🚀 go-pugleaf

markB <m...@netweb.net> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>Anybody else aware of these guys - basiliskgames.com
>
>The third in the Eschalon series is coming out this month.  I just
>discovered them, and am busily into Book I.  It is surprisingly good.


Well I suppose if you're into turn based, isometric games that look like
they were made 10-20 years ago...

Seriously, touting a fixed 1024x768 resolution in 2010 as a _feature_
and upgrade for book 2?
Oh look the screenshots for book3 are in that resolution as well.

This is exactly the reason I don't buy most "old school" games, it's one
thing to want the feel and gameplay of those old games, but these guys
forget that when those games were new, they were being played at
resolutions that fit the hardware of the day, resolutions that were at
or near state of the art whenever possible.

There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".

That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
no sale.

Xocyll

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:24:24 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:

>There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
>same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
>what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
>That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
>
>That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
>no sale.
>
>Xocyll

Doesn't this just mean there will be black bars displayed on my
1920x1080 display in full screen mode?  I am ok with that. But I do
agree that even a retro game made today should support modern display
resolutions.

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.

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



-- 
==== Tecknomage ====
Master Thief
Thieves Guild Master (Oblivion)

On 2/5/2014 6:24 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> markB <m...@netweb.net> looked up from reading the entrails of the
> porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> 
>> Anybody else aware of these guys - basiliskgames.com
>> 
>> The third in the Eschalon series is coming out this month.  I just 
>> discovered them, and am busily into Book I.  It is surprisingly
>> good.
> 
> 
> Well I suppose if you're into turn based, isometric games that look
> like they were made 10-20 years ago...

I prefer 1st person, turn-based.  Or at least pause-able.
> 
> Seriously, touting a fixed 1024x768 resolution in 2010 as a
> _feature_ and upgrade for book 2? Oh look the screenshots for book3
> are in that resolution as well.

My monitor is 24" 16x10 at 1920x1200.  Running Book I full-screen keeps
the aspect ratio, and promotes the game's 800x600 screen very nicely.
I, too, was surprised it looked good.  Books II and III are 1024x768 so
I'm not worried about resolution after seeing how nicely the lower res
scaled up.  Seriously.

> This is exactly the reason I don't buy most "old school" games, it's
> one thing to want the feel and gameplay of those old games, but these
> guys forget that when those games were new, they were being played
> at resolutions that fit the hardware of the day, resolutions that
> were at or near state of the art whenever possible.

Well, the designer stuck with the same engine through the series, and
the resolution is built-in.  His next game will "catch up" with current
resolutions.
> 
> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and
> the same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD
> (which is what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.) 
> That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
> 
> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no
> thanks, no sale.

I just get fun, no eyestrain :)  The demos may change your mind, and are
free.  Try Book II. The 768 vertical is not much of a stretch to get to
your 900.

-mb

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:24:24 +0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:

>This is exactly the reason I don't buy most "old school" games, it's one
> thing to want the feel and gameplay of those old games, but these guys
> forget that when those games were new, they were being played at
> resolutions that fit the hardware of the day, resolutions that were at
> or near state of the art whenever possible.

Wholeheartly agree. I myself am OK with 'outdated' graphics of old games, but
cannot tolerate 'outdateness' in current games. It is not oldskool, it is incompetence.

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

Mike S.  <Mik...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Doesn't this just mean there will be black bars displayed on my
>1920x1080 display in full screen mode? 

Depends on the game, video drivers and monitor.  They may choose to
scale or stretch the image instead.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

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

@@ Eschalon series @@

There are Book 1 & 2 Demos
http://www.gamershell.com/search/?q=Eschalon

Widescreen:
Just Googling around may well find people with Mods & suggestion's.
Tho not it seems for Eschalon series .

