https://gaming.amazon.com/home

--
He Who Hath Not a Uterus Should Shut the Fucketh Up - Fallopians 19:73

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:22:28 -0400, Metal Guru <MetalGuru@IsItYou.com>
wrote:

>https://gaming.amazon.com/home

Shhh! You're gonna steal rms's thunder when he gives away his spare
key.

;-)

(mine too, for that matter. What do you have against thunder anyway?;)

On 6/28/2023 6:26 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:22:28 -0400, Metal Guru <MetalGuru@IsItYou.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://gaming.amazon.com/home
>
>
> Shhh! You're gonna steal rms's thunder when he gives away his spare
> key.
>
> ;-)
>
> (mine too, for that matter. What do you have against thunder anyway?;)
>
It scares my stuffed animals.

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

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/2023 6:26 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:22:28 -0400, Metal Guru <MetalGuru@IsItYou.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> https://gaming.amazon.com/home
> >
> >
> > Shhh! You're gonna steal rms's thunder when he gives away his spare
> > key.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > (mine too, for that matter. What do you have against thunder anyway?;)
> >
> It scares my stuffed animals.

And you? ;)
--
"Who can proclaim the mighty acts of the Lord or fully declare his praise?" --Psalm 106:2. A flying social insect's stinger stung the right hand's pinky finger 2 swell. Also, fell down while running away. :(
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 6/28/2023 11:12 AM, Ant wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2023 6:26 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:22:28 -0400, Metal Guru <MetalGuru@IsItYou.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://gaming.amazon.com/home
>>>
>>>
>>> Shhh! You're gonna steal rms's thunder when he gives away his spare
>>> key.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> (mine too, for that matter. What do you have against thunder anyway?;)
>>>
>> It scares my stuffed animals.
>
> And you? ;)

Only if its REALLY close and makes the walls rattle. Otherwise I'm too
busy calming the stuffed animals down. :P

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

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-7, Metal Guru wrote:
> https://gaming.amazon.com/home
>

Ooh nice! I kept meaning to try BG II as it's supposedly better than
BG. While I didn't like BG combat, I loved the NPC party members
banter. Who can forget "Go for the eyes BOO!"

I see it says Diablo IV is coming soon. Glad I didn't spend $99 on
it or whatever it was.

- Justisaur

On 29/06/2023 00:12, Justisaur wrote:
> Ooh nice! I kept meaning to try BG II as it's supposedly better than
> BG. While I didn't like BG combat, I loved the NPC party members
> banter. Who can forget "Go for the eyes BOO!"

I much preferred BG:I, in part because of the novelty and in part
because you started at a level one whereas in BG:II you started at, I
think, level seven or eight. That's when I think the cracks start
showing in D&D with just how powerful characters can be.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:13:42 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 29/06/2023 00:12, Justisaur wrote:
>> Ooh nice! I kept meaning to try BG II as it's supposedly better than
>> BG. While I didn't like BG combat, I loved the NPC party members
>> banter. Who can forget "Go for the eyes BOO!"
>
>I much preferred BG:I, in part because of the novelty and in part
>because you started at a level one whereas in BG:II you started at, I
>think, level seven or eight. That's when I think the cracks start
>showing in D&D with just how powerful characters can be.

I can agree with that one. D&D combat - and that's largely what CRPG
focus on - is designed for tactical combat, but past a certain point
the spells (and characters in general) just start to become so
over-the-top powerful that it loses its lustre. All a DM can do is
throw more monsters at the party (or amp up the monsters hitpoints
unrealistically) in order to keep some semblance of balance. The
original conceit was that - once your PCs got to a certain amount of
experience - reaching the 'name levels' - the game would switch over
to a more strategic bent, with the PCs gaining castles and armies of
followers they could then send out to battle for them.

And I agree "Baldurs Gate II" suffers from this, although I'm not sure
it's entirely the fault of the D&D system as much as the setting. Even
for a story where the protagonist turned out to be a demigod, the
original game felt a lot more grounded because there was a lot less
sorcery involved. But BG2 took that and just increased everything to
ridiculous amounts, with magical prisons and magical hidden elf cities
and +5 swords for everyone. But that's arguably less because "D&D" and
more because the Forgotten Realms is so stupidly, unrealistically
over-magicked in the first place.

