🚀 go-pugleaf

Garrett <tecknode@NOSPAM.invalid> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:24:24 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>Q> markB <m...@netweb.net> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
>Q> spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Q> 
>Q> >Anybody else aware of these guys - basiliskgames.com
>Q> >
>Q> >The third in the Eschalon series is coming out this month.  I just
>Q> >discovered them, and am busily into Book I.  It is surprisingly good.
>Q> 
>Q> 
>Q> Well I suppose if you're into turn based, isometric games that look like
>Q> they were made 10-20 years ago...
>Q> 
>Q> Seriously, touting a fixed 1024x768 resolution in 2010 as a _feature_
>Q> and upgrade for book 2?
>Q> Oh look the screenshots for book3 are in that resolution as well.
>Q> 
>Q> This is exactly the reason I don't buy most "old school" games, it's one
>Q> thing to want the feel and gameplay of those old games, but these guys
>Q> forget that when those games were new, they were being played at
>Q> resolutions that fit the hardware of the day, resolutions that were at
>Q> or near state of the art whenever possible.
>Q> 
>Q> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
>Q> same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
>Q> what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
>Q> That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
>Q> 
>Q> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
>Q> no sale.
>Q> 
>Q> Xocyll
>
>
>There are those of us who play/like Eschalon precisely because it IS
>old school.  Especially because the games do not require players to
>have a super-computer and not having resource-hogging eye-candy.

Do you really think that Eschalon type graphics, using all of your
widescreen monitor's native resolution requires a super-computer?

1024x768 is state of the art for _20_ years ago;  Even a pentium P90,
much less a computer made in the last decade could drive Eschalon type
graphics at any modern widescreen resolutions - there's no reason to
limit it to a 1024x768 window centered in the monitor.

And as I noted, that window on a 20 inch widescreen monitor is
physically smaller than 1024x768 on a 17 inch CRT, so it's harder to see
any details.

Aimed at an audience who played those games back in the day and now are
likely wearing glasses and bifocals and they render the graphics even
smaller and harder to see than they were when they had young eyes.
That's the same kind of design decision the Japanese once used with cars
- selling cars sized for Asians to North Americans who were on average
4-6 inches taller - they didn't get the sales they wanted because most
North Americans couldn't drive one comfortably.

Funny how people over 6' tall don't buy cars sized for 5'6" people, and
people with old eyes don't buy games you need young eyes to see clearly.

>I love both Eschalon Book 1 & 2, looking forward to Book 3.

If they didn't program it like a decade old game from the days when 4:3
monitors were standard, I'd probably buy it, but since they did, not a
chance.  I'm not a big fan of eyestrain and headaches.

Xocyll