🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 6 May 2016 08:38:09 -0400, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:


You're not the only one here... there's a small number of folks
sitting in the shadows... just watching :)

Come join us on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action; despite the name, it's
pretty open to discussion of PC games of all genres (I always said
that splitting the c.s.i.p.games group was a bad idea... they should
have listened to me in '91. Well, it took 25 years but I get the last
laugh, hahahaha! ;-)

>2) Shroud of the Avatar

What's your opinion of this? I was a die-hard fan of the Ultima series
(though Ultima 8 and 9 did their best to kill off my interest) and I
have hopes for this revival, but I generally avoid early access /and/
online games. Plus, the few reviews I've seen of it seem to indicate
that Garriot is going down the same road as Chris Roberts, being more
interested in milking his fanbase for pre-release "premiums" than
actually finishing the game. So I'm wary. What's your take?

On 5/6/2016 9:06 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016 08:38:09 -0400, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:
>
>
> You're not the only one here... there's a small number of folks
> sitting in the shadows... just watching :)
>
> Come join us on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action; despite the name, it's
> pretty open to discussion of PC games of all genres (I always said
> that splitting the c.s.i.p.games group was a bad idea... they should
> have listened to me in '91. Well, it took 25 years but I get the last
> laugh, hahahaha! ;-)
>
>> 2) Shroud of the Avatar
>
> What's your opinion of this? I was a die-hard fan of the Ultima series
> (though Ultima 8 and 9 did their best to kill off my interest) and I
> have hopes for this revival, but I generally avoid early access /and/
> online games. Plus, the few reviews I've seen of it seem to indicate
> that Garriot is going down the same road as Chris Roberts, being more
> interested in milking his fanbase for pre-release "premiums" than
> actually finishing the game. So I'm wary. What's your take?
>
>
>


I was a die-hard fan of the Ultima series as well. I liked them all 
except for 9 that I hated.

Shroud of the Avatar is okay, but I have to admit, more than playing the 
game, I enjoyed watching stuff get added to the game as it progresses. I 
ignore requests to become a "re-backer". The game is not easy and the 
world is more interactive than most. Updates are regularly downloaded. I 
do believe I will enjoy it as much as I did the Ultimas of old once 
early access is over and the the full release is available. It still has 
the "Ultima feeling" about it if you know what I mean. there's a lot of 
dialog to read; I think the HUD is a bit too cluttered and I've died a 
lot. But, it's been fun for me.


I do read the "action" group regularly. What I can't wait for is the new 
Deus Ex. I've played them all several times over. They're my concession 
to playing "action" games...BTW, thanks for letting me know you're in 
the shadows.  ;-)

Diane

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016 08:38:09 -0400, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:
>
>
> You're not the only one here... there's a small number of folks
> sitting in the shadows... just watching :)
>
> Come join us on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action; despite the name, it's
> pretty open to discussion of PC games of all genres (I always said
> that splitting the c.s.i.p.games group was a bad idea... they should
> have listened to me in '91. Well, it took 25 years but I get the last
> laugh, hahahaha! ;-)
>

Yep, I'm hanging out over there now too, it's the default now, I see a 
lot of the old timers from here there now, Zag & Xab & Werner.  Just 
post there, don't worry if it's not action, we've had some discussions 
about turn based strategy wargames which you'd have to squint really 
hard to cram into 'action'.

I've still got this group in my list though.  I was digging through gg 
yesterday for something and found that interplay and origin used to post 
here!  That surprised me.  Even at the time people were saying Fallout 
was the best RPG to date.  Still is in my book.

Playing BL2 on PC, Lego games with son (would like to find more 2-player 
split screen games I could play with him, especially something like 
mario kart or whatever that's fun and racing for kids.) and Star Wars 
Galaxy of Heroes on Android.

Also just bought Dead Island for sale on steam for $4, but was still 
DLing it last night.

- Justisaur

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Come join us on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action; despite the name, it's
>pretty open to discussion of PC games of all genres (I always said
>that splitting the c.s.i.p.games group was a bad idea... they should
>have listened to me in '91. Well, it took 25 years but I get the last
>laugh, hahahaha! ;-)

It was in 1993 when comp.sys.ibm.pc.games was split, and only about year
after comp.sys.ibm.pc.games itself was created.  

	https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/news.groups/result$20$20comp.sys.ibm.pc.games$20before$3A1994-01-01

I also thought it was bad idea and voted against it:

	https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/news.groups/3otn1rXK8so/Myo1y6ayKBoJ

I don't see your name there though... 

Anyways, your right, comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action is where all the PC game
action, ahem, is these days.  It's become the new comp.sys.ibm.pc.games,
and so people should feel free to post about RPGs or any sort of PC game.

					Ross Ridge

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

On Fri, 06 May 2016 09:06:03 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Come join us on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action; despite the name, it's
>pretty open to discussion of PC games of all genres (I always said
>that splitting the c.s.i.p.games group was a bad idea... they should
>have listened to me in '91. Well, it took 25 years but I get the last
>laugh, hahahaha! ;-)

These days c.s.i.p.g.a is a free-for-all where people talk about
things that have nothing to do with action, what games they are
playing on their consoles, cell phones or tablets, or even interactive
movies that are quick-time-event button-mashers for the most part.

So, it's a good thing you didn't win the lobbying effort in '91,
otherwise we would have had to hold you personally responsible for the
outcome and administered the appropriate flogging :)

Instead, we can simply blame the evolution of technology, the web,
organic diminishment of Usenet at large, etc. for the unfortunate
state of things.

On Fri, 6 May 2016 08:38:09 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, DMP
wrote: 

>In April 2016, I have been playing
>
>1) The Witcher 3
>
>2) Shroud of the Avatar
>
>3) DA: Inquisition
>
>
>Thank you very much.   ;-)

Still lurking here... ;^)

Playing Wasteland 2 right now, and Secret of the Silver Blades.

