On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:20:41 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Oh I liked it and spent many hours playing it but I'm not sure it was
>fun. A similar experience is Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean. I
>spent many hours playing it but again not sure I'd say it's fun.

I'm sure its fun to some. I'm just not one of them.

Hardcore wargames used to be bread-n-butter of PC gaming. Before "Pool
of Radiance" launched them into the stratosphere as a CRPG developer,
SSI made its name publishing wargames. I think everyone I knew on PC
had a copy of "Harpoon" on their PC in the early days... not so much
because they were huge fans but because it was such a rich sim
(comparatively) that it was a great tech demo for your PC. Wargames
were ideal for the PC platform. The action was slow but required a lot
of RAM and CPU to calculate all the variables; perfect for a platform
that was graphically inferior to its competitors but superior in terms
of computational power.

But once the PC started catching up to other platforms with regards to
sound and visuals and alternative styles of gameplay started
appearing, Wargames' popularity took a significant dip. The RTS genre
all but killed it, and now it remains a niche industry appealing to
only a tiny few.

Which is a shame, because there's something to be said for the deeper
simulation of those high-level wargames. I admit, I'm one of the many
who largely abandoned the genre, but even I like to dip my toes back
in every now again (usually not with the grognard-level games that
Matrix puts out, but I still fire up something like "Panzer General"
every now and again. ;-)

Side note: "Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean" is one of those
rare games I'd not heard of. Then I realized its just an expansion to
"Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem" and all became clear. But
for a moment I experienced a moment of existential terror at the idea
that a game had come out that I hadn't knowledge of. ;-)

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:18:00 +0200, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>
>Only one game that I've *seriously* played on here, the old X-COM. I
>even kept a DOS-compatible PC around so I could replay on occasion.

Or just to watch that kick-ass introductory cinematic.

Even if its not very representative of the gameplay, X-Com's (fairly
primitive) intro sets the tone for the game better than almost any
other intro I've seen. The tinny FM-synthesized music makes excellent
use of the SoundBlaster's OPL3 chip too.

In fact, I think I'm gonna go watch it again now.

(The only thing I enjoyed more than the "X-Com: UFO Defense" intro
were the X-Com fan fics that used to be posted in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic. ;-)

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:06:15 AM UTC-8, JAB wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 23:13, Justisaur wrote:
> > 1999 - Planscape Torment - C (eh, sort of a category thing vs. FPS, not
> > my favorite, but often touted as the best RPG never to have been
> > surpassed until the last couple years with Disco Elysium and Baldur's
> > Gate 3)
> PS:T was certainly my top RPG until Disco Elysium mainly because it not
> only went away from the typical high fantasy setting of orcs and dwarfs
> it also focused more on the story than the combat. The other part was
> that for once I felt more of a connection with the companion PC's and I
> didn't just view them more like an item in my inventory.
>
> I think the two biggest let downs where the combat felt half baked (oh
> yet another group of hive dwellers who are intent on attacking me the
> same as when I last passed through this area) and the final 10% or so
> just felt rushed and relied more on combat than the rest of the game.

The story just felt like a big info dump to me, and not as interesting as
a book would've been. I could've tolerated that if the the combat was
interesting and a bit more balanced with the info, but it goes down as
one of the worst rpg combat systems (perhaps BG1 being worse.)

The companions were great though, and the only reason I played
as far as I did and tried several times to complete the game (same
with BG1)

- Justisaur

On 16/11/2023 15:26, Justisaur wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:06:15 AM UTC-8, JAB wrote:
>> On 06/11/2023 23:13, Justisaur wrote:
>>> 1999 - Planscape Torment - C (eh, sort of a category thing vs. FPS, not
>>> my favorite, but often touted as the best RPG never to have been
>>> surpassed until the last couple years with Disco Elysium and Baldur's
>>> Gate 3)
>> PS:T was certainly my top RPG until Disco Elysium mainly because it not
>> only went away from the typical high fantasy setting of orcs and dwarfs
>> it also focused more on the story than the combat. The other part was
>> that for once I felt more of a connection with the companion PC's and I
>> didn't just view them more like an item in my inventory.
>>
>> I think the two biggest let downs where the combat felt half baked (oh
>> yet another group of hive dwellers who are intent on attacking me the
>> same as when I last passed through this area) and the final 10% or so
>> just felt rushed and relied more on combat than the rest of the game.
>
> The story just felt like a big info dump to me, and not as interesting as
> a book would've been. I could've tolerated that if the the combat was
> interesting and a bit more balanced with the info, but it goes down as
> one of the worst rpg combat systems (perhaps BG1 being worse.)
>
> The companions were great though, and the only reason I played
> as far as I did and tried several times to complete the game (same
> with BG1)
>

You're right about the combat both mechanically and when it happened.
The story though, I really liked it but yes there was a lot more reading
than your average RPG at the time. Disco Elysium takes that to a new
level as there's only two bits of combat which are handled by dialogue
choices and a lot of reading to do. Some people did complain about those
aspects but all I could think was did you not read a review before hand?