"Baldur’s Gate 3 has more cinematic dialogue than three times all three Lord
of the Rings novels combined. It has 174 hours of cinematics, making it more
than twice the length of every season of Game of Thrones combined."

https://nitter.net/Wario64/status/1674439790668943361?s=20

rms

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:13:42 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>I much preferred BG:I, in part because of the novelty and in part
>because you started at a level one whereas in BG:II you started at, I
>think, level seven or eight. That's when I think the cracks start
>showing in D&D with just how powerful characters can be.

Baldur's Gate 2 is often cited as the better game, probably because it
is. But I prefer the first one for all the reasons you mention here. I
remember how silly it felt to me to see all of these +3 swords
dropping everywhere in the second game.

But if Justisaur did not like BG1 because of the combat, I would not
recommend BG2, even considering the increased banter in the sequel.

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:52:09 AM UTC-7, rms wrote:
> "Baldur’s Gate 3 has more cinematic dialogue than three times all three Lord
> of the Rings novels combined. It has 174 hours of cinematics, making it more
> than twice the length of every season of Game of Thrones combined."
>
> https://nitter.net/Wario64/status/1674439790668943361?s=20
>
> rms

Holy cut-scenes Batman!

I was interested in 3 before, but now I'm rethinking that.

- Justisaur

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:13:42 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>
> >On 29/06/2023 00:12, Justisaur wrote:
> >> Ooh nice! I kept meaning to try BG II as it's supposedly better than
> >> BG. While I didn't like BG combat, I loved the NPC party members
> >> banter. Who can forget "Go for the eyes BOO!"
> >
> >I much preferred BG:I, in part because of the novelty and in part
> >because you started at a level one whereas in BG:II you started at, I
> >think, level seven or eight. That's when I think the cracks start
> >showing in D&D with just how powerful characters can be.
> I can agree with that one. D&D combat - and that's largely what CRPG
> focus on - is designed for tactical combat, but past a certain point
> the spells (and characters in general) just start to become so
> over-the-top powerful that it loses its lustre. All a DM can do is
> throw more monsters at the party (or amp up the monsters hitpoints
> unrealistically) in order to keep some semblance of balance. The
> original conceit was that - once your PCs got to a certain amount of
> experience - reaching the 'name levels' - the game would switch over
> to a more strategic bent, with the PCs gaining castles and armies of
> followers they could then send out to battle for them.
>
> And I agree "Baldurs Gate II" suffers from this, although I'm not sure
> it's entirely the fault of the D&D system as much as the setting. Even
> for a story where the protagonist turned out to be a demigod, the
> original game felt a lot more grounded because there was a lot less
> sorcery involved. But BG2 took that and just increased everything to
> ridiculous amounts, with magical prisons and magical hidden elf cities
> and +5 swords for everyone. But that's arguably less because "D&D" and
> more because the Forgotten Realms is so stupidly, unrealistically
> over-magicked in the first place.

I agree FR is crazy in that regard in 2e, which is of course the edition
BG is in (except 3.) I got fairly up there in 2e at the table-top, but not
to FR levels of high magic. I had my highest level campaigns in 2e,
so it feels like it's the least broken at higher levels of all the editions
to me, of which I've played all of them.

Well o.k. 4e was the least broken, but I still didn't get up as high as it
was insufferably slow and boring, and everyone's favorite everything
didn't work, and eventually no one wanted to play it. It played nicely
at very low level,, say 1-3, but even by 7th it was interminable.

- Justisaur

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 5:52:09?AM UTC-7, rms wrote:

>> "Baldur’s Gate 3 has more cinematic dialogue than three times all three Lord
>> of the Rings novels combined. It has 174 hours of cinematics, making it more
>> than twice the length of every season of Game of Thrones combined."
>> https://nitter.net/Wario64/status/1674439790668943361?s=20

>Holy cut-scenes Batman!

>I was interested in 3 before, but now I'm rethinking that.

Yeah, I gotta say... that's a bit excessive.

