
> which has the Jabba scene - and he's human.
I remember reading a comic-isation of it, too, soon after the film came
out. Jabba was a human then, too. I remember being surprised to see him
as a slug when Jedi came out - hence me remembering all this 20 years
later!
Titan
Possible. Also, as I mentioned, his alien physiology might explain it.
However, we both know these are after-the-fact rationalisations to
explain on-the-fly decisions made by the film-makers. It's a shame Lucas
didn't admit these changes of mind, rather than pretending absolutely
all of it was planned from the word go. If he did admit it for the major
changed premises, I might be more forgiving of more borderline
discrepancies.
Christopher Browne
At one point, the "story" was that there were scripts/stories locked
away in a vault somewhere describing a total of nine episodes, _A New
Hope_ being number four of the lot.
It is getting increasingly clear that the "vault" account was not
terribly accurate, or, at least, that whatever stories might have been
in a vault were not terribly well fleshed-out. The continuity errors
in Episode I were sufficient to induce spontaneous brain damage.
It's not /quite/ as stupefying as the travesty lately visited on the
_Dune_ saga by one of the Star Wars novel authors in generating a set
of _Dune_ prequels that make the Star Wars prequels look /excellent/
in comparison...
Not that any of this has anything to do with Number 6...
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sf.html
Warning: Dates in calendar are closer than they appear.
Allan Young
By God you Star Wars nuts (and there seems to be a hell of a lot of
you) are a sad bunch.
Admittedly, though, my age is over the cutoff point for the "arrested
development" appreciation of these films. After a serious scientific
investigation into the phenomena*, the conclusion is that anyone who
was over 13 years old when the first film came out is extremely
unlikely to share your passion.
Allan.
* Okay, a drunken chat down the pub.
Ian McCall
"Allan Young" <lo...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:144a41.020919...@posting.google.com...
>...anyone who was over 13 years old when the first film came
>out is extremely unlikely to share your passion.
My dad loves it, and he's eighty.
Mind you, you're still mostly right - he loves Star Wars, and can tolerate
watching the real sequels. The newer prequel stuff leaves him completely
cold. Me too - I thought the first prequel was an appalling pastiche with
good music, and the second an apalling pastiche with bad music.
Ah well - two down, one to go...
Cheers,
Ian
Graeme
for Glory game? I played the updated version first, and recently acquired the
original version. It was better. Kinda like colorising B&W movies seems to
detract from them.
>>
I heard about that, but haven't played them. I did find myself liking the
original EGA diskette version of Loom better than the VGA version. They had to
rewrite the dialogue to compress it enough to fit everything onto a single CD,
and the rewrite was just not as good as the original. The better writing more
than made up for the lesser graphics.
>>Ever tried Origin's "Wings of Glory"? It's a combo rpg/flight sym.
--
AQ
>>
That was fun, but I played it all the way through and went back to Red Baron.
WoG only had the 5 planes and no campaign mode. The original Red Baron was a
superb game, and was THOROUGHLY hacked by its users so that they could make it
do almost anything. You haven't lived until you've seen a Handley Page bomber
flying with fighter pilot AI.