Hey-ho, another month gone by. Spring has sprung (or Fall has fallen,
depending on your hemisphere), and the weather has become more
pleasant (or horrid, if you live in the Upside-down) as a result. But
I hope you all resisted the urge to go outside and experience the new
weather patterns, and instead spent it all crouched in front of a
computer monitor playing games.

Let's find out, shall we?

The Elevator Pitch of Game Summaries
---------------------------------------

* Battlefield 4 (replay)
* Cyberpunk 2077 (new) (in progress)
* Benchmarks!

The SPACE Elevator Pitch of Game Summaries
---------------------------------------

* Battlefield 4 (replay)
Wow. This game feels /old/ in almost every respect. And, yeah, I guess
it is (the game came out in 2013, so it's got a decade under its belt
already), but I've played games that came out a lot earlier than it
did that still feel more relevant and modern.

It's not the graphics, of course. As one of the first games to utilize
the Frostbite 3 engine, it boasts all the bells-n-whistles we expect
from today's games. As far as the technology being used, "Battlefield
4" is still top-of-the-line. It's more /how/ that technology is being
used; the game is far more interested in wowing you with its visual
effects than presenting you where you can make out what's going on
("Crysis 3", released around the same time, suffered from the same
problem). There's just too much lens flare and dust and distortions
everywhere; it's garish, distracting... ugly. Later iterations of the
franchise would crank back the special effects but, in "Battlefield
4", the developers haven't learned the value of restraint yet.

The gameplay feels ancient too. I'm talking about the single-player
campaign here, of course; I didn't even bother to try the multiplayer
(I'm not even sure the servers are still online, knowing EA). But the
game learned all the wrong lessons from the "Modern Warfare" series;
overly-scripted levels that don't allow the player any freedom to
stray from the predetermined path; idiotic AI teammates that are
completely ineffective at taking down a single enemy, awful quick-time
events masquerading as 'cinematic' experiences, unskippable cutscenes,
interminable vehicle sections: the whole enchilada. I've bitched about
the often pointless size of modern open-world games that don't respect
a player's time, but "Battlefield 4" barely acknowledges that player's
existence. Do exactly what it says or don't progress, it demands.
Working my way through the campaign, I feel as much an automaton as my
teammates.

Then there's the story. Even in 2013, its bombastic, jingoistic,
rah-rah-rah American soldiers save-the-world narrative felt tired and
overdone. Ten years later, it feels embarrassingly outdated. The
characters have no depth; the events have no weight to them. It's told
poorly too, with orders and explanations shouted by unconvincing
voice-actors as the sound of war overwhelms everything. It's a
meaningless story that seems to want you to ignore it entirely.

The game was glitchy too. Not, fortunately, in any serious way, but
its problems - especially ten years down the line - were awkward and
confusing. Surely somebody must have noticed these problems in the
past decade, yet they still exist? NPCs clip out of existence, I
slipped through the floor more than a few times, or was moved at
near-light speed to where I was supposed to be for the start of a
cutscene. It all felt clumsy and amateur; forgivable, perhaps, for a
novice Indie developer creating their first game, but not for a
triple-A publisher with hundreds of millions at dollars invested in
the game.

As an example of the 'modern warfare FPS genre', I suppose
"Battlefield 4" is okay, even if it's also an example of the worst
excesses of that genre. But it's not really fun; it almost feels
degrading to play this game. It's unoriginal, unexciting... dumb. It's
a game that feels better left forgotten.

* Cyberpunk 2077 (new) (in progress)
"Cyberpunk 2077" is the 'anti-Ubisoft' game.

Ubisoft open-world titles have a formula to them. They're rote,
replaceable. Play one and you've played them all. But Ubisoft uses
that formula so often because /it works/. So what we get is a game
with satisfying minute-to-minute gameplay where you wander a huge
open-world that's fun to explore, has lots of interesting things to
see, and - thanks to awful writing and dialogue - leaves no real
impression on you once you've finished.

