Burnt out on gaming. Games burnt out on me.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Vondung

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 7:55:38 PM9/9/05
to
For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.

I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
the excitement they promise.

Granted, one could raise the argument that perhaps I developed ADD at my
advanced age (I don't really believe in ADD and consider it to be yet
another attempt at explaining the shortcomings of today's "inhumane"
education and failed social system), but I don't have the same problem
with, say, books. I read novels from the first page to the last, without
ever getting distracted or losing focus, and often pick them up again after
a few years have passed, so it's not a matter of getting easily distracted.

So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.

So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!

But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
offers more challenge than all these new games (chess is somewhat
frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how much I pratice, a modern
day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I should look into Go!).

The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.

That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt out
on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm not
so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about it?
I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?

I still enjoy chess, by the way.

M.

patrick...@mn.rr.com

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:20:02 PM9/9/05
to
Michael Vondung wrote:
> . . . So, what can I do about this dilemma?

>
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.

Well--one thing you could do is fire up Chessmaster 10K and enjoy the
heck out of it.

--Patrick

DocScorpio

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:46:25 PM9/9/05
to

"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...

[snip]


> That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt
> out
> on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
> aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
> and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm
> not
> so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about
> it?
> I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
> feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
> waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?
>
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
> M.

I think it's a combination of being burnt out and the low quality (my
personal opinion only) of current games. I'm in exactly the same place:
the new A-titles just don't interest me for very long. I never finished
KOTOR 2, became bored with SH3 w/i a couple of weeks, and didn't buy DS2
because I can't even stand the thought of going through the "fantasy RPG
process" yet again.....at least not with a game whose predecessor was a
complete bore for me (and which I never finished). DOW held my interest for
many months (off and on), but that's mainly because I love the WH40K
universe. KOHAN 2, good as it is, only held my interest for a couple of
months. Doom 3 was played for sentimental reasons and was a bust....never
bothered to even buy HL2. I'm going after more esoteric and obscure games
these days.

For the last month I've been playing Space Rangers 2 to the exclusion of all
else. SR2 manages to combine lots of genres I like together: Elite-type
trading, questing, and fighting TBS in space and ground-based RTS and text
quest missions. However, it's not for everybody.

Actually, your problem will solve itself. Maybe you'll quit altogether.
Life's like that; you do something for a while (or a decade or two) then you
don't get that jolt any more....so you move on to something else.


John Menichelli

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:55:30 PM9/9/05
to
I would do as you suggest: try Go. It's an excellent game with both
strategic and tactical elements.

Ken Rice

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:16:04 PM9/9/05
to
In article <q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net>, mvon...@gmail.com
says...

>
>For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
>me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
>in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
>shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
>clip

Possibly a combination of factors. I'm in a similar situation. The lack of new
role playing games is greatly at fault. Too much of today's offerings are FPS
game, with a roleplaying aspect tacked on. These are not like the CRPGs of old.
After a while, one does tire of CRPGs and need a rest. But the lack on new,
challenging CRPGs doesn't help matters. (By the way, I do not consider the
monthly fee oriented MMORPGs to worthy of mention in this discussion. They may
be good games, but I am not going to pay a monthly fee to find out.)

Try replaying some of your old favorites and see what happens. Come to think
of, I need to do the same.

--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.

BuckFush

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:51:26 PM9/9/05
to
DocScorpio wrote:
> "Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote

> [snip]
>> That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply
>> burnt out on games.
>> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>>
> Actually, your problem will solve itself. Maybe you'll quit
> altogether. Life's like that; you do something for a while (or a
> decade or two) then you don't get that jolt any more....so you move
> on to something else.

You can say that again, mister - I've moved on and much to my surprise sex
has been a *fantastic* substitute - still can't believe I didn't try it
sooner.

And it's bound to get even better once I find a partner.


Gandalf Parker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 10:00:25 PM9/9/05
to
Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net:

> a RPG like Ultima VIII
> (even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II,
> a MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like
> Master of Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO,

I agree that your entire list is an excellent one and if you find that
game please let me know. But, for now....

There are over 300 free servers now for Ultima Online. The player-made
modifications are extreme. From old UO, to Diablo versions, to Tolkien
D&D versions, to long term slow gain versions, to fast burn player-vs-
player versions.

But the one thing they all have in common is lots of room. :) You can
slowly build a really nice ranch in the wilderness.

Like I said, it wont solve your enitre list of desires but you might want
to reload UO, hit the upgrade exe in the same directory, then go to
uogateway.com and pick up a front-end loader with hundreds of free shards
loaded in it. By the time you check those all out you will either find
something worth killing some time in or at least have fun playing tourist
and seeing all thats being done with the old UO code. What the heck, its
free online play

Gandalf Parker

chainbreaker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 10:03:45 PM9/9/05
to
Michael Vondung wrote:
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
> M.

Try doing something completely different, like maybe flight sims. Or try
reading Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin books--that's what I've been doing
lately, mostly. :-)

--
chainbreaker


Leo

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 10:36:27 PM9/9/05
to
Do some actual pen and paper role playing. You probably have the same
trouble I have though - who the hell to do it with? I don't know a
single soul out in the real world that even knows what P&P role playing
is, nor do I know how to meet any. I meet lots of people, but they're
all regular types, like to go to bars, play pool, watch the game. I'm
sure some rp'ers are out there, I live in an urban area, but simply
can't find 'em. (I have seen some kiddies that do it in various hobby
shops, but I want to do it w/some like minded adults who are socially
normal).

Also, i have to admit, I'm too embarrased about the probable reaction
I'd get to even mention it to the 'regular' people I know. They'd
immediately look at me the way I look at star trek convention attendees.
I'm a closet pen and paper role-player!

Leo

Nostromo

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 10:38:18 PM9/9/05
to
Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com>, Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:55:38
+0200, Anno Domini:

>For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
>me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
>in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
>shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.

I'll respond point by point MVD, with a summary conclusion at the bottom.
And I'll even crosspost to the 2 groups...but only for you, you understand?
;)

>I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
>already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
>today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
>that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
>years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
>really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
>attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
>the excitement they promise.

This is exactly the same feelings I've acquired over the past few years &
that have seen me playing *more* games, but with shorter sessions &
attention span. I put it down to the following:

1. Getting older. Games are really meant for kids, let's face it :)
2. More responsibilities in RL = less time to *devote* to games
3. games getting crappier - more glitz, less substance - aimed at the 1
minute attention span Y-Gen imo
4. me becoming jaded - I've been playing 'games' i.e. I've been a *gamer*
since I was 13 (maybe younger) - if I lived to be a 1000, would it still
hold the magic? cf. your first few sexual experiences with marital sex after
many years >8^D
5. games getting longer & longer with less content/substance, but more
repetition (this is really our own fault at the end of the day - ppl always
whinging a fabulous 10-12 fps is too short, etc)

I think that games do still "live up to the excitement they promise", they
just somehow fail to keep the adrenaline, excitement or interest to the end.

>Granted, one could raise the argument that perhaps I developed ADD at my
>advanced age (I don't really believe in ADD and consider it to be yet
>another attempt at explaining the shortcomings of today's "inhumane"
>education and failed social system), but I don't have the same problem
>with, say, books. I read novels from the first page to the last, without
>ever getting distracted or losing focus, and often pick them up again after
>a few years have passed, so it's not a matter of getting easily distracted.

He, he, I started thinking the same thing - early onset or something, but
I'm pretty sure now it's THEM, not ME! :)

>So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
>games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
>blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
>capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
>Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
>actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
>that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
>realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.

If you had listed the specific games that have at least grabbed you in the
past 2-3 yrs, then we could compare notes with my games below...

>So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
>(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
>MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
>Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
>like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
>White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!