How about setting the widescreen Monitor to display full stretched screen.
Then fiddle with the monitors width control to squash it in just a little.
Then Monitors height control to stretch it & chop just a little of 
top/bottom.
It Game has FOV control fiddle with that.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (Fiddle & Twiddle Can Get It Done)

The World seems to be filling up with people running 2 or 3 Widescreen 
Monitors side
be side in an U  l  t  r  a    W-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-e-e-n  thingy.
does Graphic card settings allow stacking 2 Monitors one on top of each 
other ?
So giving 16 x 18 . Nice an square (ish)
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (5:4 Is Best) 

On 2/5/2014 12:56 PM, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> @@ Eschalon series @@
> 
> There are Book 1 & 2 Demos 
> http://www.gamershell.com/search/?q=Eschalon
> 
> Widescreen: Just Googling around may well find people with Mods &
> suggestion's. Tho not it seems for Eschalon series .
> 
> How about setting the widescreen Monitor to display full stretched
> screen. Then fiddle with the monitors width control to squash it in
> just a little. Then Monitors height control to stretch it & chop just
> a little of top/bottom. It Game has FOV control fiddle with that.

No game FOV, but most video cards have a setting to let you keep aspect
ratio.  Resolution is really a tiny issue since the game scales up so
well.  It's a nice engrossing game.

-mb

Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com> 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:
>
>>There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
>>same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
>>what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
>>That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
>>
>>That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
>>no sale.
>>
>>Xocyll
>
>Doesn't this just mean there will be black bars displayed on my
>1920x1080 display in full screen mode?  I am ok with that. But I do
>agree that even a retro game made today should support modern display
>resolutions.

Depends on your monitor and video card really, you could end up with
black bars on the sides, or the screen stretched, or the image centered
in the middle - all depends on what the manufacturer implemented.

The real point is, with simple graphics like this series has, even
Integrated Intel Graphics could display that in full widescreen
resolutions without much issue since it's neither 3d nor real time.

I can only assume that the guy(s) behind it used an engine they did not
develop, and that engine was made back when low res 4:3 was the
standard.

Xocyll

On 2/6/2014 6:03 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com> 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:
>> 
>>> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT
>>> and the same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen
>>> LCD (which is what I have, though it's by no means state of the
>>> art.) That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the
>>> 17".
>>> 
>>> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no
>>> thanks, no sale.
>>> 
>>> Xocyll
>> 
>> Doesn't this just mean there will be black bars displayed on my 
>> 1920x1080 display in full screen mode?  I am ok with that. But I
>> do agree that even a retro game made today should support modern
>> display resolutions.
> 
> Depends on your monitor and video card really, you could end up with 
> black bars on the sides, or the screen stretched, or the image
> centered in the middle - all depends on what the manufacturer
> implemented.
> 
> The real point is, with simple graphics like this series has, even 
> Integrated Intel Graphics could display that in full widescreen 
> resolutions without much issue since it's neither 3d nor real time.
> 
> I can only assume that the guy(s) behind it used an engine they did
> not develop, and that engine was made back when low res 4:3 was the 
> standard.

Are there any displays out there anymore that don't scale instead of
stretching to fit?

Does the demo look bad on your monitor, or do you just know it will?

Demo of Book I is huge, BTW, and is the first section of the game.

-mb

markB  <m...@netweb.net> wrote:
>Are there any displays out there anymore that don't scale instead of
>stretching to fit?

One of the reasons why I went with an Asus monitor over a slightly
cheaper Dell with the same 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel was the Asus gave
me a choice of options (1:1 pixel mapping, 4:3, or stretch to fill the
entire 16:10 screen) while the Dell only stretched.  While I could work
around that on my PC since the display drivers could do the resolution
conversion instead, when using it to watch Blu-Rays on my PlayStation
3 I would've gotten 16:9 video stretched to 16:10 on the Dell.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