"Cyberpunk 2077" is its opposite. Oh, it's got the huge open-world,
but it's nowhere nearly as engaging and fun to explore as a Ubisoft
offering. Night City, the heart of the game's setting, is a confusing
maze of roads and buildings that - despite all the detail and effort
poured into its creation - doesn't distinguish itself in any part.
Even though I can see hints of "Bladerunner's" San Francisco, "Ghost
in the Shell's" Neo-Tokyo, and "Grand Theft Auto V's" Los Angeles
built into it, Night City has no real character of its own. Its
neighborhoods are all too identical, its inhabitants too generic.
Thirty hours into the game I still have no real idea how to get from
one end of the town to the next without relying on the mini-map's
directional arrow, and no real desire to learn. Traversing the world
is a chore, and brings me none of the joy from discovering 'what's
over the next hill?' I get in other open-world games.

The gameplay is also unexciting. The gunplay reminds me too much of
"The Division", where I grind away at the life-bars of random mobs
until they drop and I get to pick up some color-coded loot. Except it
doesn't have any of the intensity of those battles due to the
lackluster AI which is happy to let me plink away at it from afar. The
stealth mechanics are frustrating. The crafting mechanics seem to
exist only to waste my time. The loot - in all its plentitude - all
feels very samey; there may be a dozen or more pistols in the game,
but I'd be hard pressed to notice the difference between most of them,
And all the procedural missions are uninteresting.

But while its minute-to-minute gameplay is unexciting, "Cyberpunk
2077" features a hell of a lot better writing than any Ubisoft game.
It isn't quite up to the standards of "The Witcher 3", but... look, in
an Ubisoft game, I put off playing any of the main quest missions
because the writing was so awful, and whenever the characters opened
their mouths, I hammered the ESC key to bypass their awful dialogue.
But in this game, I /want/ to play the main-quest missions; they're
the best ones! They are the missions with the most variety and effort
put into them. Had the developers skipped all the open-world nonsense
and just made a tightly-paced corridor shooter with the same story,
I'd probably have been happier.

Which isn't to say the game as a whole is terrible. It's just not
great. Moments of brilliance in the main-quest aside, it's an
otherwise absolutely average open-world game. It has all the expected
features, and - even if it never really shines - neither does it do
any of them horribly. But from a studio that produced "The Witcher 3"
I expected a lot more than average.

In the end, the whole experience felt incredibly bland and safe. If
you're interested in an open-world game and like the cyberpunk genre,
this one will do as well as any other. Just don't expect to remember
anything about it in five years.

* Benchmarks!!!!
So, did you catch on to the fact that I got a new computer this month?
I can't imagine how you may have missed the fact; I only mentioned it
a zillion times (what can I say; I get excited about new computers).
And what's the first thing I do when I get a new computer? (Wipe the
hard-drive and reinstall the OS). Okay, but the second thing? That's
right: I benchmark the heck out of the thing to see if all that money
I spent was worthwhile. But, of course, you can't just benchmark the
NEW PC; if you do, all you have is a bunch of scores that don't really
mean anything. No, you need to test it against your old PC so you can
see how much faster the newest acquisition really is.

So, umm, yeah... I may have gone a bit overboard again. 'Cause I
wasn't just satisfied with running a single benchmark my previous PC.
No, I had to run a full 10-benchmark suite for maximum results. And
not just on my previous PC; no, I had to run all ten programs on ALL
my computers. Followed up, of course, by entering all the data into
multi-page spreadsheet to chart out the results. Overkill? Maybe. But
it had to be done... because that's just the way I roll.

The core of my tests were the old 3DMark programs; do you remember
those? I don't know how good they are as actual benchmarks, but they
are certainly some of the most fun of the lot, with impressive 3D
animations and rockin' music. Anyway, they are a lot more enjoyable to
watch than a progress bar ticking slowly upwards. But I also used a
number of other benchmarks: Aquanox, Unigine Valley, the venerable
Final Reality, Crystal DiskMark... even 7Zip got into the act (Bet you
didn't know the 7Zip archiver had a built-in benchmark, didja? It's a
great test for real-world CPU performance).

>What Have You Been Playing... IN MAY 2023?

Just a few for me:
Portal RTX
I set this aside at Level 19, thinking there were 33 levels (maybe I was
thinking of the Advanced Levels?), but on picking it back up found I was
nearly at the fateful GlaDos confrontation, and finished quickly. I hadn't
played Portal for many years, but picked it up very quickly. I still love
the ending credits song :) As for the RTX raytracing and texture
improvements, I have nothing but praise -- the game looks and plays great --
and I hope either Nvidia or modders will pick up the ball and do a Portal 2
RTX, as I never did complete that game....