B&W? Let's not go there...;-p (yes, 'innovative', but about as fun in the
long run as weeding imo :)

>But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
>about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
>preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
>happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
>a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
>offers more challenge than all these new games (chess is somewhat
>frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how much I pratice, a modern
>day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I should look into Go!).

Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your imagination
centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week improves my
enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D

>The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
>actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
>and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
>pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
>problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
>experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
>or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.

I think it's mostly to do with the fact that we've seen it all before (game
mechanics/structure-wise), & no amount of bells & whistles is going to pull
the wool over our eyes. The much touted 'AI' & neural-nets they promised us
10+ years ago are still pie in the sky, just iterative algorithms that
either make no behavioural/world sense, or are impossible to beat, or are
just more of the same. I'm yet to play & get immersed so much that I forget
I'm playing against the computer. The last game that did this is probably
going back to the days of UFO, Doom, HL, IndiJones&TFOA, Gabriel Knight,
MoM, Torment, Fallout, etc...hard to pinpoint when the 'enlightenment' died
*sigh*

Also, I've been 'cheating' a lot more in recent years...I get frustrated
more easily & just resort to a walkthrough or cheat codes. Wonder if that's
symptomatic of this current generations 'instant-gratification',
zero-attention-span syndrome that's rubbed off on me...? I know I've stopped
to worry about keeping up with a game (especially online ones) before the
buzz dies out, so I'm not feeling left out, either here on Usenet, or with
few ppl left to play with online. It's one of the reasons I probably went
from CoH to EQ2 this year, which was a mistake looking back.

>That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt out
>on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
>aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
>and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm not
>so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about it?
>I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
>feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
>waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?

For me, I find P2P a godsend. I know I would get very bitter if I only
played a game for 1-2 hrs & paid AU$90-100 for it. I figure, try b4 u buy is
perfectly valid if they're not going to provide a pay-per-play online system
by the hour (or some such). Having said that, when a game has no cost, it's
easier to perceive it as having no *value* & thus easier to drop like a bad
smell if it doesn't quite measure up. I have also bought close to a dozen
games I can see on my HDD which I *never* would have if I hadn't P2Ped them
1st. But this whole paragraph is for another topic, so I don't want to
hijack your thread MVD ;-)

>I still enjoy chess, by the way.

Keep playin ;-)

To summarise this post with a game list, the last game that had me hooked
for a loooong time was D2, but I'm not sure if that was 'magic' &
innovation, or just plain obsessive compulsiveness on my part. It certainly
was well designed to cater to us types, no doubt about the! :)

Since my D2 craze, only the following games are of note (in alphabetical
order, but not necessarily order of writing):

- BG2: fantastic crpg, but more like work in the 2nd half...I played it over
18 mths & only finished it on pure stubbornness in the end...started ToB
this year but just couldn't go far :(
- Broken Sword series: 1st 2 had me spellbound, but I'm struggling to
continue TSD after a good start
- CoH: looooved it at first - I wanted to be a superhero since I can
remember (like all kids!) & this game almost pulled it off; the grind & ppl
leaving in droves for WoW/EQ2 saw me follow the crowd to EQ2, which didn't
have anywhere near the same magic, just grind
- FarCry: one of the few fps I've actually finished; stunning visuals & open
world gameplay, whereas HL2, for example, still sits unfinished on my hard
drive & was just lacking that certain 'something' to make me want to go from
start to finish w/o big breaks
- Freedom Force: thought I'd love this, but I think too many mechanics & the
TB combat actually got in the way of the immersion for me
- Gothic 2: never played 1, but this game had me sucked in BAD for a few
weeks on & off; just didn't hold the momentum, unlike VTMB below
- Guild Wars: it's got a lot to offer, & I'm loving it, but again, recent RL
commitments are spoiling it as I can't devote as much time as I'd like to
it, dang :-/
- Halo: only other fps I've finished in the past 2-3 yrs; dunno why,
probably because it was short enough, though it's not on my all-time-greats
list by any stretch
- Kotor: I'm as big a SW fan as you can get, w/o dressing up in costumes &
shit; this game had me by the balls until Tatooine, then it just faded away.
I just can't put a finger on why - perhaps too much D20 combat that killed
the immersion, perhaps the lack of space combat & big scale battles SW is
famous for...perhaps I'll never know?
- Max Payne: another one not on my all-time-greats list, but I finished it.
Bullet time was a 1-trick pony, but what a trick! :)
- MOH:AA: another fps I finished (perhaps there were more than I thought he
he) - SP game was excellent really, but no better than SOF1/2
- Nexus: The Jupiter Project: so much potential, I've just skimmed the
surface of this one, but RL has pulled me away a couple times already which
kind of kills the continuity & momentum of a great game - may post a review
if I ever get to finish it before it's old news
- NWN: I think this is where the 'jade' started to set it...all engine &
bells n whistles, not so much substance - damn shame really
- OpFlash:CWC: best true war sim EVA! didn't quite finished it & didn't much
enjoy the tank/gunship bits, but the squad-based gameplay was *awesome*! I
almost dropped this game during the first 1-3 missions thinking "this is
just all too bloody hard!"...until it clicked & I 'got it'. Farkin glad I
did :)))
- RON: where Kohan frustrated me & RTW just couldn't grab me, this game
*almost* re-awakened my old love of RTSs after 5+ years, though I only
finished the Alexander campaign; nothing innovative or new, just excellent,
quality gameplay
- RTCW: another fps I finished (is there a pattern here :) - 3 times in
fact! Would go on my all time best SP fps games. I know a lot of ppl hated
the WW2 theme changing into occult/undead/mutants, but I think that's what I
*loved* about it...almost like 3 fps games in one! :)
- Star Trek: EF1/2: again, like Kotor, great subject material, but still
haven't finished the 2nd one (3/4 of the way though)...just seem to lose
that compulsion at some point
- Undying: now here's an example of a game with atmosFEAR! And the gameplay
wasn't bad for an fps. I think the only reason I stopped half-way was that
my nerves couldn't take it any longer he he
- VTMB: this is the *only* game in 10 yrs that I desperately wanted to
finish w/o cheating & didn't even care so much about the end, but loved the
ride; most immersive rpg world in a long time imo; having said that, I must
get back to the bastard & finish it - think I'll have a crack at it this
w/e! :)
- Wolf:ET: had me hooked badly for 12 mths - played for 18hrs straight one
time - just a great fps I guess
- Zanzarah: just so cutesy I had to give it an honourable mention :) I was
loving it right up to the point where I started using cheat codes 1/2 way
through & dropped it not long after. I wonder if it's the jadedness that
makes me resort to cheats or the other way around...hmmm...?

There's many, many games I could list that I started in the past 5 yrs, even
thought I would love, but died a quiet death very soon after. I guess time
will tell if the joy & enthusiasm is re-awakened in us or not Michael ;)

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.

Grackle

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:10:39 PM9/9/05
to

"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...

>
> But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
> about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
> preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
> happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
> a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
> offers more challenge than all these new games

Same here! And the thing was a bargain, less than half the cost of a
'standard' game. And beyond the game itself, I find the 'Academy' section
really fascinating. So here we have a game I was playing at 13 years old,
and it feels fresher and more interesting to me now several decades later
than games I bought a few months ago. I've come to the profound realization
that I don't actually have to pay attention to new game releases; ignoring
them doesn't necessarily mean I'm missing anything worthwhile.

Anyway, Chessmaster is every other genre rolled up into one :)

RTS: obviously the game's all about strategy
RPG: winning ranked games you increase your character's experience points
(rating)
FPS: grab hold of the board and rotate it in 3D or try out the battle chess
board, weee

jwb

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 12:21:45 AM9/10/05
to
"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...

>


> The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
> actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
> and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
> pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
> problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
> experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
> or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in
> years.
>
> That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt
> out
> on games.