markB <m...@netweb.net> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 2/6/2014 6:03 AM, Xocyll wrote:
>> Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com> 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:
>>> 
>>>> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT
>>>> and the same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen
>>>> LCD (which is what I have, though it's by no means state of the
>>>> art.) That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the
>>>> 17".
>>>> 
>>>> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no
>>>> thanks, no sale.
>>>> 
>>>> Xocyll
>>> 
>>> Doesn't this just mean there will be black bars displayed on my 
>>> 1920x1080 display in full screen mode?  I am ok with that. But I
>>> do agree that even a retro game made today should support modern
>>> display resolutions.
>> 
>> Depends on your monitor and video card really, you could end up with 
>> black bars on the sides, or the screen stretched, or the image
>> centered in the middle - all depends on what the manufacturer
>> implemented.
>> 
>> The real point is, with simple graphics like this series has, even 
>> Integrated Intel Graphics could display that in full widescreen 
>> resolutions without much issue since it's neither 3d nor real time.
>> 
>> I can only assume that the guy(s) behind it used an engine they did
>> not develop, and that engine was made back when low res 4:3 was the 
>> standard.
>
>Are there any displays out there anymore that don't scale instead of
>stretching to fit?

It depends on the monitor.  Some stretch, some scale, some letterbox it
in native, it all depends on the brand, the feature set of the monitor
and the video card and drivers.

>Does the demo look bad on your monitor, or do you just know it will?

Well it's 800x600, the same resolution as Diablo2 which looks horrible
on my current monitor at that resolution, which is why I use a
widescreen mod and play it at 1600x900. (Only works with v1.12)

>Demo of Book I is huge, BTW, and is the first section of the game.

As I said before, old school graphics and gameplay, sure, I can get into
that.
Old school LOW 4:3 resolutions in a game made after widescreen took
over, no chance.
Replaying a game made back then, you'd put up with the old
resolution/form factor (assuming it hasn't been updated - Baldur's Gate,
Planescape Torment both have widescreen mods for instance), but a brand
new game, no way.

1024x768 in 2014 - no excuse for that.

Xocyll

I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My 
issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly 
realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could 
only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you 
went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches 
too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret 
door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc.

I brought this up on the developer's forum and got massively flamed BY 
THE DEVELOPER for "not understanding what a real old school RPG really 
was" and the like.  He clearly had far too much of his ego tied up in 
the project in all the wrong ways and I've never looked at their stuff 
since.

-- 
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted, 
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with 
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate 
wouldn't tolerate.

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My 
>issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly 
>realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could 
>only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you 
>went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches 
>too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret 
>door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc.
>
>I brought this up on the developer's forum and got massively flamed BY 
>THE DEVELOPER for "not understanding what a real old school RPG really 
>was" and the like.  He clearly had far too much of his ego tied up in 
>the project in all the wrong ways and I've never looked at their stuff 
>since.

Wow, so he studied in the Derek Smart school of game design.
Did he happen to mention being a member of Mensa?

Xocyll

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:13:32 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My 
>>issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly 
>>realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could 
>>only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you 
>>went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches 
>>too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret 
>>door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc.
>>
>>I brought this up on the developer's forum and got massively flamed BY 
>>THE DEVELOPER for "not understanding what a real old school RPG really 
>>was" and the like.  He clearly had far too much of his ego tied up in 
>>the project in all the wrong ways and I've never looked at their stuff 
>>since.
>
>Wow, so he studied in the Derek Smart school of game design.
>Did he happen to mention being a member of Mensa?
>
>Xocyll

Hah!  I remember those days!

On 2/8/2014 4:13 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
>
>> I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My
>> issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly
>> realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could
>> only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you
>> went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches
>> too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret
>> door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc.
>>
>> I brought this up on the developer's forum and got massively flamed BY
>> THE DEVELOPER for "not understanding what a real old school RPG really
>> was" and the like.  He clearly had far too much of his ego tied up in
>> the project in all the wrong ways and I've never looked at their stuff
>> since.
>
> Wow, so he studied in the Derek Smart school of game design.
> Did he happen to mention being a member of Mensa?
>
I don't remember.  It was years ago and I didn't have any incentive to 
remember anything beyond "He's an ass" and "Don't buy his games."

-- 
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted, 
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with 
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate 
wouldn't tolerate.