-- 
Zag

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

On 5/7/2016 1:56 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016 08:38:09 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, DMP
> wrote:
>
>> In April 2016, I have been playing
>>
>> 1) The Witcher 3
>>
>> 2) Shroud of the Avatar
>>
>> 3) DA: Inquisition
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much.   ;-)
>
> Still lurking here... ;^)
>
> Playing Wasteland 2 right now, and Secret of the Silver Blades.
>


Actually, I have been coming here since I bought my first PC from 
Gateway with windows 3.0. Had to connect to Usenet thru the local 
library, on dial-up no less. The connection took me to Buffalo-FreeNet 
And, this was after I had been thru two Atari machines. There wasn't 
even a browser as we know it. Mosaic was just coming online.

If I remember correctly there wasn't any sound on the web then either.
I don't remember voting about splitting up csipigs though.

I have to admit I do miss all the activity there used to be here, but 
it's great to see diehards still in the "action" group because I for one 
really don't care for game specific forums much. There still is a lot of 
good that comes out of the discussions. I do lurk there, but don't have 
much to contribute for lack of experience with action-type games.

Diane

On Fri, 06 May 2016 15:38:09 +0300, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:

> In April 2016, I have been playing
>
> 1) The Witcher 3
>
> 2) Shroud of the Avatar
>
> 3) DA: Inquisition
>

King's Bounty & Alpha Centauri here.
(And a bit of rigged poker on Pokerstars)

About 250 games are waiting in Steam library.
60-70 games are either waiting in the replay queue (minority), or dropped
into trashbin (majority).
Do not buy games anymore. Do not visit Steam site.
Bundlestars and Humble newsletters are deleted on spot.


-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

I also check this group most days ;)

Been playing Shadow of Mordor (just about an RPG).
I finished the main storyline a while back.
Was puzzled to see the game gave only 71% completed.

Its design is a con. in that there are two big open world maps
but the main quest line is mostly sort of stuck on top separately
from the Maps .
Most of those main quests take place on  entirely different areas.
Finishing main story line has no discernable effect on the activity on those 
main Maps.
Still I greatly enjoy it & continue to play it as a sort of game of Chess.
Setting the Orcs against each other .

Elder Scrolls Online
Its allright ! ?  I just sort of dip into it for a quick quest & bash around
time passing.
No sense of character  or central story line.
I guess it just goes on forever ?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (Tum De Tum Dee Tee...)

On Sat, 7 May 2016 17:02:27 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>I also check this group most days ;)
>
>Been playing Shadow of Mordor (just about an RPG).
>I finished the main storyline a while back.
>Was puzzled to see the game gave only 71% completed.

I find on average modern games are sitting at about 60-70% completion
when I finish the campaign, I assume because I'm not a big "side
quest" person in most games, and the other 30-40% represents side
quests or things I could have seen but opted out of.  Every now and
then you see a game that separates completion percent of the main
track with everything else, but not usually.

rri...@taurine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) writes:

> It was in 1993 when comp.sys.ibm.pc.games was split, and only about year
> after comp.sys.ibm.pc.games itself was created.  
>
> 	https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/news.groups/result$20$20comp.sys.ibm.pc.games$20before$3A1994-01-01
>
> I also thought it was bad idea and voted against it:
>
> 	https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/news.groups/3otn1rXK8so/Myo1y6ayKBoJ

Well, I see myself on there and also voted against. I do remember the
volume was quite high in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games but I was a student back
then and had time. In a way it was better when PC games were discussed
in rec.games.misc since that wasn't easy to find and so there was less
volume.

Anssi Saari  <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
>Well, I see myself on there and also voted against. I do remember the
>volume was quite high in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games but I was a student back
>then and had time. In a way it was better when PC games were discussed
>in rec.games.misc since that wasn't easy to find and so there was less
>volume.

It's interesting that it appears it was only people who were against
the split that stuck around.  I'm not sure what that says, though,
something about being pessimistic I guess.

One of the reason I voted against what because the main argument for the
split was that the group had become too high volume.  What people didn't
realize, but had been established by previous splits, was that the most
of the new newsgroups would soon grow to volume of their predecessor.
It wouldn't actually solve the volume problem.

Unfortunately, while back then the traffic on the groups automatically
grew in response to the new capacity, now that traffic has gone down
dramatically, the now unnecessary capacity can't be as easily shrunk
down accordlingly.

					Ross Ridge

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

On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:19:47 -0400 (EDT),
rri...@taurine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) wrote:

>One of the reason I voted against what because the main argument for the
>split was that the group had become too high volume.  What people didn't
>realize, but had been established by previous splits, was that the most
>of the new newsgroups would soon grow to volume of their predecessor.
>It wouldn't actually solve the volume problem.

Generally, with regard to information architecture design, categorized
volume at any given level is preferable to uncategorized volume even
at lower volume levels.

For example if you have a newsgroup, forum, bulletin board etc or
whatever that's getting 1000 posts per day, but those posts are
covering action games, adventure games, flight sims, rpgs, strategy
and miscellany all in one place, if after the split you now observe
3000 posts per day across all groups, the information is still in a
better place because even if the distribution is uneven (800 posts in
one group, 200 in another), you're still is a position of better info
architecture because of the division of focus.

It doesn't take into account problems such as declining participation
of Usenet in general, the convergence of multiple gaming genres into
one and to a large degree fails to properly address the emergence of
new gaming genres...  

So I'm not saying splitting was necessarily the right thing to do,
hindsight is always 20/20,  but the reasons for doing so were solidly
valid at the time.