On 16/11/2023 15:07, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:20:41 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Oh I liked it and spent many hours playing it but I'm not sure it was
>> fun. A similar experience is Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean. I
>> spent many hours playing it but again not sure I'd say it's fun.
>
> I'm sure its fun to some. I'm just not one of them.
>
> Hardcore wargames used to be bread-n-butter of PC gaming. Before "Pool
> of Radiance" launched them into the stratosphere as a CRPG developer,
> SSI made its name publishing wargames. I think everyone I knew on PC
> had a copy of "Harpoon" on their PC in the early days... not so much
> because they were huge fans but because it was such a rich sim
> (comparatively) that it was a great tech demo for your PC. Wargames
> were ideal for the PC platform. The action was slow but required a lot
> of RAM and CPU to calculate all the variables; perfect for a platform
> that was graphically inferior to its competitors but superior in terms
> of computational power.
>
> But once the PC started catching up to other platforms with regards to
> sound and visuals and alternative styles of gameplay started
> appearing, Wargames' popularity took a significant dip. The RTS genre
> all but killed it, and now it remains a niche industry appealing to
> only a tiny few.
>
> Which is a shame, because there's something to be said for the deeper
> simulation of those high-level wargames. I admit, I'm one of the many
> who largely abandoned the genre, but even I like to dip my toes back
> in every now again (usually not with the grognard-level games that
> Matrix puts out, but I still fire up something like "Panzer General"
> every now and again. ;-)
>

I'm kinda in the same boat as I used to like wargames on the grand scale
with lots of complexity. Now I stick to lighter ones such as Panzer Corp
or Battle Academy or ones very much at the tactical/squad level.

I did once toy with getting War in the East when it was on sale and then
thought, what are you thinking - you won't like it!

> Side note: "Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean" is one of those
> rare games I'd not heard of. Then I realized its just an expansion to
> "Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem" and all became clear. But
> for a moment I experienced a moment of existential terror at the idea
> that a game had come out that I hadn't knowledge of. ;-)
>

It was based on the same engine with quite a few improvements but was a
sequel. It's now morphed into Command Ops (core game + expansions)
although I'm not sure whether the developers are active any more in the
commercial space as they did mention several years ago the problem of,
well making money, as the development costs didn't match the sales at a
reasonable price point.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Even if its not very representative of the gameplay, X-Com's (fairly
> primitive) intro sets the tone for the game better than almost any
> other intro I've seen. The tinny FM-synthesized music makes excellent
> use of the SoundBlaster's OPL3 chip too.

I'm not sure if I've actually seen it before. Floppy version had just a
few still images I think. Didn't ring a bell as I watched it from
Youtube just now. Still, like you said, it does set the tone very well.

> (The only thing I enjoyed more than the "X-Com: UFO Defense" intro
> were the X-Com fan fics that used to be posted in
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic. ;-)

Yes, I especially remember one that was great. Something about starting
out in a place called Little Rock and dividing his troops to a "near
squad" and a "far squad".

His writing wasn't so great always but he absolutely nailed the big
moments in the game. The first terror mission, the first base defense,
the time when you find out some of your troops are vulnerable to PSI and
have to get rid of some of them. Somehow he touched the panicky feelings
I and probably many people who had played the game had in these moments
and made a decent story out of that.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:57:57 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 16/11/2023 15:07, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:20:41 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>

>> Side note: "Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean" is one of those
>> rare games I'd not heard of. Then I realized its just an expansion to
>> "Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem" and all became clear. But
>> for a moment I experienced a moment of existential terror at the idea
>> that a game had come out that I hadn't knowledge of. ;-)

>It was based on the same engine with quite a few improvements but was a
>sequel. It's now morphed into Command Ops (core game + expansions)
>although I'm not sure whether the developers are active any more in the
>commercial space as they did mention several years ago the problem of,
>well making money, as the development costs didn't match the sales at a
>reasonable price point.

AFAIK, Matrix Games remains an active business, at least in the sense
that they still sell their games (from what I recall, they also are
involved in making military sims for militaries too, so that probably
brings in some nice cash as well). But - according to MobyGames -
their last commercially released title was in 2019, so maybe they have
downscaled their entertainment division.

Like I said, grognard games - once a huge part of PC gaming - have now
become incredibly niche. I'm not really surprised that Matrix is
struggling... but I am sort of saddened.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:44:50 +0200, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Even if its not very representative of the gameplay, X-Com's (fairly
>> primitive) intro sets the tone for the game better than almost any
>> other intro I've seen. The tinny FM-synthesized music makes excellent
>> use of the SoundBlaster's OPL3 chip too.
>
>I'm not sure if I've actually seen it before. Floppy version had just a
>few still images I think. Didn't ring a bell as I watched it from
>Youtube just now. Still, like you said, it does set the tone very well.

I honestly can't remember if there were differences between floppy and
CD-ROM version. It's not like the CD-ROM version is particularly
impressive from the technical side either; it's just a bunch of (very
briefly) animated postage-stamp sized images coupled to a great
soundtrack, with only a handful of sound effects. It was minimalistic,
but extremely effective.