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On 2/8/2014 4:13 AM, Xocyll wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>> say:
>>
>>> I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My
>>> issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly
>>> realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could
>>> only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you
>>> went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches
>>> too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret
>>> door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc.
>>>
>>> I brought this up on the developer's forum and got massively flamed BY
>>> THE DEVELOPER for "not understanding what a real old school RPG really
>>> was" and the like.  He clearly had far too much of his ego tied up in
>>> the project in all the wrong ways and I've never looked at their stuff
>>> since.
>>
>> Wow, so he studied in the Derek Smart school of game design.
>> Did he happen to mention being a member of Mensa?
>>
>I don't remember.  It was years ago and I didn't have any incentive to 
>remember anything beyond "He's an ass" and "Don't buy his games."

Funny how guys like that don't seem to get that.
Flaming people who bought your product doesn't make them buy more, and
people seeing you act like that, are disinclined to give you money.

Worse yet, that's not Old School, it's a subset of old school - the hard
core games which were almost impossible to finish because every choice
mattered, and you could fuck yourself with the wrong choice, or walk
into something you could not get out of.

That's not all old school games though, even if he likes to think it is.

Rationally explaining that to people like you might even have gotten him
more sales, once you know to expect that you may never finish the game
and accept that, but flaming just guarantees he'll never see another
dime.

That's why I asked about the Mensa thing - there have been a bunch of
developers in the past that went ballistic if you questioned any of
their design decisions and would then claim they were super smart, a
member of Mensa, and anyone who didn't agree with them was obviously too
stupid to understand their game design.
None of them made friends or got customers with this attitude, but I
guess if your target customer audience is "people who think like I do
and agree with everything I say" and no one else, and you're good with
only selling enough copies to make pocket change, that's a valid choice.

Xocyll

In article <52f5af2a$0$52820$742e...@news.sonic.net>, dtr...@sonic.net 
says...
> I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My 
> issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly 
> realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could 
> only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you 
> went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches 
> too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret 
> door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc.
 
I never got that far - for me the game was just not compelling (and I'm 
a big Spiderweb fan).

Could care less what the resolution is - 1024 x 768 is just fine for me.  
But the gameplay has to be right.

- Gerry Quinn

On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:14:41 PM UTC-8, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it.  My 
>issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I quickly 
>realized that the whole game was designed such that the player could 
>only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set of steps.  If you 
>went even slightly out of sequence and, say, used one too many torches 
>too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search for and find _this_ secret 
>door before _that_ secret door, you were f*cked.  Etc. 
>

Thanks for the review, I will be avoiding those.  I'd been thinking of trying these games for some time, but I hate those kind of stupid things where you can get stuck easily and are on a railroad. I'm reminded of so called adventure games, 'pixel pushing', puzzle games, not the good old RPGs.  

My favorite old school games were somewhat 'sandbox' allowing you to try to do anything in whatever order - even if it was a really bad idea.   Pool of Radiance and the other Gold Box SSI games, Fallout (beyond the time limit anyway), Daggerfall, were all like that, and some of the best.

- Justisaur

On 2/11/2014 8:18 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:14:41 PM UTC-8, Dimensional Traveler 
> wrote:
> 
>> I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it. 
>> My issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I 
>> quickly realized that the whole game was designed such that the 
>> player could only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set 
>> of steps.  If you went even slightly out of sequence and, say,
>> used one too many torches too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search
>> for and find _this_ secret door before _that_ secret door, you
>> were f*cked.  Etc.
>> 
> 
> Thanks for the review, I will be avoiding those.  I'd been thinking 
> of trying these games for some time, but I hate those kind of stupid 
> things where you can get stuck easily and are on a railroad. I'm 
> reminded of so called adventure games, 'pixel pushing', puzzle
> games, not the good old RPGs.
> 
> My favorite old school games were somewhat 'sandbox' allowing you to 
> try to do anything in whatever order - even if it was a really bad 
> idea.   Pool of Radiance and the other Gold Box SSI games, Fallout 
> (beyond the time limit anyway), Daggerfall, were all like that, and 
> some of the best.

Check out the site and the forums.  You'll see that the above opinion
sounds like a different game.

