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

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action > #46645 > unrolled thread

Developer Rules

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

Contents

  Developer Rules Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 13:49 -0400
    Re: Developer Rules Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> - 2024-07-12 18:29 -0400
    Re: Developer Rules JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-13 10:10 +0100
    Re: Developer Rules Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-13 10:03 -0400
      Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 16:30 +0000
    Re: Developer Rules JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-15 14:21 +0100
      Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-15 16:30 +0000
        Re: Developer Rules Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-15 11:55 -0500
          Re: Developer Rules Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> - 2024-07-15 12:30 -0600
          Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-16 15:00 +0000
            Re: Developer Rules Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-16 18:03 -0700
              Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-17 15:40 +0000
                Re: Developer Rules Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-17 18:11 -0700
                  Re: Developer Rules JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-18 07:22 +0100
                    Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-18 17:40 +0000
                      Re: Developer Rules Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2024-07-18 17:47 -0700
                      Re: Developer Rules JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-19 10:02 +0100
                        Re: Developer Rules Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-19 08:55 -0400
                          Re: Developer Rules Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-19 08:54 -0500
                            Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 12:33 -0700
                              Re: Developer Rules Brennus <Brennus@allia.org> - 2024-07-19 21:35 +0000
                                Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 15:14 -0700
                                  Re: Developer Rules Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-19 18:25 -0500
                                  Re: Developer Rules Fartass Dillinger <fdillinger@mafia.org> - 2024-07-19 19:04 -0600
                                    Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 19:00 -0700
                                      Re: Developer Rules Brennus <Brennus@allia.org> - 2024-07-20 03:19 +0000
                                        Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 20:24 -0700
                                          Re: Developer Rules Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-20 04:48 -0500
                                            Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-20 08:20 -0700
                                            Re: Developer Rules Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-20 16:16 -0500
                                              Re: Developer Rules Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> - 2024-07-20 15:28 -0600
                                                Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-20 14:31 -0700
                                                  Re: Developer Rules Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> - 2024-07-20 17:56 -0600
                                                    Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-20 17:55 -0700
                                                      Re: Developer Rules Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> - 2024-07-20 21:40 -0600
                                                        Re: Developer Rules % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-20 20:52 -0700
                          Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-19 14:50 +0000
                            Re: Developer Rules Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> - 2024-07-19 11:08 -0400
                              Re: Developer Rules Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> - 2024-07-19 15:03 -0400
                                Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-29 01:40 +0000
                                  Re: Developer Rules Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-29 07:50 -0700
                                    Re: Developer Rules candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-29 16:40 +0000
                          Re: Developer Rules JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-21 11:13 +0100
                  Re: Developer Rules Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-24 10:22 -0700
        Re: Developer Rules JAB <noway@nochance.com> - 2024-07-17 09:37 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#46645 — Developer Rules

GamesIndustry.biz recently had a series of short conferences where
developers/publishers could advise each other on various rules for
running a successful games business. It dealt with issues ranging from
how AI can help (or hinder) development, how to avoid mass layoffs,
and how to learn to 'fail fast' to avoid pumping scarce resources into
products that ultimately won't succeed in the market.* 


But I was most interested in this one, by Shawn Layden of Playstation
Studios, on how to make games faster and cheaper. His four rules were
succinct and somewhat obvious, but I think some of them are reflective
of a much-needed shift in attitude.


Specifically, he says:
	1) Most gamers don't see the end of your game. So 
	   design fewer levels, make your games shorter.
	2) The tech advancement in games is not getting 
	   noticed by the majority of your players, so ask 
	   yourself: is this worth the investment?
	3) Try AI and develop tools to do some of the heavy 
	   lifting, and don't just throw people at the 
	   problem.
	4) Be disciplined and strict on what you can deliver 
	   and when. Don't spend too long on an idea if it's 
	   not working.


It's really the first two concepts that I find most noteworthy. 

The idea of 'making your games shorter' runs contrary to pretty much
everything we've seen in the last twenty years, when the almost
universal goal was to make the game bigger... not only larger than
your last product, but bigger than your competitors. More weapons,
more story, more mechanics, larger worlds... just more of everything. 

