Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action > #46540 > unrolled thread

What difficultly level do you play one?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Contents

  What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-07 10:23 +0100
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-07 08:02 -0400
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-07 13:50 +0000
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 10:19 -0400
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-07 12:51 -0500
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-08 21:26 +0100
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 08:51 -0400
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-15 12:54 +0100
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-07 08:15 -0700
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-07 13:28 -0400
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-07 14:17 -0400
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> - 2024-07-08 10:33 -0400
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-08 15:41 -0400
            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 08:55 -0400
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-24 08:24 -0700
                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-24 17:54 -0400
                  Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 19:01 -0400
                    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-29 01:20 +0000
                      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-29 09:14 -0400
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-08 21:38 +0100
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 06:14 -0500
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 09:04 -0400
            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 17:29 -0400
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-08 21:46 +0100
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 12:27 -0400
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-10 09:28 +0100
            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 06:22 -0500
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 17:40 -0400
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-11 09:31 +0100
                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 11:23 -0400
                  Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-13 09:45 +0100
                    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 11:43 -0400
                      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-13 09:02 -0700
                        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-15 10:22 -0500
                      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-14 10:15 +0100
                        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 14:15 -0400
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-14 13:24 -0700
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-14 16:35 -0500
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-15 12:51 +0100
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-15 07:47 -0700
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-15 10:39 -0500
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-19 10:07 +0100
                                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-19 14:50 +0000
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2024-08-01 12:09 +0300
                                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-08-01 12:58 +0100
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 11:48 -0500
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 12:28 -0500
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-15 10:31 -0500
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-19 10:14 +0100
                      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-15 10:19 -0500
                        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 15:43 -0400
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 15:10 -0500
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-16 08:47 -0400
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-16 12:50 -0500
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-16 15:49 -0400
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-16 18:24 -0500
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-17 16:00 +0000
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-17 12:47 -0500
                                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-19 14:50 +0000
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-17 09:28 +0100
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 11:14 -0400
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-18 09:33 +0100
                              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-24 08:52 -0700
                                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 21:25 -0400
                                  Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-24 21:48 -0700
                                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-25 08:39 +0100
                            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-17 10:24 -0500
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-24 08:36 -0700
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 06:15 -0500
            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 09:17 -0400
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) - 2024-07-10 14:43 +0000
                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 12:28 -0400
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 09:12 -0400
            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-10 13:50 +0000
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 12:34 -0400
                Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 16:30 +0000
                  Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-13 14:09 -0400
                    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 21:20 +0000
                      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-14 07:54 -0400
                        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 16:40 +0000
                    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 14:23 -0400
                      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-16 15:10 +0000
                        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 13:07 -0400
                          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-17 15:50 +0000
          Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-24 08:30 -0700
            Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 21:35 -0400
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-25 06:24 -0700
              Re: What difficultly level do you play one? rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) - 2024-07-25 14:22 +0000
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-07 08:48 -0700
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-10 06:24 -0500
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-10 13:50 +0000
        Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-24 09:06 -0700
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-07-07 20:12 +0000
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? <smaug@ereborbbs.duckdns.org> - 2024-07-08 14:03 +0000
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-10 09:19 -0400
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-09 19:00 -0500
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) - 2024-07-10 14:27 +0000
    Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2024-07-14 23:35 +0300
      Re: What difficultly level do you play one? Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-14 16:35 -0500

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#46692

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:51:51 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote: 

>On 14/07/2024 19:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>> whole point of this newsgroup? ?
>
>Tricky one. Can you think of any game that wasn't played how the 
>designers imagined it. Off the top of my head I've come up with none.

Any Bethesda game. Especially Oblivion where I decided the main quest was
boring and stupid, reloaded, and did only open world stuff. I also spent
a lot of time in that game, disturbingly, arranging corpses into
compromising positions with each other, because I could.

In Fallout 4, I figured out that if you never talk to Preston Garvey to
finish off the power armor quest, the entire base-building suckfest is
omitted. That's how I played it in a second run. I don't believe that was
intended play.