>> (The only thing I enjoyed more than the "X-Com: UFO Defense" intro
>> were the X-Com fan fics that used to be posted in
>> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic. ;-)

>Yes, I especially remember one that was great. Something about starting
>out in a place called Little Rock and dividing his troops to a "near
>squad" and a "far squad".

>His writing wasn't so great always but he absolutely nailed the big
>moments in the game. The first terror mission, the first base defense,
>the time when you find out some of your troops are vulnerable to PSI and
>have to get rid of some of them. Somehow he touched the panicky feelings
>I and probably many people who had played the game had in these moments
>and made a decent story out of that.

I can't remember any of the details, sadly, except that the series I
was most interested in ended on something of a cliffhanger (I think
the whole squad died? It's been too long). Unfortunately, that was
around the time I was having internet access issues (as in, I'd moved
to a new location and couldn't get internet for months!) and - by the
time I finally got back online - there were too many posts for me to
catch-up.

(Yes kids, there once was a time when Usenet was so busy that missing
out on a week meant you had no chance of ever reading all the articles
;-)

But for a while, c.s.i.p.g.strategic was a welcome shelter from the
endless discussions about "Doom" here in c.s.i.p.g.action. God, this
newsgroup was obsessed with that game! ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>So... how did you fare? How many of these classics have you /actually/
>played?

CD DC DD CD DA AB DD BS CD DB

1 S
2 A
3 B
4 C
10 D

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>I'm not sure if I've actually seen it before. Floppy version had just a
>few still images I think. Didn't ring a bell as I watched it from
>Youtube just now. Still, like you said, it does set the tone very well.

My floppy version had the animated intro. I'm guessing you used the
"Small Game Installation" option that saved about 2MB of disk space,
probably by not including the intro.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 17/11/2023 15:36, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:57:57 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2023 15:07, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:20:41 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>> Side note: "Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean" is one of those
>>> rare games I'd not heard of. Then I realized its just an expansion to
>>> "Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem" and all became clear. But
>>> for a moment I experienced a moment of existential terror at the idea
>>> that a game had come out that I hadn't knowledge of. ;-)
>
>> It was based on the same engine with quite a few improvements but was a
>> sequel. It's now morphed into Command Ops (core game + expansions)
>> although I'm not sure whether the developers are active any more in the
>> commercial space as they did mention several years ago the problem of,
>> well making money, as the development costs didn't match the sales at a
>> reasonable price point.
>
> AFAIK, Matrix Games remains an active business, at least in the sense
> that they still sell their games (from what I recall, they also are
> involved in making military sims for militaries too, so that probably
> brings in some nice cash as well). But - according to MobyGames -
> their last commercially released title was in 2019, so maybe they have
> downscaled their entertainment division.
>
> Like I said, grognard games - once a huge part of PC gaming - have now
> become incredibly niche. I'm not really surprised that Matrix is
> struggling... but I am sort of saddened.
>

The game itself was published by Matrix but developed by Panther Games.
As far as I can tell the latter is either non-existence or have moved
out of the commercial space as they were certain;y involved in using
their engine for military simulations.

It's becomes even tricker as Matrix merged with Slitherine over ten
years ago and as far as I can tell it's Slitherine that's the brand that
has become the main face of what they do.

Overall they seem to be in good health and although it's still very much
strategy games the do also release non-grognard games.

On 11/17/23 11:56, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>> I'm not sure if I've actually seen it before. Floppy version had just a
>> few still images I think. Didn't ring a bell as I watched it from
>> Youtube just now. Still, like you said, it does set the tone very well.
>
> My floppy version had the animated intro. I'm guessing you used the
> "Small Game Installation" option that saved about 2MB of disk space,
> probably by not including the intro.
>

It's too bad they don't have options like that anymore, would be nice
for some of these new 750GB+ games.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 22:24:53 -0600, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net>
wrote:

>On 11/17/23 11:56, Ross Ridge wrote:
>> Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if I've actually seen it before. Floppy version had just a
>>> few still images I think. Didn't ring a bell as I watched it from
>>> Youtube just now. Still, like you said, it does set the tone very well.
>>
>> My floppy version had the animated intro. I'm guessing you used the
>> "Small Game Installation" option that saved about 2MB of disk space,
>> probably by not including the intro.
>>
>
>It's too bad they don't have options like that anymore, would be nice
>for some of these new 750GB+ games.

I still see the option pop up occassionally, although it's usually for
"install just <native language> because that's all you're going to
use", or "install all languages because what's another 100GB amongst
friends". ;-)

Then again, a lot of the 'optional install' era was back when games
came on optical disks, and - even if you didn't install the data to
your hard-disk - the game could still access it on the optical media.
Usually this was for sound, voice and video, with main game code and
assets a mandatory install.

I suppose a modern alternative to this would be to offer an option to
stream video/etc. from an online server instead of installing it to
disk, but this would raise the cost of the game (since the publisher
would have to maintain a server to stream those assets), and give the
publisher even more control of a game's end-of-life.

(Didn't "Quantum Break" do something like this?)