Jedi Fallen Order
An in-progress game; I'm in the later stages of the tutorial area,
learning how to move and use powers. This is only the 2nd StarWars game
I've played (Republic Commando the first) and have no complaints thus far.
I'm playing on Easy difficulty, as I've heard the combat can be difficult.

Alan Wake Remastered
(Also in-progress, but I've reached Episode 6, which I believe is near
the end?) Having played the original game years ago, and hearing the sequel
will finally appear soon, thought I'd take a look at the remaster. There
are two fairly major bugs that have never been fixed, and while not
game-breaking are very distracting and annoying: One is full-screen
graphical artifacts (you can watch an example here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmN6md4wz1I ) that really hurt immersion
when you are playing. The other is having to change mouse sensitivity
settings drastically when entering & exiting a vehicle, that one's not a big
deal.

So much for the bugs. Otherwise, I have no complaints: The texture
upgrades are excellent, while the reworked facial animations look very good
to me, and I have nothing really to complain about. It's been too long for
me to recall the original game's 'look' anyway.

Next UP: Having played through the new Dead Space 3 times -- that makes
like 7x over the years, including the original), I'm still jonesing for more
space horror, and bought Callisto Protocol in the ongoing Epic sale, as it
has hit the lowest price so far, $37 for the Deluxe version. That's all I
can think of right now.

rms

>Next UP: .... Callisto Protocol
Oh and System Shock of course! I backed it 8 years ago, so have to give
it a try.

rms

>* Battlefield 4 (replay)

I have played the campaign in BF4, but remember very little, just
something about a rogue chinese general.
All such campaigns are bound to be limited in scope due to the MP focus of
the main game, and I decided long ago I just don't care about them for all
the reasons you outline.

* Cyberpunk 2077 (new) (in progress)
>"Cyberpunk
>2077" features a hell of a lot better writing than any Ubisoft game.

Good to hear! I'm still holding off until the dlc appears in the fall,
will be fun to dive in.

>* Benchmarks!!!!

Ha! Very cool you did them for all your systems. I recall that Aquanox
benchmark! Also kickstarter backed their newer game in the same world some
years ago.

rms

On 02/06/2023 00:42, rms wrote:
> Portal RTX
>   I set this aside at Level 19, thinking there were 33 levels (maybe I
> was thinking of the Advanced Levels?), but on picking it back up found I
> was nearly at the fateful GlaDos confrontation, and finished quickly.  I
> hadn't played Portal for many years, but picked it up very quickly.  I
> still love the ending credits song 😄  As for the RTX raytracing and
> texture improvements, I have nothing but praise -- the game looks and
> plays great -- and I hope either Nvidia or modders will pick up the ball
> and do a Portal 2 RTX, as I never did complete that game....

I really like Portal and it does a great job of teaching through play
instead of arrows all over the screen saying do this. It's something I
wish more games would do.

On 01/06/2023 13:50, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> * Cyberpunk 2077 (new) (in progress)
> "Cyberpunk 2077" is the 'anti-Ubisoft' game.

I so want to like this game and keep hoping that someone will write
something about it that makes me think, in fact that sounds like the
sort of game I'd like. So far no joy on that front!

"rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> writes:

> Portal RTX
> I set this aside at Level 19, thinking there were 33 levels (maybe I
> was thinking of the Advanced Levels?), but on picking it back up
> found I was nearly at the fateful GlaDos confrontation, and finished
> quickly. I hadn't played Portal for many years, but picked it up very
> quickly. I still love the ending credits song :) As for the RTX
> raytracing and texture improvements, I have nothing but praise -- the
> game looks and plays great -- and I hope either Nvidia or modders
> will pick up the ball and do a Portal 2 RTX, as I never did complete
> that game....

Thanks for the pointer. It's been a long time since I played Portal but
it's still there in my Steam account and Portal RTX is a free add-on.

> Jedi Fallen Order
> An in-progress game; I'm in the later stages of the tutorial area,
> learning how to move and use powers. This is only the 2nd StarWars
> game I've played (Republic Commando the first) and have no complaints
> thus far. I'm playing on Easy difficulty, as I've heard the combat can
> be difficult.

I got stuck in a stupid cave in this. It just didn't feel like worth the
effort.