I notoriously break computer games all the time by doing things that the
designers never imagined would happen. I stayed in the closet in The
Stanley Parable for literal hours, even walked away from my computer and
had a meal, and it crashed when I finally decided to get out. If you
haven't played a game differently than the designers imagined it, you
aren't trying hard enough. Some games even count on it as a mechanic.

And anyone using "noclip" cheats for that matter. I don't think any
designer imagines a game to be played with spl01tz. They know it's going
to happen, but it's not the way the game was designed to be played.

Maybe I misunderstand your question though...

-- 
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46758

On 15/07/2024 16:39, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:51:51 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
> wrote:
> 
>> On 14/07/2024 19:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>>> whole point of this newsgroup? ?
>>
>> Tricky one. Can you think of any game that wasn't played how the
>> designers imagined it. Off the top of my head I've come up with none.
> 
> Any Bethesda game. Especially Oblivion where I decided the main quest was
> boring and stupid, reloaded, and did only open world stuff. I also spent
> a lot of time in that game, disturbingly, arranging corpses into
> compromising positions with each other, because I could.
> 
> In Fallout 4, I figured out that if you never talk to Preston Garvey to
> finish off the power armor quest, the entire base-building suckfest is
> omitted. That's how I played it in a second run. I don't believe that was
> intended play.
> 
> I notoriously break computer games all the time by doing things that the
> designers never imagined would happen. I stayed in the closet in The
> Stanley Parable for literal hours, even walked away from my computer and
> had a meal, and it crashed when I finally decided to get out. If you
> haven't played a game differently than the designers imagined it, you
> aren't trying hard enough. Some games even count on it as a mechanic.
> 
> And anyone using "noclip" cheats for that matter. I don't think any
> designer imagines a game to be played with spl01tz. They know it's going
> to happen, but it's not the way the game was designed to be played.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand your question though...
> 

It was more games where the norm among players was not to conform to 
what the designers intended but the players didn't even realise it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46764

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 09:07 this Friday (GMT):
> On 15/07/2024 16:39, Zaghadka wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:51:51 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14/07/2024 19:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>>>> whole point of this newsgroup? ?
>>>
>>> Tricky one. Can you think of any game that wasn't played how the
>>> designers imagined it. Off the top of my head I've come up with none.
>> 
>> Any Bethesda game. Especially Oblivion where I decided the main quest was
>> boring and stupid, reloaded, and did only open world stuff. I also spent
>> a lot of time in that game, disturbingly, arranging corpses into
>> compromising positions with each other, because I could.
>> 
>> In Fallout 4, I figured out that if you never talk to Preston Garvey to
>> finish off the power armor quest, the entire base-building suckfest is
>> omitted. That's how I played it in a second run. I don't believe that was
>> intended play.
>> 
>> I notoriously break computer games all the time by doing things that the
>> designers never imagined would happen. I stayed in the closet in The
>> Stanley Parable for literal hours, even walked away from my computer and
>> had a meal, and it crashed when I finally decided to get out. If you
>> haven't played a game differently than the designers imagined it, you
>> aren't trying hard enough. Some games even count on it as a mechanic.
>> 
>> And anyone using "noclip" cheats for that matter. I don't think any
>> designer imagines a game to be played with spl01tz. They know it's going
>> to happen, but it's not the way the game was designed to be played.
>> 
>> Maybe I misunderstand your question though...
>> 
>
> It was more games where the norm among players was not to conform to 
> what the designers intended but the players didn't even realise it.


Well, does rocket jumping from quake/tf2 count?
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46967

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> writes:

> In Fallout 4, I figured out that if you never talk to Preston Garvey to
> finish off the power armor quest, the entire base-building suckfest is
> omitted. That's how I played it in a second run. I don't believe that was
> intended play.

Yes, exactly. Although, for some easy XP, you could walk with Garvey and
his friends to Sanctuary and then set up shop in the nearby Red Rocket
station. So maybe the devs did consider that.

Somewhat similarly in Fallout 3 I stumbled upon the main plot in that
aircraft carrier without doing any of the plot stuff between there and
Megaton. Game continued just fine from that.

