"Old Time" Gamer Here

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>>>When you want something more cerebral, games don't get any better than
>>>Deus Ex, IMO.
>
>> Except half-life, which IMO is far, far, better than DE.
>
>But not more cerebral surely.
>
>It's an 'on-a-rail shoot 'em up'

On-a-rail, pseudo-choices, and differing only in the ending.
Exactly like Deus Ex, in other words.

You want cerebral in a more literary (no, not literal!) sense, try Max
Payne. Or, if you want cerebral in a "how the heck should I do this"
way, Operation Flashpoint.

 

[vinCe]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" wrote

> Thusly "Vince" Spake Unto All:

>>> Except half-life, which IMO is far, far, better than DE.

>>But not more cerebral surely.

>>It's an 'on-a-rail shoot 'em up'

> On-a-rail, pseudo-choices, and differing only in the ending.
> Exactly like Deus Ex, in other words.

You haven't played 'Deus Ex' have you?

For example, the level called 'Vandenburg' is a large area containing an
enormous building.

The building has several entrances. You can choose to attempt to enter any
or all of these.

You can go in blasting, hack locks and computers, sneak about, set the large
robots on each other, explore loads of optional 'extra' areas, kill
everyone, kill no one, Etc, etc, etc.

HL offers nothing like this - not even close.

'Deus Ex' has a structured (but incredibly complex) plot - so you have to
achieve certain goals in order to progress. That doesn't make it as linear
as HL or even 'Max Payne' for that matter.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

>>>> Except half-life, which IMO is far, far, better than DE.
>
>>>But not more cerebral surely.
>
>>>It's an 'on-a-rail shoot 'em up'
>
>> On-a-rail, pseudo-choices, and differing only in the ending.
>> Exactly like Deus Ex, in other words.
>
>You haven't played 'Deus Ex' have you?

Oh yes.

>For example, the level called 'Vandenburg' is a large area containing an
>enormous building.
>
>The building has several entrances. You can choose to attempt to enter any
>or all of these.
>
>You can go in blasting, hack locks and computers, sneak about, set the large
>robots on each other, explore loads of optional 'extra' areas, kill
>everyone, kill no one, Etc, etc, etc.

Every map in DE consists of two basic roads: a sneakway which will let
you avoid most or all opposition, and a highway which will take you
through the thick of it. The sneakway and the highway intersect at
several points. Valid approaches is sneak all the time or sneak most
of the time. Run & gun all of the time is not a valid option.

None of the choices you make in the game up until the very last have
any significant effect on gameplay. Just like in HL only the last
choice determines the ending.

It is completely linear.

>HL offers nothing like this - not even close.

It offers quite a few opportunities for different solutions to many of
the problems. The difference to DE is mainly that it's perpetually
dark(ish) in DE.

>'Deus Ex' has a structured (but incredibly complex) plot - so you have to
>achieve certain goals in order to progress. That doesn't make it as linear
>as HL or even 'Max Payne' for that matter.

The non-linearity consists of selecting which way you want to sneak.

You should try Operation: Flashpoint. It's got vastly more choices wrt
which way to sneak than DE. Or how to solve problems.

Linearity isn't a bad thing, though. It allows for a good story. Max
Payne is extremely linear, and has a decent story. Morrowind is
completely non-linear, and as a result doesn't really have a story at
all.

On a linearity-scale, DE falls much closer to Max Payne than it does
Morrowind, and not far from HL.



--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
>
> You should try Operation: Flashpoint. It's got vastly more choices wrt
> which way to sneak than DE. Or how to solve problems.
>

OFP was a great game.