On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:50:11 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>The core of my tests were the old 3DMark programs; do you remember
>those? I don't know how good they are as actual benchmarks, but they
>are certainly some of the most fun of the lot, with impressive 3D
>animations and rockin' music. Anyway, they are a lot more enjoyable to
>watch than a progress bar ticking slowly upwards. But I also used a
>number of other benchmarks: Aquanox, Unigine Valley, the venerable
>Final Reality, Crystal DiskMark... even 7Zip got into the act (Bet you
>didn't know the 7Zip archiver had a built-in benchmark, didja? It's a
>great test for real-world CPU performance).

No Furmark? Gotta run Furmark.

I also want to know what OCCT did to your machine! It's my favorite
burn-in program.

Temps? No Temps? We gotta know the temps. Cool as a cucumber? Space
heater?

I'll put on the popcorn.

--
Zag

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

Uhh, iOS games like
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/age-of-apes/id1475453887 (CCed
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategy). It's uhh addicting and grinding. I did
pause on playing it for the last few days since I got too BUSY with my
old colony (hopefully will have more time this weekend and next week; I
didn't get to play my computer games (didn't even check for free trials
from Steam) during the long American weekend. :(). With little time I
had, I played quick games of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire in my
eyePhone. It's getting boring now since it keeps repeating same Q&As.

Soon, Mighty Doom iOS game as an old DOOMer. I briefly tried it last
night. It look like fun. Just need time and energy! :(

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey-ho, another month gone by. Spring has sprung (or Fall has fallen,
> depending on your hemisphere), and the weather has become more
> pleasant (or horrid, if you live in the Upside-down) as a result. But
> I hope you all resisted the urge to go outside and experience the new
> weather patterns, and instead spent it all crouched in front of a
> computer monitor playing games.
....
> So now you know what I did rather than revel in sunshine and green
> growing things. What about you? Tell us all; rather than going
> outside...

> What Have You Been Playing... IN MAY 2023?
--
"Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed." --1 Peter 1:13. Still slammy into the new month like last month. Dang mailbox thieves. Finally COVID-19 bivalent vaccine #2 (6 total shots) in a few wks. TGIF & quiet times soon?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:45:56 -0600, "rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net>
wrote:

>>* Battlefield 4 (replay)
>
> I have played the campaign in BF4, but remember very little, just
>something about a rogue chinese general.

The game is so forgettable that - even though I played it just a few
weeks ago - I just had to go to wikipedia to confirm the plot. Was
there a rogue Chinese general in the game? Apparently so (Wikipedia
says it actually was an Admiral, but close enough).

I vaguely remember a few parts - there's an on-rails car chase near
the beginning, I recall duking it out with bad-guys on a sinking
aircraft carrier, and playing chicken with some tanks - but other than
that? The game is a blank.

>All such campaigns are bound to be limited in scope due to the MP focus of
>the main game, and I decided long ago I just don't care about them for all
>the reasons you outline.

I get that these games primarily focus on the multiplayer, but a lot
of effort is poured into the single-player nonetheless. And other
games (sadly, a rare few) have managed to have both compelling
multiplayer and single-player modes. Few, however, have managed such
mindless and forgettable crap like Battlefield 4.

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 08:34:56 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:50:11 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>The core of my tests were the old 3DMark programs; do you remember
>>those? I don't know how good they are as actual benchmarks, but they
>>are certainly some of the most fun of the lot, with impressive 3D
>>animations and rockin' music. Anyway, they are a lot more enjoyable to
>>watch than a progress bar ticking slowly upwards. But I also used a
>>number of other benchmarks: Aquanox, Unigine Valley, the venerable
>>Final Reality, Crystal DiskMark... even 7Zip got into the act (Bet you
>>didn't know the 7Zip archiver had a built-in benchmark, didja? It's a
>>great test for real-world CPU performance).

>No Furmark? Gotta run Furmark.
>

I had a bad experience with overheating and Furmark once. Even though
it was absolutely not the fault of the program (all Furmark does is
peg the processors to 100%, which any benchmark should do), it soured
me on the program so I use it less than I should.

(this was in the old Athlon days before PCs automatically throttled -
themsselves - or just shut down - so I got the rare privilege of
smelling fried CPU. ;-)

>Temps? No Temps? We gotta know the temps. Cool as a cucumber? Space
>heater?