But I can't say if there are games I've played differently from
designed. Well, maybe some glitches in old GTA games to reach areas
supposedly locked away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46970

On 01/08/2024 10:09, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> In Fallout 4, I figured out that if you never talk to Preston Garvey to
>> finish off the power armor quest, the entire base-building suckfest is
>> omitted. That's how I played it in a second run. I don't believe that was
>> intended play.
> 
> Yes, exactly. Although, for some easy XP, you could walk with Garvey and
> his friends to Sanctuary and then set up shop in the nearby Red Rocket
> station. So maybe the devs did consider that.
> 
> Somewhat similarly in Fallout 3 I stumbled upon the main plot in that
> aircraft carrier without doing any of the plot stuff between there and
> Megaton. Game continued just fine from that.
> 
> But I can't say if there are games I've played differently from
> designed. Well, maybe some glitches in old GTA games to reach areas
> supposedly locked away.

I think it was on this NG that there was someone who was in the camp of 
they wouldn't play a game if a god cheat mod wasn't available as they 
wanted to explore everything the game has to offer. Each to their own 
and all that but I couldn't really understand that mentality.

For FO, that's the way I played 3/NV and I presume it's an intentional 
design that you have a choice of just wander around and see what happens 
and forget the main plot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46694

JAB wrote:
> On 14/07/2024 19:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>> whole point of this newsgroup? 😜
> 
> Tricky one. Can you think of any game that wasn't played how the 
> designers imagined it. Off the top of my head I've come up with none.

I solved Robot Odyssey like that.  Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia 
review:

The robots can also be wired up to chips, which provide a convenient and 
reproducible way to program the robots. Various pre-programmed chips are 
scattered throughout the city and range from complex circuits such as a 
wall-hugging chip which can be used to navigate through mazes and 
corridors (one of which is wired to a robot at the beginning) to clocks 
and counters. The player must find out how these chips work themselves, 
as the only information about each chip is a short, and sometimes 
cryptic, description. Additionally, there are predesigned chip files 
stored on the various disks containing the game that can be loaded into 
the in-game chips. The available chips stored in this fashion vary 
depending on the port or version used.

The Innovation Lab can be used to test out circuit designs in the robots 
or create new chips. Chips created in the lab can then be loaded into 
and used in the main game. Loading a chip in the main game will erase 
the previous programming stored in the chip.

Although the game is recommended for ages 10 and up, it can prove to be 
quite challenging even for adults. In terms of educational value, the 
game teaches the basic concepts of electrical engineering and digital 
logic in general.
    * * *
LOL, it used to say it was the hardezt game in existence.  It's 
educational!  I solved it at age 12.

Towards the end, it would have puzzle descriptions like,  "Solve the 
NAND double flip flop with gravy delight and NOT the signal coming from 
the bandsman."  I'd do something that would sample out to the same thing 
when checked, but much simpler otherwise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46696

Zersterer wrote:
> JAB wrote:
>> On 14/07/2024 19:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>>> whole point of this newsgroup? 😜
>>
>> Tricky one. Can you think of any game that wasn't played how the 
>> designers imagined it. Off the top of my head I've come up with none.
> 
> I solved Robot Odyssey like that.  Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia 
> review:
> 
> The robots can also be wired up to chips, which provide a convenient and 
> reproducible way to program the robots. Various pre-programmed chips are 
> scattered throughout the city and range from complex circuits such as a 
> wall-hugging chip which can be used to navigate through mazes and 
> corridors (one of which is wired to a robot at the beginning) to clocks 
> and counters. The player must find out how these chips work themselves, 
> as the only information about each chip is a short, and sometimes 
> cryptic, description. Additionally, there are predesigned chip files 
> stored on the various disks containing the game that can be loaded into 
> the in-game chips. The available chips stored in this fashion vary 
> depending on the port or version used.
> 
> The Innovation Lab can be used to test out circuit designs in the robots 
> or create new chips. Chips created in the lab can then be loaded into 
> and used in the main game. Loading a chip in the main game will erase 
> the previous programming stored in the chip.
> 
> Although the game is recommended for ages 10 and up, it can prove to be 
> quite challenging even for adults. In terms of educational value, the 
> game teaches the basic concepts of electrical engineering and digital 
> logic in general.
>     * * *
> LOL, it used to say it was the hardezt game in existence.  It's 
> educational!  I solved it at age 12.
> 
> Towards the end, it would have puzzle descriptions like,  "Solve the 
> NAND double flip flop with gravy delight and NOT the signal coming from 
> the bandsman."  I'd do something that would sample out to the same thing 
> when checked, but much simpler otherwise.