-mb

markB <m...@netweb.net> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 2/11/2014 8:18 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:14:41 PM UTC-8, Dimensional Traveler 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it. 
>>> My issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I 
>>> quickly realized that the whole game was designed such that the 
>>> player could only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set 
>>> of steps.  If you went even slightly out of sequence and, say,
>>> used one too many torches too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search
>>> for and find _this_ secret door before _that_ secret door, you
>>> were f*cked.  Etc.
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for the review, I will be avoiding those.  I'd been thinking 
>> of trying these games for some time, but I hate those kind of stupid 
>> things where you can get stuck easily and are on a railroad. I'm 
>> reminded of so called adventure games, 'pixel pushing', puzzle
>> games, not the good old RPGs.
>> 
>> My favorite old school games were somewhat 'sandbox' allowing you to 
>> try to do anything in whatever order - even if it was a really bad 
>> idea.   Pool of Radiance and the other Gold Box SSI games, Fallout 
>> (beyond the time limit anyway), Daggerfall, were all like that, and 
>> some of the best.
>
>Check out the site and the forums.  You'll see that the above opinion
>sounds like a different game.

I'm assuming the same developer that flamed someone is the guy who owns
and runs the forums.
What makes you think dissenting opinions get to stay posted?

Seen that on all kinds of forums owned by game companies, anything bad
that gets said gets removed very quickly and posters that keep on
pointing out stuff the devs don't want pointed out get banned.

Saw that time and time and time again on the Blizzard forums after
Diablo3 came out for instance.
Lots of good posts about the shortcomings of the game vanished in an
hour or less, then the posters vanished too.

When people are universally positive about the game on forums that
_aren't_ controlled by the game developer, then you might have a point.


Although I did find one post that would make you wonder about the mental
shortcomings of the developers: "Bats cannot see in the dark."   
Wow there's a genius design decision.


Xocyll

markB <m...@netweb.net> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 2/11/2014 8:18 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:14:41 PM UTC-8, Dimensional Traveler 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I played the first game in the series and quickly quit playing it. 
>>> My issue wasn't the graphics, it was the design philosophy.  I 
>>> quickly realized that the whole game was designed such that the 
>>> player could only keep playing if they followed a _very_ exact set 
>>> of steps.  If you went even slightly out of sequence and, say,
>>> used one too many torches too soon, you were f*cked.  Didn't search
>>> for and find _this_ secret door before _that_ secret door, you
>>> were f*cked.  Etc.
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for the review, I will be avoiding those.  I'd been thinking 
>> of trying these games for some time, but I hate those kind of stupid 
>> things where you can get stuck easily and are on a railroad. I'm 
>> reminded of so called adventure games, 'pixel pushing', puzzle
>> games, not the good old RPGs.
>> 
>> My favorite old school games were somewhat 'sandbox' allowing you to 
>> try to do anything in whatever order - even if it was a really bad 
>> idea.   Pool of Radiance and the other Gold Box SSI games, Fallout 
>> (beyond the time limit anyway), Daggerfall, were all like that, and 
>> some of the best.
>
>Check out the site and the forums.  You'll see that the above opinion
>sounds like a different game.

And among other things I found this one which says EXACTLY what I was
talking about:

http://basiliskgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1137
"I would love to run this thing at my laptop's native screen resolution
(1440 x 900) but am forced to choose between sharp, crisp graphics in a
tiny little window or large fuzzy graphics in full screen."

Xocyll

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:19:28 AM UTC-8, Xocyll wrote:

> 
> Although I did find one post that would make you wonder about the mental
> shortcomings of the developers: "Bats cannot see in the dark."   
> Wow there's a genius design decision.
> 
> 

Well, they can't... they hear in the dark.

- Justisaur

In article <r9g4f9934secdj5t3...@4ax.com>, Xoc...@gmx.com 
says...
> 
> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
> same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
> what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
> That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
> 
> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
> no sale.
> 
> Xocyll
> 
> 

Now imagine that on a 2560x1600 monitor!
I bought good ole Populous 2 a little while ago off GOG. I fired it up 
once, howled in anguish and never clicked on the icon since. Seriously, 
it looked like something made of Lego, or maybe a minecraft clone (not 
that I'm particularly familiar with minecraft - it may look better 
than). Similar result for Conquest of the New World (deluxe) which I 
always wanted to play, but could never obtain in this little country at 
the time. 