Half my PCs are old enough that they don't have temperature sensors
;-)

Of all the benchmarks, 7Zip and Crystal DiskMark were the only ones
that ran consistently across all the PCs. 3DMark01 and Final Reality
ran on almost all the PCs. The rest were very hit or miss, highly
dependent on hardware and OS. Still, I think I got enough overlap to
make an overall comparison between machines.

In a sense, some of these PCs were 'fighting for their lives' in these
tests. I've too many computers laying about, and will probably need to
sell/give-away/scrap a few of 'em. This chart will help me determine
which ones I keep... and which ones get binned. ;-)

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:32:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I get that these games primarily focus on the multiplayer, but a lot
>of effort is poured into the single-player nonetheless. And other
>games (sadly, a rare few) have managed to have both compelling
>multiplayer and single-player modes. Few, however, have managed such
>mindless and forgettable crap like Battlefield 4.

A little pre-purchase research would have worked wonders...

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/battlefield-4-pc

"...
When it comes to evaluating any title in the Battlefield franchise,
it's important to remember that the only reason anyone plays campaign
mode is to unlock new weapons in multiplayer. Despite great voice
acting by Michael K. Williams (Omar from The Wire), campaign mode is
little more than a four to six hour tutorial teaching you how to play
the game."
....
To be as clear as a squad leader can be, do not buy this game if
you're looking for a solid FPS campaign mode."

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:41:35 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I had a bad experience with overheating and Furmark once. Even though
>it was absolutely not the fault of the program (all Furmark does is
>peg the processors to 100%, which any benchmark should do), it soured
>me on the program so I use it less than I should.

Do video games push CPUs the way these benchmark applications do?

On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:50:11 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>So now you know what I did rather than revel in sunshine and green
>growing things. What about you? Tell us all; rather than going
>outside...
>
>What Have You Been Playing... IN MAY 2023?
>
Well, Picross S9 dropped on the Switch, so that's what I've been doing
all month.

--
Zag

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

On 6/2/2023 10:51 AM, Mike S. wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:41:35 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I had a bad experience with overheating and Furmark once. Even though
>> it was absolutely not the fault of the program (all Furmark does is
>> peg the processors to 100%, which any benchmark should do), it soured
>> me on the program so I use it less than I should.
>
> Do video games push CPUs the way these benchmark applications do?

Probably depends on how poorly the game was optimized. :P

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

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 13:51:16 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:41:35 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I had a bad experience with overheating and Furmark once. Even though
>>it was absolutely not the fault of the program (all Furmark does is
>>peg the processors to 100%, which any benchmark should do), it soured
>>me on the program so I use it less than I should.
>
>Do video games push CPUs the way these benchmark applications do?

They /can/... but rarely do, as evidenced by the fact that a ten-year
old CPU can still run most games without difficulty. The primary
bottleneck for games remains the video card.

There are probably a number of reasons for this, but part of it is
because the game is running on a multitasking OS. Partly it's because
games are so heavily dependent on user input (which is infinitely slow
compared to CPU processing speeds), meaning there's a lot of time the
CPU doesn't have anything to do. And while multi-threaded/multi-core
programming has become a lot more sophisticated, there are still a lot
of operations that just don't make full use of the 4 or 8 or 24 cores
found in modenr processors.

There are programs which can peg the CPU at 100% but it's the rare
game that does that, and it is more often a sign of bad optimization
than necessity.

(Processor speed does play a part though. You might be able to get by
with a fifth-gen i5, but try playing that same game on an Intel Atom
CPU. ;-)

>On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:50:11 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>The core of my tests were the old 3DMark programs; do you remember
>>those? I don't know how good they are as actual benchmarks, but they
>>are certainly some of the most fun of the lot, with impressive 3D
>>animations and rockin' music. Anyway, they are a lot more enjoyable to
>>watch than a progress bar ticking slowly upwards. But I also used a
>>number of other benchmarks: Aquanox, Unigine Valley, the venerable
>>Final Reality, Crystal DiskMark... even 7Zip got into the act (Bet you
>>didn't know the 7Zip archiver had a built-in benchmark, didja? It's a
>>great test for real-world CPU performance).