That could very well be it. Lots of older gamers, for example, will say
"remember games like DOOM, that had oodles of gameplay??"... well, it really
didn't. Doom, Gold Box RPG's, Master of Magic... what they had was the shine
of being new. Warcraft 2... OMG, did Warcraft 2 suck hours of my life. I
haven't played a RTS since that I've enjoyed as much - is because the games
suck, or because it's simply not "new" anymore?

aponly

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 12:24:11 AM9/10/05
to
Another option, especially if you like chess, which is in essence a
wargame. If you ever played old board wargames (hex-based), then try
Matrix Games free version of Steel Panthers World at War. It is a
windows conversion and update of an old DOS game. It's a big download,
about 425mb. Hundreds of scenarios. I've had some graphics problems
in the past, but I just downloaded the game again (now version 8.4) and
am going to retry it. I think the URL is www.matrixgames.com or search
for the game title.

Fordy

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 5:47:34 AM9/10/05
to
I agree with Ken, try replaying some of the older games as most of us have
forgotten what they were really like anyway. I do this every now and then
and its interesting to notice the difference.
Slighty off topic but I have started watching a couple of old classic movies
and found them to be a load of crap even though I loved them many years ago.
Games on the other hand do age well and seeing the advancements helps
rekindle a bit of enthusiasm.


Grackle

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 8:51:34 AM9/10/05
to
"jwb" <jwb3333r...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:tbtUe.30413$%w.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> "Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...
>
> That could very well be it. Lots of older gamers, for example, will say
> "remember games like DOOM, that had oodles of gameplay??"... well, it
> really didn't. Doom, Gold Box RPG's, Master of Magic... what they had was
> the shine of being new. Warcraft 2... OMG, did Warcraft 2 suck hours of my
> life. I haven't played a RTS since that I've enjoyed as much - is because
> the games suck, or because it's simply not "new" anymore?
>
>

That's the problem; what we have now is a saturation of the same idea, every
publisher grabbing onto the biggest success and imitating it to death, and
spending millions in the process. I see no more evolution of ideas, only
evolution in technologies. But there are enough engines and SDKs out there
that making the candy coating in a game is so common-place it should no
longer be considered worthy of promoting a game, or being its major selling
point. But to be fair, the problem today is that it's almost impossible to
come up with something innovative, because gaming has matured since the days
when a FPS was an original concept.


Grackle

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 9:54:05 AM9/10/05
to

"BuckFush" <not...@laddress.com> wrote in message
news:y_qUe.30393$%w.8...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

The cost of tissues and online pornography will probably cost you more. Not
to mention that you risk going blind.


Bateau

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 10:07:36 AM9/10/05
to
In every other hobby when someone gets bored of it they just say "oh
well I've had enough of this I'll try some other way to pass my time."
But video gamers always bitch and moan as if it's the hobby that's
changed and not themselves. Like that other guy who was saying:

"the way Wolfenstien was groundbreaking to me (there may have been
predecessors but it was the first one *I* saw and fell in love with)"

And even though he was saying it he still didn't realize that gaming was
only getting boring and repetitive SUBJETIVELY.

Even if you still loved the sight of your own text enough to insist on
whining couldn't you do so in one of the other GAMES SUCK THESE DAYS
threads that get started every fucking day?

RogerM

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 10:19:50 AM9/10/05
to
Grackle wrote:

> "BuckFush" <not...@laddress.com> wrote in message
> news:y_qUe.30393$%w.8...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> > You can say that again, mister - I've moved on and much to my surprise sex
> > has been a *fantastic* substitute - still can't believe I didn't try it
> > sooner.
> >
> > And it's bound to get even better once I find a partner.
> >
> >
>
> The cost of tissues and online pornography will probably cost you more. Not
> to mention that you risk going blind.

It's worth the risk. Partners carry plenty of risk themselves. Not to mention
the expense, both economic and in self-esteem.

;)

patrick...@mn.rr.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 10:58:47 AM9/10/05
to
>Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
>happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
>a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
>offers more challenge than all these new games . . .

"Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your
imagination
centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week
improves my
enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D"

I know that response was a joke, but it points up something serious
that's often overlooked IMO: Abstract games require *more*
imagination, not less! Doom can never be anything but fantasy monster
bashing, and Gary Grigsby's World at War can never be anything but
WWII; but chess can be anything the player imagines. Many say it's a
stylized medieval battle, but it's so stylized that with a stretch of
imagination it can be a battle in *any* period of history--or even a
whole war, or most any other competitive event. It'll never
*explicitly* represent any of those things (not even medieval battle);
but because of that, it *abstractly* represents them all. A knight can
symbolize a starship; a rook can represent an ogre. If you're into the
stock market, chess can abstractly symbolize investment strategies.
With sufficient imagination, the sky's the limit.

In contrast, graphic realism is *extremely* narrow and limited by its
very nature. Once you've got that elven warrior explicitly decked out
in chainmail and equipped with bow, dagger, and an assortment of
protection spells, it's very vividly an elven warrior; but that's all
it can ever possibly be. And sooner or later, unless you're *really*
into elves, you're going to get tired of that and start looking for
something else.

The above allusion to porn is apropos: it can be very exciting--for
five minutes. That's the nature of graphic stimulation; it's
ephemeral. But the allusion is misleading, because bombarding the
senses with audio-visual stimulation does NOT improve the imagination!
It has just the opposite effect. It fills the mind with specific
images, and those images stand as cheap substitutes for what the
imagination would normally produce on its own. All the "seeming
reality"--whether porn images or realistic game images--crowds out the
imagination and causes it to grow lazy and weak.

As a matter of fact, I think this is a big part of Mr. Vondung's
complaint, or dilemma. As one of my literature profs said, "We're all
in the clutches of realism these days." In the nineteenth century,
poetry gave way to novels because of all the realistic detail. In the
twentieth century, books gave way to movies because of all the graphic
realism. In this century, even movies have to be computer enhanced for
added realism, while computer games seem to make us participants in the
movies. It seems that what people really want is a "holodeck."

But what is a holodeck? It's just like real life, except that you have
the godlike power to make it be any way you like.

So, basically, people want real life, not an escape from real life.
The only reason people don't immerse themselves in real life is that
they're full of fears and inhibitions and all the things that make us
feel unable to create the kind of life we want. Imagine what it would
be like to have absolutely no fears, worries, or inhibitions. You'd be
completely confident and feel free to go out and do *anything* you want
to do in life. Sure, the girl you've got your eye on might still say
no--but that wouldn't faze you in the least; you'd smile and move on
and find someone else. You'd pursue the career that's just right for
you, and you'd make plenty of money and have all the things you'd like
to buy. Furthermore, you'd have enlightenment, spiritual fulfillment,
and everything else imaginable. The *last* thing you'd ever want to do
is escape from life and immerse yourself in a fantasy or a game.
Without fear, and with your imagination linked up to real life, the
world would be your oyster.

Well, I've digressed far enough; you get my drift. But back to chess:
Isn't chess a fine tool for overcoming fear and exercising the
imagination?

Because in chess there's always the fear that you'll blunder or be
outsmarted (Mr. Vondung mentions being dismayed by the fact that no
matter how good he gets, a computer will always be able to beat him);
but the more you play, the better you get--and as you become a stronger
player, your confidence grows. And I've found, from personal
experience, that strength and confidence in one area always spills over
into all of life. When I exercise regularly and get physically
stronger, I become more confident at work, in bed, and everywhere.
Same happens with gaining strength in chess: you don't just become a
better chess player; you become better at everything in life (provided
you continue to take time for the rest of life, rather than losing
yourself in chess and forfeiting your life).