Put simply, although the instructions were extremely complicated, the 
tests were weak.  Sucks for everybody who didn't even try.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46691

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:29 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 

>On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:15:18 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>Now...
>
>How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>whole point of this newsgroup? ;-P
>
Oh come now. This sprawling D&D threadjacking is as time honored a
tradition as the "is it really an RPG?" discussion, and
"rec.games.frp.dnd" is a graveyard. It's a graveyard several of us
frequent from time to time, but the truly interesting discussions are to
be had here.

This is no longer "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action." It's basically
"alt.grognards.pc.games."

Yes, I see your tongue waggling, but enough is enough, sir. ;^)

-- 
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46759

On 15/07/2024 16:31, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:29 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:15:18 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>> Now...
>>
>> How do we loop this all back to video games? Which, you know, is the
>> whole point of this newsgroup? ;-P
>>
> Oh come now. This sprawling D&D threadjacking is as time honored a
> tradition as the "is it really an RPG?" discussion, and
> "rec.games.frp.dnd" is a graveyard. It's a graveyard several of us
> frequent from time to time, but the truly interesting discussions are to
> be had here.
> 
> This is no longer "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action." It's basically
> "alt.grognards.pc.games."
> 
> Yes, I see your tongue waggling, but enough is enough, sir. ;^)
> 

Basically yes, the days of having enough traffic just for PC action 
games is long gone as are the dozen or so groups I used to use. To be 
honest I'm surprised this group is still going and I don't really 
understand why it's different to the other groups I used to use. Glad it 
is here of course though!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46689

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 11:43:46 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 

>On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:45:12 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/07/2024 16:23, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:31:05 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 10/07/2024 12:22, Zaghadka wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:28:12 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another one of my pet peeves, monsters that just inhabit rooms waiting
>>>>>> to be killed by some passing adventurers. Do they never eat, sleep, work?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the Gygax approach. Yeah, that's why 2e introduced this whole novel
>>>>> concept called "ecology." That and the idea that creatures - that should
>>>>> be mortal enemies - are just hanging out in one room, never leaving,
>>>>> while the other group they hate hangs out in another is silliness.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That chimes with my experience of playing AD&D 'back in the day'. We
>>>> used to run pre-written modules mixed with homebrew ones and naturally
>>>> the 'formula' of the former was the basis for the latter. Get to
>>>> dungeon, kill everything and grab the loot. We even had a DM that
>>>> dispensed with all the faff of finding the dungeon and just placed you
>>>> at the entrance.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In fairness, while the conceit of the dungeon-crawl was fairly basic
>>> in the day, even the early modules had the expectation of a more
>>> robust and reactive world. But the modules were rarely written with
>>> that intention stated outright, almost never giving out specific
>>> alternatives and details on what to do should the players stray from
>>> the expected path. It was left unsaid, and so many DMs -sticking to
>>> the text- played the game exactly as written, which led to a lot of
>>> very static dungeons where you COULD rest at will, with enemy NPCs
>>> (who were little more than hit-points and stat-blocks) that cheerfully
>>> remained cloistered in their assigned rooms until the players stumbled
>>> upon them.
>>> 
[snip]