Side note: All of these benchmarks are still available for free

* 7Zip https://www.7-zip.org/ is free and an excellent archiver to
boot. It's not really designed as a benchmark but has one included.
The current version runs on all XP-based Windows; the last version to
support Win9x was v4.6.5, which may be hard to find

* Crystal DiskInfo benchmarks your hard-disk and, like 7Zip, is free.
https://osdn.net/projects/crystaldiskmark/downloads/77936/CrystalDiskMark8_0_4c.exe/
The most recent versions run on all operating systems XP and later;
the last version to support Win9x was 2.20i

* Final Reality - made by FutureCrew, the same guys who made the
"Unreal" and "2nd Reality" demo-scene demos - is available here:
https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=7259 . It runs on Win95 through
Windows 11, although if you want to run it on a newer 64-bit OS,
you'll need to install it on a 32bit OS first, then copy over the
installed game (the installer is 16-bit). The benchmark itself runs
fine, though.

* Futuremark (nee Mad Onion) released most of its older benchmarks
free as "legacy programs"):
https://benchmarks.ul.com/legacy-benchmarks . Some notes:
- 3DMark 99 and 2000 generally only work on Win9x PCs and won't run
reliably on newer versions of Windows.
- 3DMark 2001 through 2006 are the most compatible and run on anything
from Windows9x through Windows 11. You may have some issues running
3DMark 2003/2006 on older hardware though.
- 3DMark Vantage requires Windows Vista and later
- 3DMark11 requires Vista (or later) and a DirectX 10 compatible
video-card

* Aquamark 3 - the benchmark based on the Aquanox 3 game engine - is
available at https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/aquamark3.html
This is the basic version; you got more features if you registered
(which I did, back in the day) but I've no idea if that is possible
anymore. It's XP (and later) only, although getting it running on
later hardware can sometimes be tricky

* Unigine Valley is, frankly, the prettiest of all my benchmarks and
is available free from here: https://benchmark.unigine.com/valley. It
runs on XP and later, although for the more extended tests - which
utilize DirectX 10 - you'll need Vista and beyond.

* Finally, Windows Vista and later have a "Windows Experience Index"
score, which quickly benchmarks your hardware and gives you an overall
score. This is easily tested on Windows Vista and 7 (go into My
Computer->Properties) but requires a bit more work on Windows 8 and
later (and the scores aren't really compatible between different
versions of the OS anyway). Instructions to check your WEI score are
here (the page is for Windows 11, but the instructions should be the
same for Windows 8-10)

I picked these because they had the broadest range of compatibility,
were free, and most of them were entertaining to watch. They are,
arguably, not the best benchmarks (older benchmarks in particular
don't do a good job rating modern hardware because they don't
understand things like multi-core CPUs or test all the newest features
of your GPU) but I still think they're fun.

So download, test, and start sharing your scores! ;-)

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:32:31 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 01/06/2023 13:50, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> * Cyberpunk 2077 (new) (in progress)
>> "Cyberpunk 2077" is the 'anti-Ubisoft' game.
>
>I so want to like this game and keep hoping that someone will write
>something about it that makes me think, in fact that sounds like the
>sort of game I'd like. So far no joy on that front!

I don't want to dismiss the game entirely. There's been a lot of work
put into the game, and its gameplay isn't terrible. It's biggest sin
is that it's CDProjekt Red's follow-up to "The Witcher 3", and that's
a really high bar to clear.

The game does have its moments. As I mentioned, the main story
missions are compelling, not only for their narrative but also for
their design. But even outside that, I'm having fun. While the vehicle
handling in the game is, overall, not-so-great, I quite enjoy
fish-tailing my Akira-cycle* around corners and whipping between
traffic. There are a lot of weapons and an immense variety of
clothes/cosmetics to customize your character. And there's no MTX,
which really shouldn't be a positive for a game (it should be the
default) but these days, it's a breath of fresh air not to be
bombarded with offers to buy new stuff.

It's just that the game could have used some more time in the oven.
It's how the AI pedestrians take no notice of their environment; is it
sunny? Raining? They don't care. It's how you can't quick travel from
everywhere, but have to go to a bus stop first to trigger it. It's how
you only have two slots for abilities (grenades, or healing potions,
or wrist blades) which means you're probably not going to use most of
your powers. It's the bugs that still plague the game even after two
years of patching. It's little things like that which make what could
have been a great game just an average one.