And finally, there's the benefit of improved imagination. A game like
chess forces you to exercise your imagination. If nothing else, you
have to picture the moves and be able to see two or three or more moves
ahead. You also have to picture your opponent's likely responses. And
once you get going, you'll find that chess can be a kind of metaphor
for life: any situation in life can be expressed in chess terms. When
you feel "backed into a corner," you'll picture back-rank checkmates or
"suffocation mates." When life demands that you give a little to get a
lot, you'll think of "sacrifices" in chess. And so forth. In a sense,
the game teaches us about real life.

And the more we learn to love real life, and the better we get at it,
the less we'll complain about all the crappy games coming out these
days. In the first place, we won't want to blind ourselves with all
that eye candy anyway; and in the second place, we'll be so happy and
involved in life that we won't want to spend much time escaping into a
mere game.

--Patrick

Courageous

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:18:27 AM9/10/05
to

>Even if you still loved the sight of your own text enough to insist on
>whining couldn't you do so in one of the other GAMES SUCK THESE DAYS
>threads that get started every fucking day?

Well aren't you a piece of work.

C//

patrick...@mn.rr.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:24:09 AM9/10/05
to
> John Menichelli wrote:

> I would do as you suggest: try Go. It's an excellent game with both
> strategic and tactical elements.

That's a good suggestion, *if* Mr. Vondung is really interested in go.
But what he says is:

"(chess is somewhat frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how
much I pratice, a modern day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I
should look into Go!)"

To my way of thinking, that's a pretty poor reason for choosing go over
chess. In fact, go will ultimately cause even more dismay, because to
be a *really* good go player, you'd have to have started when you were
about five years old and then devoted your life to it. No matter how
much you practice, if you're not a prodigy there will always be many go
players in the world who can beat you.

The thing is, you don't have to be the best in the world, or smarter
than any computer program in the world. You just have to do the best
you can and always work on improving.

So, if Chessmaster 10K will always be able to beat you, that's great!
It means that one piece of software can provide you with a lifetime of
challenge--and then some. That's pretty amazing for a computer game,
isn't it?

Go is also a fine game, and there's some reasonably good go software
around these days--strong enough to beat novice and intermediate
players. But don't fall for the oft-repeated line about how chess is
all tactics while go is both strategy and tactics. I once gave up
chess for go because of that story, thinking go would be better for my
mind somehow. I don't think it's really true.

You have to consider each game as a world unto itself. In the context
of chess, there's chess strategy and chess tactics. In the context of
go, there's go strategy and go tactics. However, go is a bigger game
(when you play on a full-sized board)--so the context is larger and the
possibilities are multiplied; kinda like playing several chess games at
once and aiming to win most of them.

Choose go if you want a departure from chess, or if you want a bigger,
longer game, or if you just want to see what it's like or whatever.
Don't choose go just because chess software is so strong or somebody
tells you there's not much strategy in chess.

--Patrick

magnate

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:35:06 AM9/10/05
to
Man I love this ng! Even the homicide-inducing Butter Pants and
SteamKiller don't stop it being great. My views interspersed:

Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com>, Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:55:38

> >I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen


> >already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
> >today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
> >that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
> >years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
> >really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
> >attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
> >the excitement they promise.

> This is exactly the same feelings I've acquired over the past few years &
> that have seen me playing *more* games, but with shorter sessions &
> attention span. I put it down to the following:
>
> 1. Getting older. Games are really meant for kids, let's face it :)

We're all still kids at heart, but I agree that this has something to
do with it. Older people are harder to impress than kids. Hence the
point someone made about people who rave about old games like Doom, UFO
and MoM, when they weren't in fact better than current offerings - they
were great games, but also we were a lot easier to impress back then.

> 2. More responsibilities in RL = less time to *devote* to games

Yes. Lots of my all-time favourite games (Elite/FFE, Civ, UFO, MoO/MoM,
Dom2) all had pretty low returns on your initial investment of time.
They were games which rewarded lots of time invested, revealing
different units/spells/features later on. Compare with games like Kohan
or RTW - both great games, but when you've finished the tutorials
you've seen pretty much what there is to see. That puts much higher
expectations on the gameplay, because the content is all displayed up
front.

> 3. games getting crappier - more glitz, less substance - aimed at the 1
> minute attention span Y-Gen imo

I don't think this is true. I'm no industry fanboy, but there are still
good games being produced. Ok D2 is now several years old, but WC3 was
a good game for anyone who hadn't been spoiled by WC2 all those years
before (and even for a good many who had). HL2, Dom2, FarCry, maybe DS2
(I've not started it yet). The Sims series, if you like watching paint
dry (and millions do, it seems).

I think the S:N ratio is getting worse as the industry gets bigger and
worth more money - there are more crap games nowadays (they are the
rule rather than the exception) - but I think there are still good
games coming out. I guess it's fair to say that more of them are
compromised by commercial considerations (hitting target dates etc.)
than was the case 10 or 15 years ago.

> 4. me becoming jaded - I've been playing 'games' i.e. I've been a *gamer*
> since I was 13 (maybe younger) - if I lived to be a 1000, would it still
> hold the magic? cf. your first few sexual experiences with marital sex after
> many years >8^D

This is part of getting older and harder to impress. We know what we
like and we want it improved just so (MoM with MP and better AI).

> 5. games getting longer & longer with less content/substance, but more
> repetition (this is really our own fault at the end of the day - ppl always
> whinging a fabulous 10-12 fps is too short, etc)

This is a VFM thing. Repetitive games are cheaper to produce, per hour
of gameplay. It's an inevitable consequence of commercialisation.

> >So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
> >(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
> >MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
> >Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
> >like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
> >White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!

This is a fabulous list - but you *don't* want a game that tries to
do/be everything. You want an RTS that's *just* a top-flight RTS, and
so on. Hybrid games are interesting and sometimes excellent (System
Shock, anyone?), but nothing will press all your buttons at once.

> Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your imagination
> centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week improves my
> enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D

Now this is a connection I hadn't considered - if anything I find that
porn dulls my imagination rather than stimulating it. Perhaps MV should
lay off the porn and see if his gaming enjoyment picks up ;-)

> >The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
> >actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
> >and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
> >pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
> >problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
> >experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
> >or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.

But it was though - MoM had far more replay value than AoW2:SM - at
least in my experience. More races to try, more combinations of spells
and skills to try out. In AoW2:SM I can research everything in every
game, so all games tend to converge into similar experiences. The
rock/paper/scissors balance is better in MoM as well (though not
perfect by any means - champion slingers, anyone?).

> Also, I've been 'cheating' a lot more in recent years...I get frustrated
> more easily & just resort to a walkthrough or cheat codes. Wonder if that's
> symptomatic of this current generations 'instant-gratification',
> zero-attention-span syndrome that's rubbed off on me...? I know I've stopped

Funny, I've found that too. It's impatience - I know I'm not going to
play the game over and over, and I don't want to miss anything out, so
I resort to the walkthrough. Dammit.

> To summarise this post with a game list, the last game that had me hooked
> for a loooong time was D2, but I'm not sure if that was 'magic' &
> innovation, or just plain obsessive compulsiveness on my part. It certainly
> was well designed to cater to us types, no doubt about the! :)

D2 had a lot of really good points: the skill system which resulted in
dozens of character "builds" which played really differently,
essentially making 20-30 really different classes you could play; the
drop system which kept you playing over and over again looking for
those elusive unique items; excellent MP implementation yet still a
great SP game - and an impressively low number of irritations (the
Flayer Jungle and the jog round Lut Gholein at the end of Act II are
pretty much the only ones - and maybe those damn imps in Act V). Tons
of replay value - especially for an OC completist ...

> Since my D2 craze, only the following games are of note (in alphabetical
> order, but not necessarily order of writing):

> - BG2: fantastic crpg, but more like work in the 2nd half...I played it over
> 18 mths & only finished it on pure stubbornness in the end...started ToB
> this year but just couldn't go far :(

I came to BG2 late and wrecked it for myself by using the walkthrough.
Since it's supposed to be one of the best CRPGs ever, and I *loved*
BG1, I hope I've learned the lesson.