I've complained about this a lot recently, but I don't think I'm alone
in saying that these gigantic modern games are, frankly, too
exhausting to play. I look at a new game, see it's open world, and
think not, "hey! Cool! Neat!" but, "Oh god, it's going to take me 100
hours just to get through the core game (more for side-quests and DLC)
and I just don't want to invest that much time into a single product.
Is there anything else I can play?"

So seeing a publisher suggest that, hey, maybe scaling it back a bit
would be beneficial to the hobby is a welcome relief.


Similarly, item 2 on the list -stop chasing tech!- is equally welcome,
although it's less revelatory. I think by this point most developers
have, if not stepped off the tech treadmill, at least slowed it down.
Fewer games are boasting about their Super Exciting Realistic
Graphics, or Ultra Fidelity Physics Engine or whatever the latest
trend is. In part this is because technology has -at least for the
time- plateaued at 'good enough' even as game development costs have
skyrocketed. 

There's little need -and fewer resources- to eke out the ever-tinier
advantages you might get chasing after tech's latest darling. "Just
use what we already have, maybe learning a few new tricks to make
better use of the existing tech, and focus on
gameplay/level-design/story" seems to becoming the common mantra. But
even if it isn't an epiphany, still I'm glad to hear somebody say it. 

(the other two items on the list are fairly common sense, less novel
and generally not particularly interesting to talk about. So I won't.)


What do you think: do the first two suggestions reflect a sea-change
in the industry? And if so, are they /welcome/ sea changes?






----------   
* read the full summary here
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/everything-we-learned-from-gi-sprint

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#46647

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:49:25 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>Specifically, he says:
>	1) Most gamers don't see the end of your game. So 
>	   design fewer levels, make your games shorter.
>	2) The tech advancement in games is not getting 
>	   noticed by the majority of your players, so ask 
>	   yourself: is this worth the investment?

[...]

>What do you think: do the first two suggestions reflect a sea-change
>in the industry? And if so, are they /welcome/ sea changes?

One thing I've observed in comments from highly successful people in
the entertainment business (whether they were game developers, music
artists/producers/composers, filmmakers, actors or comics working on
new characters or reading a script... whatever) is that they almost
always describe some moment where they knew a certain product of their
efforts (whether that's a game title, a musical track, a film, a
character, etc.) was something special.

When you spend enough time on your craft to get good at it, you're
simultaneously good enough to recognize work that stands out beyond
your normal work output and that will appeal to others.  Nobody can
necessarily predict with any accuracy what will or won't go viral on
social media these days, but most of the forms of entertainment I
listed above cannot rely on viral media gimmicks to sustain anyones
career or company anyway, so that point is moot.

So...  when game developers/designers/directors see that a title is
turning into something special, they should extend the enjoyment to
the extent it is still enjoyable (without "jumping the shark").  When
they realize the current project is turning into something mediocre or
forgettable, it's best to cut bait, make it a shorter title and charge
accordingly.

One of the things I think is fundamentally wrong with gaming is that
the entire way funding and marketing works, there is very little
incentive for "special" games to materialize in the first place. These
teams sit down and say "okay we're going to make this or that and we
will target X number hours of playtime and spend Y number of dollars
on R&D" etc.  The decisions and deadlines are decided long before they
have created enough of a viable product to get a feel for how it's
going to turn out.

So to his suggestion #1 I say: people don't finish crap games but they
will finish good ones, so make the total play time proportional to how
good the game is turning out initially and plan around that.  As far
as suggestion #2, technology alone will not make a crap game fun to
play or a crap movie fun to watch or make poorly written music sound
any better, so tech advancement should never be the end goal.  Focus
on delivering on fun factor and consider tech advancements to be icing
on the cake when you can find ways to meaningfully add them to the
mix.  Don't add "new and shiny" just for the marketing rights of
saying "this game has some new and shiny in it".

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

#46650

On 12/07/2024 18:49, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

1) There's very few games I've played that have an actual ending (so not 
Civ for example) that when I've finished I really think I wish it had 
gone on for longer. There's more games I slogged through the last hours 
but the biggest proportion of games is where I've got to the point of 
saying I'm just not enjoying this any more and stopped.