And if you like the cyberpunk genre, this is a goodgame to play. But
with open-world games being a dime a dozen, if you aren't a major fan
of the genre, it's hard to recommend this over any other similar
games. Want an open-world game? This one might as well do as
"Generation Zero" or "Watch_Dogs Legion" or "Farcry 6" whatever.
You'll probably have fun.

But if you don't own "Cyberpunk" and do own one of the others, there's
not really a compelling reason to lay out the cash to buy the game.
"Cyberpunk 2077" doesn't stand out; it doesn't make a compelling case
for itself. And that's a sad state for a game that was as hyped up as
this one was.

-------------
* Not what it is actually called, but it is so obviously based on the
motorcycle in that seminal manga that I can't help but call it that.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> What Have You Been Playing... IN MAY 2023?

* GTA stuff

Well, my time with the definitive edition GTA trilogy is nearing its
end. I finished Vice City but it got tedious before the end. Gunplay is
still bad here, the powerful guns have so much recoil you can't keep
them on the targets. Annoying. I didn't get around to playing with the
minigun. Also cars and bikes are not much fun to drive, everything
slides around way too much.

So, moved on to San Andreas. My previous grumbling about the suckiness
of the early missions had an easy fix: money. So I could easily afford
to buy some extra safe houses and didn't need to drive around so much
and I could just buy guns, ammo, armor. And with money it didn't bother
me much that I did these stupid missions for guns and ammo without
getting any guns or ammo.

And getting that money was fun in itself. I remembered reading in the
distant past that the horse betting machines are bugged and an easy way
to get cash in the early game. And yes, the new version is bug
compatible! A little grinding and suddenly I had about $800,000 in my
(very large) pocket. Considering the early safe houses are $10,000 each,
that's plenty of money.

So I did something that I didn't with the original and it made the game
more fun. I also did some of the things I enjoyed earlier, like gang
wars and enjoyed the quickly improving weapons skills for more range and
damage. I also tried to woo a valuable girlfriend but my amorous
attempts were thwarted by the trigger happy police, shooting at her. How
inconsiderate! Really too bad, she provides a "get out of hospital with
your full arsenal" card. Benched that for later so I could woo her
without a wanted level and the heavy cop spawning.

Also enjoyed the little hunt and kill mission after getting ousted from
Los Santos. It was my fave with the original and doing it with minimal
gear is still fun.

Driving and combat are pretty good here. While there's no actual cover
mechanic, cover is pretty important, especially with the gang
wars. Driving seems easier than I remember and the basic cars seem to
reach their top speed quickly which seems different from what I
remember. Cars behave a little oddly too, when you counter steer it
feels more like the car has thrusters in the front instead of wheels.

I think I'll keep plodding on with this. Easily the best of the trilogy.

* Horizon Chase Turbo

This was a recent freebie on Epic. Very arcadey and a little odd. I
played some beginner four race GP with the beginner car. I tried the
first race a few times but finished last every time. Then I moved on to
the other races and beat them easily and won the GP. Weird. But, it was
free and fun for a while. I haven't really been into driving games in a
long time anyways.

>So, moved on to San Andreas.

Good to hear you're enjoying this! I lean more towards fantasy games, but
its fun to read about the gta series.

rms

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 17:15:08 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>And there's no MTX,
>which really shouldn't be a positive for a game (it should be the
>default) but these days, it's a breath of fresh air not to be
>bombarded with offers to buy new stuff.

^This. If you have any interest at all, put up with the warts and enjoy
the fresh air. No MTX. No DRM. CDPR/GOG is really banking on this
strategy and we all need to put our money where our mouth is.

--
Zag

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

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:50:23 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> * Cyberpunk 2077 (new) (in progress)
> "Cyberpunk 2077" is the 'anti-Ubisoft' game.