If they (re-)release games they should make sure that they can be run on 
modern hardware. max resolution of 1024x768 is just not acceptable for 
modern flatscreen monitors.

-P.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 03:08:54 +1300, Peter Huebner
<no.one@this.address> wrote:

>In article <r9g4f9934secdj5t3...@4ax.com>, Xoc...@gmx.com 
>says...
>> 
>> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
>> same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
>> what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
>> That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
>> 
>> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
>> no sale.
>> 
>> Xocyll
>> 
>> 
>
>Now imagine that on a 2560x1600 monitor!
>I bought good ole Populous 2 a little while ago off GOG. I fired it up 
>once, howled in anguish and never clicked on the icon since. Seriously, 
>it looked like something made of Lego, or maybe a minecraft clone (not 
>that I'm particularly familiar with minecraft - it may look better 
>than). Similar result for Conquest of the New World (deluxe) which I 
>always wanted to play, but could never obtain in this little country at 
>the time. 
>
>If they (re-)release games they should make sure that they can be run on 
>modern hardware. max resolution of 1024x768 is just not acceptable for 
>modern flatscreen monitors.
>

Unfortunately it's not just a matter of making it run, remaking a game
in a high resolution is major work, it can be on the order of a
complete re-write if the original code wasn't written to scale to
different resolutions.  Not to mention all of the artwork would need
to be redone, and finding an artist that can really reproduces the art
style of the original is kind of like finding a replacement lead
singer for a classic rockband -- they are out there but they are hard
to find.  Even if the original artist works on it, putting himself
back in the same design mindset he had a couple of decades back might
not be possible.

I miss Populous too, FWIW.  I had high hopes for Godus, but looking at
the Steam feedback, I don't think I've ever seen a more dismal
clusterfuck of negative reviews.  I think Pete Molyneaux was one of
those one-hit wonders that's really good at convincing people he can
make great games, but is really only good at putting a snake-oil sales
spin on a few things he got lucky with in the past.

Peter Huebner <no.one@this.address> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>In article <r9g4f9934secdj5t3...@4ax.com>, Xoc...@gmx.com 
>says...
>> 
>> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT and the
>> same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen LCD (which is
>> what I have, though it's by no means state of the art.)
>> That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the 17".
>> 
>> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no thanks,
>> no sale.
>> 
>> Xocyll
>> 
>> 
>
>Now imagine that on a 2560x1600 monitor!

Ouch!

>I bought good ole Populous 2 a little while ago off GOG. I fired it up 
>once, howled in anguish and never clicked on the icon since. Seriously, 
>it looked like something made of Lego, or maybe a minecraft clone (not 
>that I'm particularly familiar with minecraft - it may look better 
>than). Similar result for Conquest of the New World (deluxe) which I 
>always wanted to play, but could never obtain in this little country at 
>the time. 

I looked at a couple older games I liked back in the day on Gog, but the
resolutions were so small and the graphics so dated they would just be
unplayable, blurry messes.

>If they (re-)release games they should make sure that they can be run on 
>modern hardware. max resolution of 1024x768 is just not acceptable for 
>modern flatscreen monitors.

I guess it's acceptable for some people, but not the majority I should
think.  Releasing a new game with old resolutions just seems to me like
a surefire recipe to not sell many copies except maybe to kiddies
playing them on their phones.

I'll put up with an oldschool resolution in an oldschool game that came
out when that was a state of the art resolution but in a new game, no
way.  The same way I wouldn't buy a new car using 1940s level technology
or use a 2400 baud modem for my internet connection (or go back to the
pre-internet BBS experience.)

That's not to say that I wouldn't drive an antique car with antique
tech, but if it's a replica, not an original, it's damn well going to
have power disc brakes, air conditioning and so on.

It's kinda like those websites that have a "best viewed on browser X, in
resolution X, with x, y,and z features" label on them.  I view those as
warning labels and that they're basically saying "this site best not
viewed at all."

If your game resolution basically equals "best played on a 14 inch CRT
monitor", no sale, I haven't had one of those in 15 years.

Xocyll