The two problems I find is that games quickly run out of ideas so you're 
effectively just doing the same thing yet again but this time you're 
more powerful. The real biggie though, artificially padding out games to 
get to that magical 80hrs+ to make it value for money. I'd rather play a 
ten hour game where I enjoyed all of it than a thirty hour game where I 
enjoyed half of it.

Some notable exceptions I can think of, off the top of my head. HL:1/2, 
I could have happily played several more hours and I think a lot of that 
is to do with how it keeps the game fresh by giving levels quite 
different feels. Next on the list, FO:3/NV. That kept me going for many 
hours just because the amount of different locations/stories that again 
kept the game fresh.

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

#46653

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:49:25 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've complained about this a lot recently, but I don't think I'm alone
>in saying that these gigantic modern games are, frankly, too
>exhausting to play. I look at a new game, see it's open world, and
>think not, "hey! Cool! Neat!" but, "Oh god, it's going to take me 100
>hours just to get through the core game (more for side-quests and DLC)
>and I just don't want to invest that much time into a single product.
>Is there anything else I can play?"

I have no problem with a game being 100 hours if it is good. I don't
really care about a game's length. I only care if it is good or not.
And for me, that is independent from a game's length.

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

#46658

Mike S <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote at 14:03 this Saturday (GMT):
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:49:25 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've complained about this a lot recently, but I don't think I'm alone
>>in saying that these gigantic modern games are, frankly, too
>>exhausting to play. I look at a new game, see it's open world, and
>>think not, "hey! Cool! Neat!" but, "Oh god, it's going to take me 100
>>hours just to get through the core game (more for side-quests and DLC)
>>and I just don't want to invest that much time into a single product.
>>Is there anything else I can play?"
>
> I have no problem with a game being 100 hours if it is good. I don't
> really care about a game's length. I only care if it is good or not.
> And for me, that is independent from a game's length.


Same. One of my favorite games (Hypnospace Outlaw) is so short I beat it
in 3 days or so. Absolutely incredible story.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#46685

On 12/07/2024 18:49, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 	2) The tech advancement in games is not getting
> 	   noticed by the majority of your players, so ask
> 	   yourself: is this worth the investment?

Ah this one so my thoughts. I've thought that graphics (that's the tech 
that's mainly been chased) are definitely following the trend that 
they've been good enough for many years and now it's somewhat of a dead 
end in actually adding to the game experience. If I take say Crysis 
Warhead (2008), that has a level of graphic fidelity that is more than 
adequate enough to immerse me in the game world. Yes I'm sure that it 
could be updated to take advantage of modern GPU's but would I enjoy it 
more, I very much doubt it.

Where I'd like to see to that 'tech' focused is on more immersive worlds 
that aren't just there for you but instead you're apart of it. A simple 
example is enemies in FPS'es. I remember being really impressed with the 
marines in HL:1 were it didn't feel they were just there to be shot but 
acted in a more we will hunt you down manner. Fast forward many years 
and we don't seem to have progressed any further.

Another one is having NPC's that are more reactive to dialogue choices 
to stop this feeling of I'll just go through all the options until I get 
to the right one to get what I want.

As an aside I'm not sure I want hyper-realistic graphics. To me playing 
a game that effectively mimicked our reality would just feel, well a bit 
weird.

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

#46693

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 13:21 this Monday (GMT):
> On 12/07/2024 18:49, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> 	2) The tech advancement in games is not getting
>> 	   noticed by the majority of your players, so ask
>> 	   yourself: is this worth the investment?
>
> Ah this one so my thoughts. I've thought that graphics (that's the tech 
> that's mainly been chased) are definitely following the trend that 
> they've been good enough for many years and now it's somewhat of a dead 
> end in actually adding to the game experience. If I take say Crysis 
> Warhead (2008), that has a level of graphic fidelity that is more than 
> adequate enough to immerse me in the game world. Yes I'm sure that it 
> could be updated to take advantage of modern GPU's but would I enjoy it 
> more, I very much doubt it.
>
> Where I'd like to see to that 'tech' focused is on more immersive worlds 
> that aren't just there for you but instead you're apart of it. A simple 
> example is enemies in FPS'es. I remember being really impressed with the 
> marines in HL:1 were it didn't feel they were just there to be shot but 
> acted in a more we will hunt you down manner. Fast forward many years 
> and we don't seem to have progressed any further.