Mr Lewis (unsurprisingly) called it bland and repetitive with bad
"scripted" AI
though - so I guess it would depend who you want to believe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <gaa411hluatlkelk9mko131db2apr2jvps@4ax.com>,
Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
#On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:53:36 GMT, kmarsh@fellspt.charm.net (Ken Marsh)
#>Ah, now I see why all the funky suggestions, he has an ancient system
#>that he wants an ancient card for. My advice- don't EVER spend money on
#>obsolete upgrades to old systems. It is money down the toilet. Bite the
#>bullet and buy a new MB/CPU/RAM and then upgrade the video later
#>(assuming you don't have AGP 1x-2x!)

#But he can buy something like a 9600 Pro for $100 that will allow him
#to play 99% of games just fine. Your "solution" is to spend $1000 just
#so he can play 100% of games most of which he probably isn't
#interested in anyway. He has been out of the gaming scene for years,
#and he can catch up on some real gems for minimal financial outlay.

I can see your point. I was thinking of playing modern games. I was in
his position several years ago and found that support was marginal for
older games, some worked and some didn't. The best drivers were contemporary
with the games and my Windows was either a version too old or new.

Worst of all the online multiplayer servers for these games were
absolutely riddled with cheats. If the game works OK and it's single
player your enjoy, and you don't mind playing older games, I guess it
could be $100 well spent.

For me, it was a waste of time upgrading already obsolete hardware with
stuff that couldn't make the move to new systems (for example buying two
sticks of 256MB PC133 when DDR333 was the stuff). The price was about
the same and I ended up using it for a year and then retiring it. Right
size, wrong speed/format for the upgrade train.

The past few years I've had really good luck with the same few AGP 4x/8x
cards and DDR400 SIMMS riding the upgrade chain of various motherboards
and CPUs, though both technologies are at a point that it's not a good
idea to buy any more of either, I'll be able to continue to use what
I've got for some time.

Anyway, a new MB+CPU+Ram doesn't cost $1000. Assuming he has a good ATX
case, power supply, IDE disk and IDE CDROM, you can get a Socket 939 MB
for $99, a 64 bit 3000+ for $150, and 512MB for $60 (plus shipping,
newegg.com prices). That's only $310. If you had to add a $100 video
card and a new copy of Xp Home that's still only $500, half your $1000.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Just say "no" to liars SCO and Soyo
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Return services to local CIS offices!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thanks again everyone.

Mean_Chlorine mentions "linear" gamplay, though I'm not sure how he was
applying that term.

To clarify. Progressive difficulty AND a scoring system that reflects a
player's skill are important to me. The reason is because, these things
tend to eliminate the questions on whether player one is better than
player two.

The player that gets farther in the game most of the time(using no
tricks) is the better player. A high score that has a linear
correlation with the progressive increase in difficultly as the game
progesses allows relatively accurate comparisions between players,
because it serves as an accurate measuring stick.

Two people with big differences in skill level should not be able to
"kill the big boss" at the end of the game, and not be able to
determine via some sort of record who played better. Progressive
difficulty should usually knowck out the lesser player beforehand. Or
if they both complete the game, there should be a higher score to
should show who was the more efficient gamer, or who was willing to
take chances for more points and still survive.

Classic games like Crystal Castles, Pole Position, and Super Mario
Bros. are perfect examples of this.

NO IN-GAME CONTINUES!
NO IN-GAME TRICKS!
NO IN-GAME DO-OVERS!

Normally life and death, or higher points per level/game should not be
dependant on a coin-toss move or luck of the draw. But if there is a
trial and error period required to learn all of the nuances in a game
so that virtually anyone gets to the point where further game
knowledge(strategies), coordination, reflexes, and speed translate inot
higher score, then so be it.

I hope I covered everything. 🙂

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2005 06:25:47 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:
>
> >To clarify. Progressive difficulty AND a scoring system that
reflects a
> >player's skill are important to me. The reason is because, these
things
> >tend to eliminate the questions on whether player one is better than
> >player two.
>
> Apart from online games, I can't remember the last time I played a
> single player game where I cared about a score. Serious Sam has a
> scoring system that might do what you require, but apart from making
> it a willy waving exercise, I don't see the point.