> - CoH: looooved it at first - I wanted to be a superhero since I can
> remember (like all kids!) & this game almost pulled it off; the grind & ppl
> leaving in droves for WoW/EQ2 saw me follow the crowd to EQ2, which didn't
> have anywhere near the same magic, just grind

I refuse to have anything to do with Pay To Play games. If I buy a
game, I expect to be able to play it for as long as I like, with
whoever I like, for no extra cost.

> - FarCry: one of the few fps I've actually finished; stunning visuals & open
> world gameplay, whereas HL2, for example, still sits unfinished on my hard
> drive & was just lacking that certain 'something' to make me want to go from
> start to finish w/o big breaks

Interesting - this shows me that I really don't like FPS. I just
couldn't get into it, even though I knew it was at least as good as HL1
and possibly better.

> - Halo: only other fps I've finished in the past 2-3 yrs; dunno why,
> probably because it was short enough, though it's not on my all-time-greats
> list by any stretch

Didn't know this was available on PC (is it?)

> - Kotor: I'm as big a SW fan as you can get, w/o dressing up in costumes &
> shit; this game had me by the balls until Tatooine, then it just faded away.
> I just can't put a finger on why - perhaps too much D20 combat that killed
> the immersion, perhaps the lack of space combat & big scale battles SW is
> famous for...perhaps I'll never know?

Agreed. I love SW too, but KoToR was too far removed for me.

> - NWN: I think this is where the 'jade' started to set it...all engine &
> bells n whistles, not so much substance - damn shame really

YES!! *This* was where it started to go wrong. I don't know why, but
NWN was the biggest gaming disappointment EVER for me. Far far worse
than MoO3. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying MoO3 was a better game
than NWN, just that NWN was more of a disappointment. It should have
been the ultimate computerised RPG experience, and it SUCKED! Go here,
explore primitive dialogue options, jog over here, play the dialogue
game once more, have a fight, collect the quest trinket, jog somewhere
else, etc. etc. So so little immersion. Yet the game looks fine, and I
have to say the combat engine is hugely impressive, with all the
dodging and tumbling and whirlwinds and all that jazz. But it just
really stinks. Maybe the campaign is at fault and not the game? Can
anyone convince me to give it another chance?

> - RON: where Kohan frustrated me & RTW just couldn't grab me, this game
> *almost* re-awakened my old love of RTSs after 5+ years, though I only
> finished the Alexander campaign; nothing innovative or new, just excellent,
> quality gameplay

Ah, good - I've just dusted this one off - it held my attention so
briefly that I honestly cannot remember it at all, but if it beats
Kohan (which palled quickly for me) and RTW (which I love), it might
bring back a little of that AoE1 magic ....

> There's many, many games I could list that I started in the past 5 yrs, even
> thought I would love, but died a quiet death very soon after. I guess time
> will tell if the joy & enthusiasm is re-awakened in us or not Michael ;)

Well, Michael, here are my thoughts on a few other games that have not
been mentioned in this thread (though several have come up in Patrick's
"perfect game" thread):

1. Dom2 - yeah I know, I'm a fanboy, but this really is the best game
since D2. If you've not tried it already, you must give it a go.

2. Majesty - I dusted this one off recently (yes, I've been clearing
out all my old CDs), and I'd forgotten how unique it is. It's RTS but
you don't have control over your units. That *completely* changes the
experience. Sadly the RPG element is limited because you can't take
your heroes with you to subsequent missions, but it's a great little
game. Make sure you get the Gold edition (with the Northern Expansion),
and turn off that incredibly awful Sean Connery voice.

3. Commandos - I'm all excited because I've just ordered #2 and #3 (Men
of Courage and Destination Berlin) - a very hard puzzle-type game, but
the first one at least was really immersive and well done.

4. Space Empires StarFury - this is the game FFE should have been. It's
not perfect, but it's really very good if you like Elite-type games.
(Actually no, Freelancer is the game FFE should have been, but for some
reason Freelancer got stale amazingly quickly - I played it through
only twice.)

5. Imperialism - I'm pretty sure you know these two. I prefer #1 but #2
is slightly more advanced, and reminiscent of Sid Meier's Colonisation,
which was an excellent (and underrated) game.

6. EU2 - again, I'm almost certain you know this one. I keep coming
back to it, it's so deep. I think of it as the non-fantasy equivalent
of Dom2.

7. Warlords Battlecry series - I suspect you prefer the Kohan series,
but I find these slightly more engaging.

I could go on, but I think I've rambled long enough. It's just started
to rain - time to bring the laundry in ...

CC

jwb

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:42:54 AM9/10/05
to
"Grackle" <now...@lalaland.ca> wrote in message
news:lFAUe.20317$I02.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

But to be fair, the problem today is that it's almost impossible to
> come up with something innovative, because gaming has matured since the
> days when a FPS was an original concept.

exactly. There's only so many ways you can have fun directing little people
on a screen.

Look at arcades, even. If you're old enough, you remember the magic that was
an arcade around 1980-1983 (I pick those years because that's when arcades
were *full* of really cool and diverse games) .... so many different games,
so many different types of gameplay.... but after awhile, they started to
look and feel the same.


jwb

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:57:41 AM9/10/05
to
"magnate" <chr...@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126366506.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

excellent post overall. Wanted to comment on this one part.

>
> YES!! *This* was where it started to go wrong. I don't know why, but
> NWN was the biggest gaming disappointment EVER for me. Far far worse
> than MoO3. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying MoO3 was a better game
> than NWN, just that NWN was more of a disappointment. It should have
> been the ultimate computerised RPG experience, and it SUCKED! Go here,
> explore primitive dialogue options, jog over here, play the dialogue
> game once more, have a fight, collect the quest trinket, jog somewhere
> else, etc. etc. So so little immersion. Yet the game looks fine, and I
> have to say the combat engine is hugely impressive, with all the
> dodging and tumbling and whirlwinds and all that jazz. But it just
> really stinks. Maybe the campaign is at fault and not the game? Can
> anyone convince me to give it another chance?

sadly, no. Like you, I *really* wanted to like this. And I do like it - a
little. But it does lack that ceratin 'something" that just grabs you and
holds you. I find I can't play this for more than a half hour, which is
really bad for a CRPG.

All the elements are there, too, but you are correct - it just lack
immersion. Can't put my finger on why.


patrick...@mn.rr.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 11:57:58 AM9/10/05
to
Of course, if you really want to be talked into the superiority of go,
try this article:
http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html

Grackle

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 12:06:55 PM9/10/05
to
"Courageous" <coura...@procusion.com> wrote in message
news:k9u5i1d25rurohoqp...@4ax.com...

You should have seen him when he used to have a 200 line signature of some
stupid ascii graphic.


Xocyll

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 12:32:01 PM9/10/05
to
"chainbreaker" <no...@nowhere.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:


That's something everyone should do.

It's not so much "books" as one really damn big book in multiple
volumes.

Don't forget to see Master and Commander too.
While it wasn't exactly as the books were (Since it contains elements
from both "Master and Commander" and "The Far Side of the World") it was
pretty damn good.

Really gives you a feeling for what it must have been like to bee under
cannon fire, unlike so many purely Hollywood type productions.


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

Grackle

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 12:19:28 PM9/10/05
to
<patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1126365849.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>> John Menichelli wrote:
>
> So, if Chessmaster 10K will always be able to beat you, that's great!
> It means that one piece of software can provide you with a lifetime of
> challenge--and then some. That's pretty amazing for a computer game,
> isn't it?
>

Actually, you can choose among a huge number of computer-controlled
opponents of varying levels in Chessmaster. Many of the lower ranked
opponents are quite stupid in that the program simulates absent-minded
blunders and pointless moves. Playing the program at its maximum level is
self-abusive, as it's capable of beating grandmasters.