>>> The TL;DR is that while a lot of D&D modules come across as fairly
>>> uninspired dungeon-crawls (and undeniably that is how most of them
>>> actually /were/ played), I don't get the impression that's how the
>>> writers EXPECTED them to be played.
>>> 
>>
>>Is that's really what they thought I haven't seen any real evidence of 
>>it and they did an awful job of saying that's how the game was supposed 
>>to be played which is what I would have expected at least somewhere.
>
>I don't disagree with that. ;-)
>
>>There really is almost nothing in the official written material that 
>>pushed forward that's how the game was supposed to be played.
>
>A few hints are scatted in the official rulebooks that the world
>should be reactive (DMG 1E p104, for instance) but I agree, actual
>recommendations on the matter were fairly scarce. Then again, actual
>advice on how to play the game /in general/ wasn't that common either;
>almost the entire focus of those original rulebooks was on
>dice-rolling rather than the more ephermeral roleplaying. Still, There
>was a lot of stuff written in The Dragon Magazine with suggestions
>along these lines, although how 'official' you may consider that is up
>to debate. But if you read on how Gygax played his own campaigns, you
>do see that he didn't run adventures where everything was static and
>dependent on player actions. 
>
Here I'll weigh in. The fact that the entire Bard class even exists tells
anyone that there is a persistent, reactive universe at the center of the
game. There are henchmen rules, stronghold rules, an entire section -
though not fleshed out - on extraplanar adventures, and expectations that
higher level characters will have bases (aforementioned "strongholds")
and political affiliations and much larger responsibilities in their
world. There are rules for consulting sages, etc. There's the "Legend
Lore" spell. It's all there.

But it's all very poorly organized and edited and it took a genius game
master to read the DMs guide, absorb that behemoth, chaotic tome, and
integrate the total mess of copy-paste. It read like a scrapbook.

That's why 2e went the other way round and made the PHB big, and DMs
guide small. It is actually edited material. Because one player, the game
master, should not be responsible for that much stuff. The group of
players, the PCs, is much more able to handle it as a team.

Again, we owe that to Gygax. His style was that the DM should know every
detail and control secret information about the basic mechanics of the
game, and he was quite capable of it. Part of the 1e experience is new
players were often surprised by the rules, rather than knowing them. But
DMs, all of them, got burned out by that approach.

The tradition of a monster mosaic dungeon without a campaign is largely
the reaction of 10-year-olds to a module like The Keep on The Borderlands
(B2) which came with the Basic Set. But full campaigns at the time also
used "traditional dungeon crawls." It's a time-honored tradition mirrored
in the Wizardry and Bard's Tale series. That the Gold Box games largely
broke free of this was impressive at the time, and Pool of Radiance
(which even had an overland map!) sold like hotcakes because of it. They
took the grid-based play to open areas like Valhingen graveyard and put
Wizardry to shame.

But kids' marketing sucked. Look at the D&D cartoon series. You meet both
Tiamat and Lloth in the first season. Tiamat shows up in the first
episode! The way it was marketed to children affected a generation of
players. Those players only sometimes matured out of that sort of game.

The point is, the adults who played the game in the 70s were aware, but
the Stranger Things crowd of the 80s was busy facing Demogorgon for no
particular reason. And they didn't, obviously, run in the same social
circles (I did, see below). That demogorgon crowd grew up, replaced the
MENSA crowd, and are as responsible for the collapse of the game, and
almost TSR, in the late 80s early 90s as Gygax was. Gygax catches too
much of the blame for this generation of stunted players and their effect
on the game.

>That lack of clear language was a result of a blindness on the part of
>Gygax and TSR; a failure to see that such obvious (to them)
>instruction was required. They slowly started adding in clearer
>instructions piecemeal, scattered across various books (the
>Dungeoneers / Wilderness Survival Guides, Dungeon Masters Design Kit,
>and with examples with later 1st Ed adventure modules and campaign
>settings where there was more focus on how NPCs and monsters would
>react to player actions. But it wasn't until 2nd Edition that TSR
>would formalize the idea, in books like DMGR1 Campaign & Catacomb
>Guide and DMGR5 Creative Campaigning, which were purposefully written
>to aid DMs in creating more robust campaigns and pulling the game out
>of the dungeon-crawl.
>
Yup. It was written as a loose set of rules for adults, who knew other
adults that played. That it took off with kids was an accident, and that
was not the aim of the 1e books. It wasn't even the aim of the 2e books.
It took a very intelligent 12-year-old to understand. But the first
books? I was learning words like "lucubration" for the first time and had
to go at it with a dictionary.