And HL2 was even better :D

> Another one is having NPC's that are more reactive to dialogue choices 
> to stop this feeling of I'll just go through all the options until I get 
> to the right one to get what I want.

Yeah, like undertale

> As an aside I'm not sure I want hyper-realistic graphics. To me playing 
> a game that effectively mimicked our reality would just feel, well a bit 
> weird.


An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
consistent with its world and have characters you care about
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#46695

candycanearter07 wrote:

> An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
> consistent with its world and have characters you care about
> 

The most immersive game is USENET, where posters squirm this way and 
that, jump and duck, doing anything they can to avoid following up one 
of your posts.  You're tainted!

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

#46700

In article <lfl2jfF1nesU1@mid.individual.net>, nochsfentor@yahoo.com 
says...
> 
> candycanearter07 wrote:
> 
> > An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
> > consistent with its world and have characters you care about
> > 
> 
> The most immersive game is USENET, where posters squirm this way and 
> that, jump and duck, doing anything they can to avoid following up one 
> of your posts.  You're tainted!

Well said.

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

#46713

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action.]
Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> wrote at 16:55 this Monday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
>> consistent with its world and have characters you care about
>> 
>
> The most immersive game is USENET, where posters squirm this way and 
> that, jump and duck, doing anything they can to avoid following up one 
> of your posts.  You're tainted!


Am I supposed to set Followup-To or not?? I have gotten conflicting
advice about this from multiple people!
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#46731

On 7/16/2024 8:00 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action.]
> Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> wrote at 16:55 this Monday (GMT):
>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
>>> consistent with its world and have characters you care about
>>>
>>
>> The most immersive game is USENET, where posters squirm this way and
>> that, jump and duck, doing anything they can to avoid following up one
>> of your posts.  You're tainted!
> 
> 
> Am I supposed to set Followup-To or not?? I have gotten conflicting
> advice about this from multiple people!

If you want replies to your posts in the same newsgroup then you don't 
"set" followup-to.  It is only used if you want to redirect any replies 
to YOUR post to another newsgroup.

-- 
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky 
dirty old man.

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

#46740

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 01:03 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On 7/16/2024 8:00 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action.]
>> Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> wrote at 16:55 this Monday (GMT):
>>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
>>>> consistent with its world and have characters you care about
>>>>
>>>
>>> The most immersive game is USENET, where posters squirm this way and
>>> that, jump and duck, doing anything they can to avoid following up one
>>> of your posts.  You're tainted!
>> 
>> 
>> Am I supposed to set Followup-To or not?? I have gotten conflicting
>> advice about this from multiple people!
>
> If you want replies to your posts in the same newsgroup then you don't 
> "set" followup-to.  It is only used if you want to redirect any replies 
> to YOUR post to another newsgroup.


Right, but is it "proper" to set it or not? What are the rules here??
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#46748

On 7/17/2024 8:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 01:03 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> On 7/16/2024 8:00 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action.]
>>> Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com> wrote at 16:55 this Monday (GMT):
>>>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An "immersive" game doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be
>>>>> consistent with its world and have characters you care about
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The most immersive game is USENET, where posters squirm this way and
>>>> that, jump and duck, doing anything they can to avoid following up one
>>>> of your posts.  You're tainted!
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I supposed to set Followup-To or not?? I have gotten conflicting
>>> advice about this from multiple people!
>>
>> If you want replies to your posts in the same newsgroup then you don't
>> "set" followup-to.  It is only used if you want to redirect any replies
>> to YOUR post to another newsgroup.
> 
> 
> Right, but is it "proper" to set it or not? What are the rules here??