The point is that a legitimate scoring system allows skill comparisions
between two players that haven't actually played each other.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 06:25:47 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:

>To clarify. Progressive difficulty AND a scoring system that reflects a
>player's skill are important to me. The reason is because, these things
>tend to eliminate the questions on whether player one is better than
>player two.

Apart from online games, I can't remember the last time I played a
single player game where I cared about a score. Serious Sam has a
scoring system that might do what you require, but apart from making
it a willy waving exercise, I don't see the point.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 06:25:47 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:

>Mean_Chlorine mentions "linear" gamplay, though I'm not sure how he was
>applying that term.
>
>To clarify. Progressive difficulty AND a scoring system that reflects a
>player's skill are important to me. The reason is because, these things
>tend to eliminate the questions on whether player one is better than
>player two.
>
>The player that gets farther in the game most of the time(using no
>tricks) is the better player. A high score that has a linear
>correlation with the progressive increase in difficultly as the game
>progesses allows relatively accurate comparisions between players,
>because it serves as an accurate measuring stick.

This sort of thing only works if there is a larger gradiation of difficulty
levels. I've seen various strange combinations of difficulty, including
those with large difficulty gaps between the three difficulties, those
where "easy" is hard, and those where "hard" is easy. I'm no sure if I've
seen one where all difficulty levels are alike, but I wouldn't be suprised.

As far as I know, most developers don't know this and take the easy route.

>Classic games like Crystal Castles, Pole Position, and Super Mario
>Bros. are perfect examples of this.
>
>NO IN-GAME CONTINUES!
>NO IN-GAME TRICKS!
>NO IN-GAME DO-OVERS!

I'm not sure I'd like this system - usually, it comes to the point where
you can always complete the first level without losing any life at all, and
thus the first level becomes a simple repetition from game to game.
Example: Tumiki Fighters 0.1.0: before the patch, it was fairly trivial to
learn how to dodge every single enemy attack without too much problem, and
thus the first two levels generally gave the same result across games.
(Fixed post-patch, since enemies have more variable firing patterns.)

I'm for the removal of in-game tricks, but that may be difficult without
giving the feeling that the game is railroaded. The best option is simply
to give extra points for playing the game as intended as opposed to rushing
ahead to the next area. There are rare special cases, such as finding out
that you can spare Anna Navarre.

>I hope I covered everything. 🙂

Looks like it is - both the implementation and desire for that stuff is a
different story...

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>>On 27 Feb 2005 06:25:47 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To clarify. Progressive difficulty AND a scoring system that
>
> reflects a
>
>>>player's skill are important to me. The reason is because, these
>
> things
>
>>>tend to eliminate the questions on whether player one is better than
>>>player two.
>>
>>Apart from online games, I can't remember the last time I played a
>>single player game where I cared about a score. Serious Sam has a
>>scoring system that might do what you require, but apart from making
>>it a willy waving exercise, I don't see the point.
>
>
> The point is that a legitimate scoring system allows skill comparisions
> between two players that haven't actually played each other.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>

Come into this late and haven't caught all the threads yet so forgive if
this is off-base but what about the upcoming Swat 4? You are scored on
your performance in that? Have a look at the demo.

--
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are
fear, and surprise, and the ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Amongst our weapons...are fear,
surprise, ruth... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear...
I'll come in again"

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:11:16 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

>Come into this late and haven't caught all the threads yet so forgive if
>this is off-base but what about the upcoming Swat 4? You are scored on
>your performance in that? Have a look at the demo.

While it is a demo I love, I don't think it is very good for a "my
skillz are l33t3r than yours" competition. My scores when playing
through it range from 0-100% and too much depends on the actions of
your squad and the moods and actions of the NPC's.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:11:16 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Come into this late and haven't caught all the threads yet so forgive if
>>this is off-base but what about the upcoming Swat 4? You are scored on
>>your performance in that? Have a look at the demo.
>
>
> While it is a demo I love, I don't think it is very good for a "my
> skillz are l33t3r than yours" competition. My scores when playing
> through it range from 0-100% and too much depends on the actions of
> your squad and the moods and actions of the NPC's.