>>For Tomb of Horrors my understanding is that it was a Gygax 'special' 
>>designed for tournament play and to really tax the players brains.
>>
Tomb of Horrors is a grudge module. Gygax said so himself. There is
nothing ironic or brain challenging about it at all. It is simply unfair.
He just wanted to hand smug manchildren their asses at a convention. It
should never have been published, except that it is the seminal puzzle
dungeon, which is one of my favorite kinds of adventures.

I ran in adult social circles as a 10-12 year old because of a Boy Scout
leader who was a GM. I played with adults. There was one of those
jackholes at every table who poured their entire self-worth into a piece
of paper with stats on it. People bring their own ideas to Tomb of
Horrors to justify it as something better than it was, IMO.

-- 
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46702

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:19:42 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Here I'll weigh in. 
>
>But kids' marketing sucked. Look at the D&D cartoon series. You meet both
>Tiamat and Lloth in the first season. Tiamat shows up in the first
>episode! The way it was marketed to children affected a generation of
>players. Those players only sometimes matured out of that sort of game.

That marketing is a very interesting point I hadn't considered,
although I wouldn't entirely blame it on kids. But TSR (and, really,
any marketing agency worth its salt) wanted to focus on the exciting
bits of their products: in D&D's case, the big battles, the horrific
monsters, the glittering loot. They aren't what actually make the game
fun (IMHO, YMMV, OTLAMA) but they're eye-catching. It's the sizzle to
the steak. You see mighty-hewed barbarians slicing through a dragon's
neck and being rewarded chests of gold and jewels and think, "Hey,
what's that all about? That looks interesting!" You pick up the books
and play. 

Hopefully you play with a group that understands there's MORE to the
game but d10 damage, 15HD monsters and Treasure Type C. If so, you're
likely to come across with a far different impression than those who
play the 'rules-as-(poorly)-written' and engage with the storytelling,
the role-playing, the puzzle-solving, the politicking, the character
interactions and the group world-creation. 

But just as likely you're to follow the game exactly and only as the
rulebooks and modules specify. And why not? That's what pretty much
EVERY OTHER game on the market expected. You weren't really supposed
to be adding new rules or interpretations to Monopoly or chess. The
rules were fixed in those games, so why expect D&D to be different? If
it wasn't stated that the monsters WOULDN'T patiently wait in their
assigned dungeon rooms or that they might not always be instantly
ready for battle, why should players expect otherwise? Especially if
the marketing suggested otherwise.

And who are most likely to focus on the obvious, least likely to
question the authority of the books, and most likely to miss the
barely mentioned subtext? 


>The point is, the adults who played the game in the 70s were aware, but
>the Stranger Things crowd of the 80s was busy facing Demogorgon for no
>particular reason. And they didn't, obviously, run in the same social
>circles (I did, see below). That demogorgon crowd grew up, replaced the
>MENSA crowd, and are as responsible for the collapse of the game, and
>almost TSR, in the late 80s early 90s as Gygax was. Gygax catches too
>much of the blame for this generation of stunted players and their effect
>on the game.


That's right; kids! Those poor stupid kids who played the game, loved
it when they were young and simple, but couldn't figure out why the
game lacked longevity as they aged, and then (assuming they didn't
give up on the hobby entirely) figured it must be the rules and
migrated to some new system which was more 'sophisticated'.



>>>For Tomb of Horrors my understanding is that it was a Gygax 'special' 
>>>designed for tournament play and to really tax the players brains.

>Tomb of Horrors is a grudge module. Gygax said so himself. There is
>nothing ironic or brain challenging about it at all. It is simply unfair.
>He just wanted to hand smug manchildren their asses at a convention. It
>should never have been published, except that it is the seminal puzzle
>dungeon, which is one of my favorite kinds of adventures.