Grackle

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 12:32:38 PM9/10/05
to
<patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1126367878.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Of course, if you really want to be talked into the superiority of go,
> try this article:
> http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html
>

Page is so Go-biased, you'd think they were jealous of chess.


Michael Vondung

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 1:07:40 PM9/10/05
to
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:32:38 -0400, Grackle wrote:

> Page is so Go-biased, you'd think they were jealous of chess.

Can see that by the author's quite factual claim that Go was invented 2000
BC. This isn't what other sources say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28board_game%29#History

It still may be that old, but for chess he used the date that is quite
verifable (though why he believes the game may have originated in China is
beyond me), and for Go he used a flattering estimate.

But anyway, I do play a little Go, too (GnuGo with the Jago client), it's
just a different experience than chess.

M.

patrick...@mn.rr.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 2:19:30 PM9/10/05
to
>(though why he believes the game [chess] may have originated in China is
beyond me),<

I'm convinced it probably originated in China. Read this article:
http://www.samsloan.com/origin.htm

RogerM

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 2:48:19 PM9/10/05
to
magnate wrote:

>
> YES!! *This* was where it started to go wrong. I don't know why, but
> NWN was the biggest gaming disappointment EVER for me. Far far worse
> than MoO3. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying MoO3 was a better game
> than NWN, just that NWN was more of a disappointment. It should have
> been the ultimate computerised RPG experience, and it SUCKED! Go here,
> explore primitive dialogue options, jog over here, play the dialogue
> game once more, have a fight, collect the quest trinket, jog somewhere
> else, etc. etc. So so little immersion. Yet the game looks fine, and I
> have to say the combat engine is hugely impressive, with all the
> dodging and tumbling and whirlwinds and all that jazz. But it just
> really stinks. Maybe the campaign is at fault and not the game? Can
> anyone convince me to give it another chance?
>

I disliked it as a solo game, but I love it for online multiplay. Plus, I love
games where I can design my own stuff, and NWN is the king of that. Design your
own worlds, items, monsters, etc. GREAT stuff. If you want to try it online, I can
point you to a favorite online server.

> 7. Warlords Battlecry series - I suspect you prefer the Kohan series,
> but I find these slightly more engaging.

I got WLBC 2 shortly after getting my new computer. A LOT of fun, and it kept me
from buying WC3 (which I had planned on as a must buy) for more than a year. Tied
with Starcraft for my favorite RTS game of all time.


RogerM

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 2:50:10 PM9/10/05
to
jwb wrote:

Very true. It's all shooters, fighters, and driving games. You don't see things
like Tempest, Venture, and Arabian anymore.

RogerM

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 2:52:26 PM9/10/05
to
Grackle wrote:

I remember that. I still pause before clicking on one of his posts. :)

jwb

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 5:35:01 PM9/10/05
to
"RogerM" <rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:43232AE2...@ns.sympatico.ca...

Tempest... what an original game. I loved that one.

Scramble, too (even though it was pretty basic side scroller)


RogerM

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 6:58:32 PM9/10/05
to
jwb wrote:

Qix was pretty special, too. I had a version of that on my Amiga.


shadows

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 8:42:56 PM9/10/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-09-10, Gandalf Parker <gan...@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
> Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net:
>
>> a RPG like Ultima VIII
>> (even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II,
>> a MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like
>> Master of Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO,
>
> I agree that your entire list is an excellent one and if you find that
> game please let me know. But, for now....
>
> There are over 300 free servers now for Ultima Online. The player-made
> modifications are extreme. From old UO, to Diablo versions, to Tolkien
> D&D versions, to long term slow gain versions, to fast burn player-vs-
> player versions.

Gandalf I never got into UO. I was a poor college student at the
time and the time & expense of it never appealled to me. I am
interested though and have seen you post several times about it.

Have you considered putting together a FAQ or a webpage
explaining how to get on these free servers? I'm assuming the
client is downloadable via a free trial from Origin.

Do these free UO shards have that many users or are they just
nostalgic ghosts?

I'm going to go google but I suspect I'll wind up on shards with
30-50 players on at once.


shadows

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 8:51:55 PM9/10/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-09-09, Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
> me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
> in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
> shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
> I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
> already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
> today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
> that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
> years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
> really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
> attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
> the excitement they promise.

We have some things in common and, like yourself, I also stopped
enjoying games recently. I finally gave up on WoW when I realized
how boring the game is after level 60.

This is after *really* trying to like it past that level.

I think the problem is the landscape is changing for guys like
you and me. Not to sound too grandoise but artists suffer the
same fate when a new art movement comes about and they feel out
of place. Games are pieces of art just like movies and
novels. This means when the landscape changes us hobbyists will
suffer.

I suspect we will see the odd game here and there that is
reproduced from the past. Those games will be ghosts and will
never capture the same experience we had from previous games.

You know what annoys me more than anything? Most of the games
from the 80s and 90s which we grew up on are dying because of
backward compatibility issues, and game developers can't even be
bothered to realize that the technology they develop should be
more open so that the fan base can maintain the code after they
move onto other things.

Instead the old games die, the landscape changes, and some games
barely manage to live on, but do live on like old soldiers
through a series of binary patches and mods.

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 6:28:56 AM9/11/05
to
In article <9kIUe.11853$x43.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
jwb3333r...@excite.com says...

> Tempest... what an original game. I loved that one.

What's original about it?

It's just Space Invaders with the board wrapped into a circle.

- Gerry Quinn

Michael Vondung

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 7:51:18 AM9/11/05
to
After you "made me" read the site with the Go "propaganda", I actually
spent a few hours last night learning more about Go. I even downloaded qGo
and glGo, and kibitzed at a number of games at the IGS (panda net
something). That was actually quite interesting, and I'll say that Go seems
to be harder to get into. An ongoing chess game looks rather organized and
clean (one can quickly determine all legal moves), but a 19x19 Go board
after 200+ moves looks quite complex and confusing. But it's definitely
interesting, especially if you move a bit away from the screen and try to
"take in" the whole board and the global pattern. I's very
"macro"-oriented, and I'm not sure how to tackle the game yet
(strategy-wise), but I think I'll spend some time trying to "get" it. I
also find it artistic in an appealing way.

I have to say though that the different rulesets and scoring systems are a
lot more confusing than Chess. I'm not sure if the claim that Go is easier
to learn than chess is really so accurate if you look at the Japanese
ruleset with its numerous exceptions for example. And then there is stuff
like "removing the dead stones at the end and playing it out if there are
disputes", which seems fairly ambigious and vague to me. Also
"compensation" such as handicaps and "komi" are something to get used to,
and I have mixed feelings about them. This is done at chess show events
too, but not at tournaments where everyone starts at an equal level. (But I
am most certainly missing something crucial here.)

What happens if one player resigns? Does the other player win? It would
make sense, but I noticed that the Go clients I looked at don't even bother
calculating the final score if one player gives up. Surprisingly many of
the games I watched at IGS ended with someone resigning and I didn't always
(or ever) understand just why the player gave up ... a few of them seemed
to have more captures and more "territory", but still threw the towel.

Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
performance?´

M.

magnate

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 8:54:52 AM9/11/05
to
One important pair of games I left off my list yesterday are the Thief
games - these always felt to me like they had the atmosphere and
immersion that NWN lacked (though admittedly they didn't have the range
of monsters and items etc.). They had the same sort of
strategy-cum-puzzle feel as Commandos. I think my ultimate crpg would
be some kind of Thief outgrowth with something more like the NWN combat
engine and a BG1-style plot.

I'm looking into getting Thief 3: Deadly Shadows - grateful for
anyone's experiences of that game. I've also just discovered a fan-made
expansion for Thief 2, which I'm just installing now ...