I'd agree but am hoping there will be a way to positively influence that
in the full game - how you equip your squad etc. Note I said 'hoping'
and not 'holding my breath'.

--
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are
fear, and surprise, and the ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Amongst our weapons...are fear,
surprise, ruth... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear...
I'll come in again"

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:38:12 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

>I'd agree but am hoping there will be a way to positively influence that
>in the full game - how you equip your squad etc. Note I said 'hoping'
>and not 'holding my breath'.

How well you play it certainly has an influence, although a lot of
that is down to strategy rather than twitch skills, but there are too
many AI related variables to easily be able to say that one human
player is better than another.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:38:12 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd agree but am hoping there will be a way to positively influence that
>>in the full game - how you equip your squad etc. Note I said 'hoping'
>>and not 'holding my breath'.
>
>
> How well you play it certainly has an influence, although a lot of
> that is down to strategy rather than twitch skills, but there are too
> many AI related variables to easily be able to say that one human
> player is better than another.

Fair enough - considered arguing that all players contended with those
variables and how they did that might show the better player but your
argument is that it couldn't 'easily' be done and I agree with that.

Changing the subject I have never played any of the Swat series but the
demo has me seriously considering this one.

--
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are
fear, and surprise, and the ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Amongst our weapons...are fear,
surprise, ruth... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear...
I'll come in again"

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:57:03 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

>Changing the subject I have never played any of the Swat series but the
>demo has me seriously considering this one.

I quite liked the demos of the older games, but never enough to make
me want to buy them. The SWAT 4 demo has me hooked, I am very much
looking forward to playing the full game.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Steph]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote in
news:96uQd.61927$sr1.46467@fe2.texas.rr.com:

>
> "riku" <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
> news:kva311tqc80p51akgeoq96dmbn8o1c10s9@4ax.com...
>>
>> I think Serious Sam and Serious Sam: Second Encounter offer co-op
>> team play. And they are fun FPS action games either way.
>>
>
> Where else can you play online coop and watch a raging bull head butt
> one of your family/friends 50 feet into the air? 😉
>
> First time that I saw my brother go flying thru the air, I laughed so
> hard that tears ran down my cheek, onto my keyboard and fired my
> system. But it was worth it. My brother was yelling for help over
> Roger Wilco, but I told him, "Sometimes you get the bull; and
> sometimes the bull get's you. And today it look's like it's the bull's
> turn to get you."

"Mess with the bull, you get the horns."
-- Zax (The Alien Hunter)


stePH
--
If it cannot break the egg's shell, a chick will die without being born.
We are the chick. The world is our egg.
If we cannot break the world's shell, we will die without being born.
Smash the world's shell! For the revolution of the world!

 

[Steph]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote in
news😱q3411thfgd3jk7g2t3blv64k97t59v54a@4ax.com:

> On 14 Feb 2005 18:11:18 -0800, "Carlo" <absent_carlo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I grew up on mostly on Doom II and lots of the older Apple games like
>>Montazuma's Revenge and the Bard's Tale series. As long as were
>>discussing game recommendations, my girlfriend and I like to play on
>>the LAN but are getting sick of 1-on-1 deathmatches,
>
> Have you considere downloading AI players such as the FoxBot? While
> they aren't perfectly intellegent, they do change the feeling from a
> lonesome 1v1 deathmatch to either an FFA or TDM.

Or pick up Unreal Tournament. My brother and I each get a team of bots to
command, and off we go.


stePH
--
If it cannot break the egg's shell, a chick will die without being born.
We are the chick. The world is our egg.
If we cannot break the world's shell, we will die without being born.
Smash the world's shell! For the revolution of the world!