Yup, that's what I've heard about it too. 
E.g., a reaction against people who played the game 'stupidly',
expecting the usual static dungeon-crawl. "This is what you like,
izzit? This is what you've done to my creation, hmmm? Well, lets take
it to an extreme and see how much you like it then!" 

      (not his actual words but that's the undertone 
       of the adventure. ;-)


Of course

     (and look, here I am finally making it on topic again! 
      And you all said it couldn't be done! :-)

it didn't help when D&D started getting ported to computers. Because
early computers were GREAT with the number crunching, but were pretty
poor with the story and characters. Computer RPGs /still/ struggle
with making a game where the combat isn't the most dominant feature.
Our beloved 8-bits were far inferior machines; they hadn't a chance in
capturing what made table-top gaming such a fascinating hobby. So
those early RPGs - most of which were either licensed D&D games or
very closely based upon it- were little more than brain-dead combat
simulators and loot collectors. Which in turn reinforced the idea that
was all that D&D really was.


I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!





* even though, in the end, it pretty much still was ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46704

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:19:42 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Here I'll weigh in.
>>
>> But kids' marketing sucked. Look at the D&D cartoon series. You meet both
>> Tiamat and Lloth in the first season. Tiamat shows up in the first
>> episode! The way it was marketed to children affected a generation of
>> players. Those players only sometimes matured out of that sort of game.
> 
> That marketing is a very interesting point I hadn't considered,
> although I wouldn't entirely blame it on kids. But TSR (and, really,
> any marketing agency worth its salt) wanted to focus on the exciting
> bits of their products: in D&D's case, the big battles, the horrific
> monsters, the glittering loot. They aren't what actually make the game
> fun (IMHO, YMMV, OTLAMA) but they're eye-catching. It's the sizzle to
> the steak. You see mighty-hewed barbarians slicing through a dragon's
> neck and being rewarded chests of gold and jewels and think, "Hey,
> what's that all about? That looks interesting!" You pick up the books
> and play.


Yeah, but Tiamat is the toughest monster out there...  Save some for the 
rest of the ditsy twaddle cartoon.  It's like meeting God on your 5th 
birthday.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46711

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:07 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
>was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
>murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
>first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!
>
>
>
>
>
>* even though, in the end, it pretty much still was ;)

Heh. :) 

I was ready to post to remind you how much fighting you were required
to do in Ultima IV but you saved yourself with this last line. :-P

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46723

Mike S. wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:07 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
>> was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
>> murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
>> first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * even though, in the end, it pretty much still was ;)
> 
> Heh. :)
> 
> I was ready to post to remind you how much fighting you were required
> to do in Ultima IV but you saved yourself with this last line. :-P
> 
Around 3/4 through the game, you're going to max out your experience and 
have a party of 8 lvl 8 classes.  At that point, it doesn't help to kill 
enemies except for to gain their money or items.  I loved those rooms in 
the dungeon where you would fight drakes and Balrogs and unlock the room 
by doing whatever.  One of my earliest priorities was maxing out my 
weapons.  Had 3 or more magic hammers, the best weapon I could find, 
cost 1500 gold each.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46725

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:50:11 -0500, Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Around 3/4 through the game, you're going to max out your experience and 
>have a party of 8 lvl 8 classes.  At that point, it doesn't help to kill 
>enemies except for to gain their money or items.  I loved those rooms in 
>the dungeon where you would fight drakes and Balrogs and unlock the room 
>by doing whatever.  One of my earliest priorities was maxing out my 
>weapons.  Had 3 or more magic hammers, the best weapon I could find, 
>cost 1500 gold each.

3/4 of the game felt like combat to me. Usually I am fine with
fighting in RPGs but combat was not the game's strength. I preferred
exploring, mapping and talking to the inhabitants.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46727

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:07 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 

>I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
>was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
>murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
>first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!

You're talking to the guy that used the Skull of Mondain as soon as he
got it. It should have created an unrecoverable save file of doom like
Undertale.