Not that I was really interested in BG3. Oh sure, it was on my
"probably get and maybe even play in three or five years when it's on
sale" list, but it was extremely low priority. Between the high-magic
setting and the isometric viewpoint, I just couldn't get too excited
about the game.

Hearing that it has so many cinematics doesn't make it look anymore
attractive either. And this from a person who loves games for the
visual spectacle and narrative! You'd think I would LOVE that so much
effort has gone into the story, but even I have to say, "Whoa, stop;
that's a bit excessive." If only because I don't really WANT a game
that's 174 hours long. I know, I know; to hear all those voice clips
I'd probably have to replay the games a dozen times. Still, if only a
quarter of that can be seen in a single-playthrough, that still means
40 hours of WATCHING rather than playing... and its a rare game that I
want to play for 40 hours in total.

But that's too often a problem with modern games, which confuse
quantity with quality, whether it is via near-infinite procedural
worlds or endless numbers of novel-length books inserted into the
setting, or 10 million different versions of the same six guns. And
with AI-generated art becoming the next big thing, it's only going to
get worse.

I'd rather pay for some editorial discretion: a more concise, better
paced, streamlined experience. I may not get 100 hours of gameplay out
of it, but the ten or twenty hours I do play will probably be more
fun.

Except, in this era of MTX and subscriptions and online experiences,
that sort of thinking runs contrary to publisher's needs; endless,
grindy gameplay that's just THIS SIDE of intolerable keeps people
playing longer giving them more opportunities to spend on cosmetics
and whatnot. If I jump to another game in twenty hours, not only won't
I spend more on MTX, but the money I spend on the next game might go
to another publisher entirely. So better - from the publisher's
viewpoint - to drag things out as long as they can.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 18:24:27 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'd rather pay for some editorial discretion: a more concise, better
>paced, streamlined experience. I may not get 100 hours of gameplay out
>of it, but the ten or twenty hours I do play will probably be more
>fun.

If a game I play only lasts for 10 hours I am going to feel like I
wasted my time. The reason being, I must first check reviews. Then pay
for it. Download it and install it. Then I have to get over the
learning curve before I can even really start playing and enjoying the
damn thing. Then its over 10 hours later? That is likely just two or
three play sessions for me! No thanks.

The sweet spot is maybe 40-80 hours for me. But the game can have
more, even much more of my time, if I am really enjoying it. I don't
need to play every game under the sun.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 09:53:05 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 18:24:27 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd rather pay for some editorial discretion: a more concise, better
>>paced, streamlined experience. I may not get 100 hours of gameplay out
>>of it, but the ten or twenty hours I do play will probably be more
>>fun.
>
>If a game I play only lasts for 10 hours I am going to feel like I
>wasted my time. The reason being, I must first check reviews. Then pay
>for it. Download it and install it. Then I have to get over the
>learning curve before I can even really start playing and enjoying the
>damn thing. Then its over 10 hours later? That is likely just two or
>three play sessions for me! No thanks.
>
>The sweet spot is maybe 40-80 hours for me. But the game can have
>more, even much more of my time, if I am really enjoying it. I don't
>need to play every game under the sun.

It really depends on the game. But I've played some 'corridor
shooters' where the single-player experience is about ten hours long
that have been quite satisfying and wouldn't have been improved by
making it significantly longer (the original "Call of Duty" comes to
mind). Similarly, some 'walking sims' (like "Firewatch") top out at
around 5 to 10 hours, and that feels just about right. Heck, I
finished "Inside" (an Indie platformer) in maybe 2 hours, and I think
that was time - and money - well spent.

Other games are better served with longer running times. "Need for
Speed" titles probably deserve 40 hours. I don't think I can get
through a single "Civilization" campaign in less than 20 hours. "Left
4 Dead's" online fracas well earned the hundred hours or so I poured
into it before I went in search of something new.

Extending a game's length isn't always to the benefit of the player or
the game. Different genres have different requirements (sims, strategy
and online games suck up more of your life), and a one-size (or
one-length) fits all strategy is bad design. But too often developers
- and gamers - judge a game by its length rather than its content. And
so we end up with games that have 30 hours of content stretched out to
100+ hours. Because too often game length is just another tick-box for
marketing these days rather than a consideration of what makes for
well-paced mechanics and narrative.