There aren't any rules.  Trolls will tend to set follow-ups to other 
newsgroups so they don't receive the flames others try to sent to them 
and to set up a flame war between groups.  But there are also perfectly 
reasonable uses to set follow-ups, such as trying to redirect a thread 
that is off-topic in one group to another group where it will be on-topic.

Zersterer is being a troll.  Go look at his post again and you will see 
that HE set up a follow-up to send replies to him to alt.slack and 
talk.bizarre.  For the most part there is little reason to use 
follow-ups.  You just need to be careful about OTHERS using it to try to 
stir up trouble.  Other than that YOU CAN JUST IGNORE IT.

-- 
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky 
dirty old man.

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

#46749

On 18/07/2024 02:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> Zersterer is being a troll.  Go look at his post again and you will see 
> that HE set up a follow-up to send replies to him to alt.slack and 
> talk.bizarre.  For the most part there is little reason to use 
> follow-ups.  You just need to be careful about OTHERS using it to try to 
> stir up trouble.  Other than that YOU CAN JUST IGNORE IT.

Ta, I missed that's what he had done. Don't they have FB groups to troll?

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

#46755

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 06:22 this Thursday (GMT):
> On 18/07/2024 02:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> Zersterer is being a troll.  Go look at his post again and you will see 
>> that HE set up a follow-up to send replies to him to alt.slack and 
>> talk.bizarre.  For the most part there is little reason to use 
>> follow-ups.  You just need to be careful about OTHERS using it to try to 
>> stir up trouble.  Other than that YOU CAN JUST IGNORE IT.
>
> Ta, I missed that's what he had done. Don't they have FB groups to troll?


Oh, sorry.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#46756

On 7/18/2024 10:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 06:22 this Thursday (GMT):
>> On 18/07/2024 02:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> Zersterer is being a troll.  Go look at his post again and you will see
>>> that HE set up a follow-up to send replies to him to alt.slack and
>>> talk.bizarre.  For the most part there is little reason to use
>>> follow-ups.  You just need to be careful about OTHERS using it to try to
>>> stir up trouble.  Other than that YOU CAN JUST IGNORE IT.
>>
>> Ta, I missed that's what he had done. Don't they have FB groups to troll?
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry.

Don't be, its not your fault.  We've all fallen for that many times. 
99.99% of the time you don't have to worry about it.

-- 
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky 
dirty old man.

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

#46757

On 18/07/2024 18:40, candycanearter07 wrote:
> JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 06:22 this Thursday (GMT):
>> On 18/07/2024 02:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> Zersterer is being a troll.  Go look at his post again and you will see
>>> that HE set up a follow-up to send replies to him to alt.slack and
>>> talk.bizarre.  For the most part there is little reason to use
>>> follow-ups.  You just need to be careful about OTHERS using it to try to
>>> stir up trouble.  Other than that YOU CAN JUST IGNORE IT.
>>
>> Ta, I missed that's what he had done. Don't they have FB groups to troll?
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry.

As DT said, nothing to be sorry for as it happens. I didn't spot what 
they'd done either but I did have my suspicions that they were a troll 
from the general tone of their posts.

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

#46760

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 10:02:25 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>As DT said, nothing to be sorry for as it happens. I didn't spot what 
>they'd done either but I did have my suspicions that they were a troll 
>from the general tone of their posts.

Yep. The general tone is what clued me in as well. Probably comes from
reading usenet for several decades.

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

#46761

Mike S. wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 10:02:25 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
> 
>> As DT said, nothing to be sorry for as it happens. I didn't spot what
>> they'd done either but I did have my suspicions that they were a troll
>>from the general tone of their posts.
> 
> Yep. The general tone is what clued me in as well. Probably comes from
> reading usenet for several decades.
> 
Yes we all become trolls after a few decades.

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

#46767

Zersterer wrote:
> Mike S. wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 10:02:25 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As DT said, nothing to be sorry for as it happens. I didn't spot what
>>> they'd done either but I did have my suspicions that they were a troll
>>> from the general tone of their posts.
>>
>> Yep. The general tone is what clued me in as well. Probably comes from
>> reading usenet for several decades.
>>
> Yes we all become trolls after a few decades.

i hit the ground trolling

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web