It was so cool. What an ending!

-- 
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46743

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 23:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:07 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 
>
>>I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
>>was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
>>murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
>>first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!
>
> You're talking to the guy that used the Skull of Mondain as soon as he
> got it. It should have created an unrecoverable save file of doom like
> Undertale.
>
> It was so cool. What an ending!


I've never gotten the geno ending on UT (sans sucks) but I think you can
technically recover it by regediting and messing with steam cloud saves
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46747

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:00:03 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote: 

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 23:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:07 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 
>>
>>>I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
>>>was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
>>>murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
>>>first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!
>>
>> You're talking to the guy that used the Skull of Mondain as soon as he
>> got it. It should have created an unrecoverable save file of doom like
>> Undertale.
>>
>> It was so cool. What an ending!
>
>
>I've never gotten the geno ending on UT (sans sucks) but I think you can
>technically recover it by regediting and messing with steam cloud saves

Did you get to the point where XP was named "eXecution Points" and level
was actually your "level of violence?"

Yeah, you can hack your way out of it, but it's still what the player
deserved. First real consequences I've seen in a game in a long time.

-- 
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46763

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 17:47 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:00:03 -0000 (UTC), in
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote: 
>
>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 23:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:43:07 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 
>>>
>>>>I mean, do you remember what a radical concept it felt in "Ultima IV"
>>>>was when it was announced that the goal of the game was /NOT/ to
>>>>murder your way through the world?* For a lot of players, that was the
>>>>first time they even considered there could be more to the genre!
>>>
>>> You're talking to the guy that used the Skull of Mondain as soon as he
>>> got it. It should have created an unrecoverable save file of doom like
>>> Undertale.
>>>
>>> It was so cool. What an ending!
>>
>>
>>I've never gotten the geno ending on UT (sans sucks) but I think you can
>>technically recover it by regediting and messing with steam cloud saves
>
> Did you get to the point where XP was named "eXecution Points" and level
> was actually your "level of violence?"

Yeah, that's in the neutral/true pacifist route, which I did.

> Yeah, you can hack your way out of it, but it's still what the player
> deserved. First real consequences I've seen in a game in a long time.

(of course unless you count online games as "real consequenses ;))

Yeah, its awesome
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46732

On 15/07/2024 20:43, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> it didn't help when D&D started getting ported to computers. Because
> early computers were GREAT with the number crunching, but were pretty
> poor with the story and characters. Computer RPGs/still/  struggle
> with making a game where the combat isn't the most dominant feature.
> Our beloved 8-bits were far inferior machines; they hadn't a chance in
> capturing what made table-top gaming such a fascinating hobby. So
> those early RPGs - most of which were either licensed D&D games or
> very closely based upon it- were little more than brain-dead combat
> simulators and loot collectors. Which in turn reinforced the idea that
> was all that D&D really was.

I knew you could get it back to video games! I think you just have to 
have different expectations of CRPG's from TT RPG's because, as you say, 
computers just aren't very good at the bit that makes the later stand 
out for other TT games.

It's not just the overall flexibility but CRPG's aren't very good at 
encouraging you to play in character but instead play a version of 
yourself*. The example I normal use is the classic trope of the old 
crying woman who has lost here husband or child. You end up doing the 
quest not because that what's your character would do but instead 
because you know you'll get a bauble at the end of it and you get to do 
something. It's just horribly binary.

Problem the best version I've played is Disco Elysium as it doesn't have 
that feeling of pass = good, fail = bad (and probably a reload), instead 
it's how the story advances. Even then you can't, as yet, get to the 
stage where a GM invents things on the fly or thinks that's not how the 
story is supposed to advance at all but I'll go with it. Oh you want to 
visit a cafe and ask around for information even though the scenario 
doesn't have one. Ok here's one and we'll have a waitress who is the 
sister of a nurse who used to work at the sanatorium. Now you want to 
visit her yet again, oh the cultists are monitoring your activities and 
decide they can work the fake suicide also into her brutal murder.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

csiph-web