CC

Michael Vondung

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 9:03:18 AM9/11/05
to
On 11 Sep 2005 05:54:52 -0700, magnate wrote:

> I'm looking into getting Thief 3: Deadly Shadows - grateful for
> anyone's experiences of that game.

I picked this one up for ten Euro, a couple months back. I have not played
the two prequals, so I cannot compare, but I actually liked the game. It
didn't grab my attention as much as other games of old, but this was a
purchase that I didn't really reget. I didn't finish it, because frankly, I
sucked at it, but the atmosphere was great. Good dose of much appreciated
humour, too.

M.

Grackle

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 9:34:15 AM9/11/05
to
"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:w7gtbi8ve23x.dggccjatm4tf$.dlg@40tude.net...

>
> Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
> somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
> performance?´
>

Kasparov is born in '63 so I guess his brain must be starting to overheat by
now...


shadows

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 10:19:34 AM9/11/05
to
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]

Thief 3 lacks the magic of the first two and is far more
clausterphobic. It's still worth playing through once though.


serg271

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 10:24:09 AM9/11/05
to
> If you ever played old board wargames (hex-based), then try
>Matrix Games free version of Steel Panthers World at War.

Or free version Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank (Modern battles) for
windows
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/SPCamo/wSPMBT/1.htm

BTW it's AI somehow better than SPWAW (it shooting arty on the
smoke/dust plumes for example)

Xocyll

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 11:47:39 AM9/11/05
to
Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails

of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"


>me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
>in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
>shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
>I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
>already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
>today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
>that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
>years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
>really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
>attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
>the excitement they promise.
>

>Granted, one could raise the argument that perhaps I developed ADD at my
>advanced age (I don't really believe in ADD and consider it to be yet
>another attempt at explaining the shortcomings of today's "inhumane"
>education and failed social system), but I don't have the same problem
>with, say, books. I read novels from the first page to the last, without
>ever getting distracted or losing focus, and often pick them up again after
>a few years have passed, so it's not a matter of getting easily distracted.
>
>So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
>games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
>blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
>capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
>Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
>actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
>that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
>realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.

Jaded, I don't know.

The problem you, I, and many others are having is that we've seen games
in the past that were so very innovative and we've seen some very
innovative and interesting things be ignored and dropped from newer
games.

I can usually find something to like in the various games I try, but I
can't help missing the things i've seen in similar games that would make
_this_ game better.

The people who never played the old games don't miss those features
because they don't know that they ever existed.

When we were young we took the games as they came, but as we built up a
"library" or "history" of games played we start linking the various bits
we _really_ liked and every new game gets compared to the ever
increasing "ideal game" template.

Even as we say the graphics aren't important, they are - i've looked
back at some old favorites and while the gameplay is there, the graphics
are now SO HORRIBLE in comparison with new games that I can't play them.
Text based and ASCII graphic roguealikes are immune to this aspect.

UU:SA is one of those, Betrayal at Krondor another.

I would gladly buy these games again if they were updated to modern
graphic resolutions and textures and had the gameplay left EXACTLY as it
was.

The problem though, is that the older "experienced" gamer that is still
gaming, is a fairly small part of the total gaming market (or at least
that's what the beancounters think) so they just don't consider it a
market worth pursuing.

Hopefully some creative bunch in eastern europe will decide to make a
game like we used to love with graphics that are adequate if not totally
state of the art.
If it happens and it does well enough, maybe the beancounters will sit
up and notice.
I doubt it though, beancounters seem unable to concentrate on anything
but "Top 10 seller" and in a market they think is dominated by ADD
teenagers, they're only going to make games that appeal to ADD
teenagers.

CelesteB

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 1:17:31 PM9/11/05
to
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:16:04 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:

>I
>Try replaying some of your old favorites and see what happens. Come to think
>of, I need to do the same.
>
>--
>Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
>http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
> Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
>http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
> Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
> Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
>

I'm in the same situation...I just ordered the BG/IWD complete set to
replay. I still have the old ones but am too lazy to track them down
:)

Celeste
"Born to Rune" - T. Prachett

CelesteB

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 1:22:03 PM9/11/05
to

>That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt out
>on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
>aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
>and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm not
>so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about it?
>I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
>feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
>waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?

>
>I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
>M.
Hey Michael...didn't I just see you in the alt.games.nintendo.gameboy
just the other day? ;) I picked up a Nintendo DS and have collected
some games - Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem Sacred Stones, Advance Wars:
Black Hole Rising and Dual Strike. I'm hoping to find that spark too.

Didn't you play Fire Emblem? If so, what did you think?

jwb

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 1:24:27 PM9/11/05
to
"magnate" <chr...@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1126443292.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I really liked TDS. I was a fan of the first two, and thought the third was
the best of the bunch - it just felt more like I was a thief - the hide in
shadows and move silent worked much better (Garret always sounded like he
was wearing tap shoes in the first two games).

Some hardcore fans derided TDS because of the "small levels" needed to
accommodate the Xbox, but in reality, it was likely anger that was more
directed at consoles overall - the levels are not small. There's usually one
"portal" in each (big) level that splits the level in half. Hardly "two
rooms and load" that many made it seem.

If you liked the first two thief games, TDS is an easy game to recommend.

R. Alan Monroe

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 2:23:43 PM9/11/05
to

Except for the:
Color display
Varied types of enemies that actually do different things
Varying layouts
Comfortable analog control
Appealing aesthetics
High adrenaline pacing
Instantly recognizable sound effects
etc.

A lot more than "just" Space Invaders.

Alan

Nostromo

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 11:54:47 PM9/11/05
to
Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:47:39 -0400,
Anno Domini:

<snip>

>Hopefully some creative bunch in eastern europe will decide to make a
>game like we used to love with graphics that are adequate if not totally
>state of the art.

Recent examples: Star Wolves, Nexus:The Jupiter Incident, Metalheart, to
name a few.

>If it happens and it does well enough, maybe the beancounters will sit
>up and notice.
>I doubt it though, beancounters seem unable to concentrate on anything
>but "Top 10 seller" and in a market they think is dominated by ADD
>teenagers, they're only going to make games that appeal to ADD
>teenagers.
>
>Xocyll

Farkin A! I wish I had ADD *sniff*...

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.

Michael Vondung

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 2:17:58 AM9/12/05
to
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:17:31 GMT, CelesteB wrote:

> I just ordered the BG/IWD complete set to
> replay. I still have the old ones but am too lazy to track them down
> :)

Funny you say that. I ordered the Black Isle Compilation 2 just the other
day, too. :) It comes with both BGs and their expansions & both IWDs and
expansions. I wanted mostly IWD2 since I had skipped this before. Well, I
am not as big a fan of BG as others here, but these were
better-than-average games. :)

M.

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 5:25:18 AM9/12/05
to
In article <knWUe.49$6Z1....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
now...@lalaland.ca says...

> "Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w7gtbi8ve23x.dggccjatm4tf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >
> > Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
> > somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
> > performance?=3F

>
> Kasparov is born in '63 so I guess his brain must be starting to overheat by
> now...

Actually he has just officially retired. But he might come back. I
suspect he wants to get involved in politics.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 5:27:28 AM9/12/05
to
In article <PC_Ue.12963$uD6....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
amon...@yahoo.com says...

Still, somewhat incremental rather than revolutionary, no?

- Gerry Quinn

chaos...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 6:45:15 AM9/12/05
to

patrick...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> > John Menichelli wrote:
>
> > I would do as you suggest: try Go. It's an excellent game with both
> > strategic and tactical elements.
>
> Choose go if you want a departure from chess, or if you want a bigger,
> longer game, or if you just want to see what it's like or whatever.
> Don't choose go just because chess software is so strong or somebody
> tells you there's not much strategy in chess.

IMO Go is definitely the superior game. Computers being much weaker Go
players than they are Chess players is not the cause of this; it's the
symptom.