> "Cyberpunk 2077" is its opposite. Oh, it's got the huge open-world,
> but it's nowhere nearly as engaging and fun to explore as a Ubisoft
> offering. Night City, the heart of the game's setting, is a confusing
> maze of roads and buildings that - despite all the detail and effort
> poured into its creation - doesn't distinguish itself in any part.
> Even though I can see hints of "Bladerunner's" San Francisco, "Ghost
> in the Shell's" Neo-Tokyo, and "Grand Theft Auto V's" Los Angeles
> built into it, Night City has no real character of its own. Its
> neighborhoods are all too identical, its inhabitants too generic.
> Thirty hours into the game I still have no real idea how to get from
> one end of the town to the next without relying on the mini-map's
> directional arrow, and no real desire to learn. Traversing the world
> is a chore, and brings me none of the joy from discovering 'what's
> over the next hill?' I get in other open-world games.

There's some pretty interesting hidden stuff here and there, but
overall yeah. I really like the stuff outside the city better.

> The gameplay is also unexciting. The gunplay reminds me too much of
> "The Division", where I grind away at the life-bars of random mobs
> until they drop and I get to pick up some color-coded loot. Except it
> doesn't have any of the intensity of those battles due to the
> lackluster AI which is happy to let me plink away at it from afar. The
> stealth mechanics are frustrating. The crafting mechanics seem to
> exist only to waste my time. The loot - in all its plentitude - all
> feels very samey; there may be a dozen or more pistols in the game,
> but I'd be hard pressed to notice the difference between most of them,
> And all the procedural missions are uninteresting.

I generally agree with that, but there's some difference in some of the
guns, but you often have to have a specific build to take advantage
of the differences. I don't really care for the looter-shooter
feel, but I get it, it's like hackers taking a bit of this and that
to make something else that's better.

I suppose that's probably why I liked netrunning better, not really
much of any crafting or loot rng when you go that route. It's
insanely op eventually though, removing any difficulty even on hardest.

Fortunately many issues can be solved with mods much like Bethesda's
games.

> But while its minute-to-minute gameplay is unexciting, "Cyberpunk
> 2077" features a hell of a lot better writing than any Ubisoft game.
> It isn't quite up to the standards of "The Witcher 3", but... look, in
> an Ubisoft game, I put off playing any of the main quest missions
> because the writing was so awful, and whenever the characters opened
> their mouths, I hammered the ESC key to bypass their awful dialogue.
> But in this game, I /want/ to play the main-quest missions; they're
> the best ones! They are the missions with the most variety and effort
> put into them. Had the developers skipped all the open-world nonsense
> and just made a tightly-paced corridor shooter with the same story,
> I'd probably have been happier.

I was blown away by the main mission early on, way beyond anything
I remember in any previous game. I agree the open world doesn't
do it any favors, especially since others do that part so much better,
but it seems that's what the majority want now. Same with Elden Ring.

There's some pretty fun and interesting side missions though, not
talking aobut the gangs you find in the overworld.

>
> Which isn't to say the game as a whole is terrible. It's just not
> great. Moments of brilliance in the main-quest aside, it's an
> otherwise absolutely average open-world game. It has all the expected
> features, and - even if it never really shines - neither does it do
> any of them horribly. But from a studio that produced "The Witcher 3"
> I expected a lot more than average.
> In the end, the whole experience felt incredibly bland and safe. If
> you're interested in an open-world game and like the cyberpunk genre,
> this one will do as well as any other. Just don't expect to remember
> anything about it in five years.

I've not played a lot of other cyberpunk, and the whole asthetic doesn't
do anything for me, but I found it the flashes of brilliance well worth
any blandness, which I chalk up to being their first entry in this genre.

> What Have You Been Playing... IN MAY 2023?

Elden Ring.

It's getting harder, I'm really struggling with a lot with my low level
build, but I managed to take out some late game bosses. Margot and
ghost Godwyn were surprisingly easy. Rykard and Astel Stars of Darkness
took me around 4 hours each, and at points I didn't think I was going to
beat them, and put the game down a while in the middle of them, or went
to farm stuff for a break, I actually had to get good at those two as there
wasn't any workable cheese on them (there's one for Rykard, but it was
more difficult to pull off than just getting good at him.) Then there's
the Godslayer spirits with the spirit-calling snail and Vyke in the Gaol
who I gave up on.

I feel like I'm not getting summoned that much anymore for some reason
too which is discouraging. It may just be I'm so good at the bosses I
get summoned for, I'm not having any challenge with that part though.
Stormveil run-through helping still eludes me, mostly still for the twinked
invaders. I'm still on the verge of just putting it down until the DLC at
least, but still haven't quite got there.

- Justisaur