Go is a better game because it is less "mechanical", and more
intuitive. There are levels of thinking and understanding Go that
simply aren't there, in chess.

(FWIW, I was a very strong chess-player when I was a kid. I had
newspaper articles written about me, and only dropped out of
competition because I couldn't--and didn't want to--deal with the 6+
hours of chess training every day. This is not meant as a boast, just
proof that I'm not biased towards Go out of ignorance or incompetence
at chess.)

Laszlo

patrick...@mn.rr.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 7:45:15 AM9/12/05
to
chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
> IMO Go is definitely the superior game. Computers being much weaker Go
> players than they are Chess players is not the cause of this; it's the
> symptom.
>
> Go is a better game because it is less "mechanical", and more
> intuitive. There are levels of thinking and understanding Go that
> simply aren't there, in chess.

So you're saying that non-intuitive "mechanical" games which focus on
certain levels of thinking and understanding are inherently inferior to
games which require that more of the mind be used?

I wouldn't say that makes go superior to chess; it just makes it more
intuitive and demanding of a broader range of mental processes.

Go would only be superior if we agreed that the main purpose of a game
is to exercise the mind as fully as possible.

Go is, IMO, inferior to chess in many ways: e.g., despite its
simplicity it's harder to teach and learn; the standard (19x19) game is
too big and long for many people; it's annoying to have to count
points; except in a very close game, the last dozen or so moves are
often almost irrelevant; its greater degree of abstraction gives the
imagination less to latch onto (whereas chess is almost obviously a
stylized medieval battle, it's a real stretch to suppose that go is a
whole war); the concept of indirect moves clashes with the "direct"
Western consciousness (only a downside for Westerners); and the player
who wants to focus on developing the tactical side of his mind will
find less concentrated opportunity for that in go than in chess,
because in go you have to work the strategic side as well. Also, if a
given player considers chess more fun than go, then for that individual
chess is superior to go in that respect.

While go is a fine game and does indeed afford dimensions of mental
exercise beyond what chess offers, that does not, IMO, make go superior
to chess. Go is what it is, and chess is what it is.

As far as mental exercise goes, I suppose every game works different
parts of the mind. Card games like bridge test the memory and powers
of deduction, for instance, better than games like chess and go. FPS
games test hand-eye coordination better than turn-based games. There's
probably no game in the world that exercises the whole mind; and even
if there were, it'd be deficient if it didn't exercise the body and
spirit as well.

But as Musashi, the Samurai, says in Book of Five Rings, "Master one
thing, and you master all things." Pick a game--chess, go, or
tiddly-winks--and work at it conscientiously until you've mastered it;
and along the way you'll find yourself changing the way you live. The
principles that work in the game also work everywhere else in life, and
you naturally end up living those principles and bettering your
life--provided you're open to it.

The trouble with many game players is they're not open to that. They
consider the game to be a departure from life; they get absorbed in
games to the exclusion of life.

--Patrick

chaos...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 8:08:35 AM9/12/05
to

patrickcarr...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > IMO Go is definitely the superior game. Computers being much weaker Go
> > players than they are Chess players is not the cause of this; it's the
> > symptom.
> >
> > Go is a better game because it is less "mechanical", and more
> > intuitive. There are levels of thinking and understanding Go that
> > simply aren't there, in chess.
>
> So you're saying that non-intuitive "mechanical" games which focus on
> certain levels of thinking and understanding are inherently inferior to
> games which require that more of the mind be used?

Yes. That is my opinion (hence the "IMO").

> I wouldn't say that makes go superior to chess; it just makes it more
> intuitive and demanding of a broader range of mental processes.
>
> Go would only be superior if we agreed that the main purpose of a game
> is to exercise the mind as fully as possible.

I believe this _is_ usually the criterion. It is why we consider Chess
to be superior to Checkers, or why we hold Bridge or Poker to be
superior to Blackjack.

I'll try to prove that _assuming_ we accept Chess to be superior to
Checkers, Go is similarly superior to chess.

> Go is, IMO, inferior to chess in many ways: e.g., despite its
> simplicity it's harder to teach and learn;

The same thing is true of chess vs. checkers.

> the standard (19x19) game is too big and long for many people;

The same thing is true of chess vs. checkers.

> it's annoying to have to count points;

No real parallel for this one. However, good Go players don't really
have to count points (or so I understand; I'm not a good Go player).
They can just look a the board and be able to give an estimate that's
perfectly adequate.

> except in a very close game, the last dozen or so moves are
> often almost irrelevant;

In games like that, the last dozen or so moves are _not played_,
because the losing player will resign.

Exactly the same is true of chess, btw. At Master level and above, I'd
say less than 20% of games actually end with checkmate.

> its greater degree of abstraction gives the
> imagination less to latch onto (whereas chess is almost obviously a
> stylized medieval battle, it's a real stretch to suppose that go is a
> whole war);

I disagree. I think that--once one is used to playing Go--it's
perfectly easy to imagine the board as a battlefield, and the pieces
are soldiers.

> the concept of indirect moves clashes with the "direct"
> Western consciousness (only a downside for Westerners);

*shrug* I'm a Westerner. Doesn't clash with my consciousness much. I'll
grant that indirect moves and static pieces make the game less
accessible to children, perhaps.

> and the player who wants to focus on developing the tactical side of
> his mind will find less concentrated opportunity for that in go than
> in chess, because in go you have to work the strategic side as well.

Sure, and if a player wants to focus on developing their hand-eye
coordination, then tennis is a better game than either Chess or go.

Insofar as quality is a largely subjective metric, you are correct, but
your argument only says that "you can't call any game superior to any
other", which is a reasonable argument, but not a very useful or
interesting one.

> Also, if a given player considers chess more fun than go, then for that
> individual chess is superior to go in that respect.

Hence the "IMO". And see above: surely you don't want to argue that
people like different things? I think we're all aware of that.

> While go is a fine game and does indeed afford dimensions of mental
> exercise beyond what chess offers, that does not, IMO, make go superior
> to chess. Go is what it is, and chess is what it is.
>
> As far as mental exercise goes, I suppose every game works different
> parts of the mind. Card games like bridge test the memory and powers
> of deduction, for instance, better than games like chess and go. FPS
> games test hand-eye coordination better than turn-based games. There's
> probably no game in the world that exercises the whole mind; and even
> if there were, it'd be deficient if it didn't exercise the body and
> spirit as well.

Certainly, which is why there is no complete game. That's why children
should be encouraged to play many different games; physical games,
board games, word games, etc.

However, Go is a _more_ complete game than Chess is. I believe this
makes it superior; and looking at the generally accepted tenets that
chess is superior to checkers, poker is superior to blackjack etc, I
think this makes sense.

> But as Musashi, the Samurai, says in Book of Five Rings, "Master one
> thing, and you master all things." Pick a game--chess, go, or
> tiddly-winks--and work at it conscientiously until you've mastered it;
> and along the way you'll find yourself changing the way you live. The
> principles that work in the game also work everywhere else in life, and
> you naturally end up living those principles and bettering your
> life--provided you're open to it.

I believe Musashi is mistaken. Master one thing, and you have mastered
one thing.

There are chess grandmasters who are perfect jerks. There are chess
grandmasters who are utter failures at most other endeavours. I'm sure
it's the same for Go grandmasters (I don't know any Go grandmasters, so
this is only an assumption).

> The trouble with many game players is they're not open to that. They
> consider the game to be a departure from life; they get absorbed in
> games to the exclusion of life.

I believe it is a mistake to ascribe too much importance to a game. A
game is a game, it is a place where you can shed the mortal bits of
your self, and enter a world that is far "cleaner" and simpler than
life.

Life is far more subtle, disturbing, and exhilerating than any game.
Assigning the traits of any game to life is the mark of autism.

Laszlo

jwb

unread,
Sep 12, 2005, 10:29:18 AM9/12/05
to