Well with the TV show now on and Fallout:London supposed to be released
and then not but now maybe it will I thought I really should try FO:2
for once. I've been meaning for ages to get it into a state where it
doesn't make my eyes completely bleed and the widescreen HR patch gets
close enough to that. I've also installed the Restoration Project for
good measure as that's the one that seems to get mentioned as a must have.

Now to see whether it lives up to the hype!

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:09:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Well with the TV show now on and Fallout:London supposed to be released
>and then not but now maybe it will I thought I really should try FO:2
>for once. I've been meaning for ages to get it into a state where it
>doesn't make my eyes completely bleed and the widescreen HR patch gets
>close enough to that. I've also installed the Restoration Project for
>good measure as that's the one that seems to get mentioned as a must have.
>
>Now to see whether it lives up to the hype!

I have a real problem with trying to play the older Fallout RPGs. It's
mostly the viewpoint; it's trimetric top-down view feels so alien and
distance to me. I've really come to appreciate the down-in-the-first,
in-your-face first- or over-the-shoulder view used by most modern
CRPGs. One of the joys of these games (for me, at least) is immersing
myself in their worlds. I LOVE seeing the details of the architecture,
or the atmosphere of the wilds. The number of times I've pushed my
view up close to a wall trying to read the blurry text of some poster
is uncountable.

The god's eye view of games older CRPGs like "Fallout" and "Baldurs
Gate" just doesn't allow me to wallow in all those details the way I'd
like to.

But it's also the mechanics. Top-down games tend to be more strategic.
You usually have a whole party to manage, and when combat rolls
around, it's all about positioning your party members - square by
square - into the perfect spot. FPS/TPS CRPG combat is more immediate;
it's more twitch-based. It's not better (I'd in fact, argue, it's far
worse) but it has one major advantage: it's faster. Fights are over
and done with a lot faster. And since combat is often the least
interesting part of the games for me, that's a major benefit. I mostly
am in the game for the exploring.

And don't even get me started on the grind of inventory management for
an entire party.

So trying to play games like "Fallout 2" often seems like drudgery.
It's a chore. It's long combats and unsatisfying exploration that
doesn't leave me immersed in the gameworld. It's not that the games
are bad... it's just that my tastes have so radically changed over the
past twenty years that I can't enjoy the games the way I used to.

On 27/04/2024 15:28, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:09:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> Well with the TV show now on and Fallout:London supposed to be released
>> and then not but now maybe it will I thought I really should try FO:2
>> for once. I've been meaning for ages to get it into a state where it
>> doesn't make my eyes completely bleed and the widescreen HR patch gets
>> close enough to that. I've also installed the Restoration Project for
>> good measure as that's the one that seems to get mentioned as a must have.
>>
>> Now to see whether it lives up to the hype!
>
> I have a real problem with trying to play the older Fallout RPGs. It's
> mostly the viewpoint; it's trimetric top-down view feels so alien and
> distance to me. I've really come to appreciate the down-in-the-first,
> in-your-face first- or over-the-shoulder view used by most modern
> CRPGs. One of the joys of these games (for me, at least) is immersing
> myself in their worlds. I LOVE seeing the details of the architecture,
> or the atmosphere of the wilds. The number of times I've pushed my
> view up close to a wall trying to read the blurry text of some poster
> is uncountable.
>
> The god's eye view of games older CRPGs like "Fallout" and "Baldurs
> Gate" just doesn't allow me to wallow in all those details the way I'd
> like to.
>

I do kinda agree that top down is less immersive at least visually and
one thing that I really enjoyed about FO:3/NV was just wandering the
wasteland and taking in the view. STALKER (not an RPG of course) also
had that really allowing you to feel the environment.

> But it's also the mechanics. Top-down games tend to be more strategic.
> You usually have a whole party to manage, and when combat rolls
> around, it's all about positioning your party members - square by
> square - into the perfect spot. FPS/TPS CRPG combat is more immediate;
> it's more twitch-based. It's not better (I'd in fact, argue, it's far
> worse) but it has one major advantage: it's faster. Fights are over
> and done with a lot faster. And since combat is often the least
> interesting part of the games for me, that's a major benefit. I mostly
> am in the game for the exploring.
>

Again I kinda agree although if you have RtWP then I think that's fine
but I'm waiting to see if TB in FO:2 will be a major turn-off.

> And don't even get me started on the grind of inventory management for
> an entire party.
>

Inventory management kinda annoys me full stop. I'm supposed to be
enjoying the story not acting as a logistics manager. I don't think it's
helped by what seems to be a carry over from TT D&D that grabbing as
much loot as possible and selling it was just something you did.

As an aside, one thing I really like about TT CoC is inventory
management is minimal and a lot of it is based around would you be
expected to have that on you. So investigating a house at night, yes you
will have a torch and don't need to say it. The other one I like is
money management is done through your credit rating so is based around
could your character be expected to afford that.

> So trying to play games like "Fallout 2" often seems like drudgery.
> It's a chore. It's long combats and unsatisfying exploration that
> doesn't leave me immersed in the gameworld. It's not that the games
> are bad... it's just that my tastes have so radically changed over the
> past twenty years that I can't enjoy the games the way I used to.
>

The make or break for me will be whether the story engages me or if I've
just so used to the QoL enhancements that we now have it becomes
problematic. My next task is to play with with resolution/settings as
currently the graphics don't make my eyes bleed but I can hardly make
anything out including the text!

On 4/28/2024 2:38 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 27/04/2024 15:28, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:09:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

> The make or break for me will be whether the story engages me or if I've
> just so used to the QoL enhancements that we now have it becomes
> problematic. My next task is to play with with resolution/settings as
> currently the graphics don't make my eyes bleed but I can hardly make
> anything out including the text!

The initial 'trial' bit in Fallout 2 is a bit annoying, especially if
you don't choose certain skills to get you through it. IIRC there is a
mod to let you skip it if you want. There's also an "HD" mod.

I came across people talking about playing them in chronological order.
I found this post at NMA for the early games & mods

Fallout: Nevada - Year 2120
Fallout - Year 2161
Fallout: Sonora - Year [It's a secret]
Fallout: Resurrection - Year 2170
Fallout: Tactics - 2197
Fallout 2 - Year 2241
Fallout: Yesterday (the latest build) - Year 2253
Fallout: New Vegas - Year -2281

So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2. It's supposed
to be a lot more story than the other games. It has the HD mod, but the
resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything. The scaler works
though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than without the scaler.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 30/04/2024 22:21, Justisaur wrote:
> So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2.  It's supposed
> to be a lot more story than the other games.  It has the HD mod, but the
> resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything.  The scaler works
> though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than without the scaler.

I've now tried the scaler x2 and put it back to the higher resolution.
That is so much solved!

On 5/1/2024 10:52 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 30/04/2024 22:21, Justisaur wrote:
>> So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2.  It's
>> supposed to be a lot more story than the other games.  It has the HD
>> mod, but the resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything.  The
>> scaler works though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than without
>> the scaler.
>
> I've now tried the scaler x2 and put it back to the higher resolution.
> That is so much solved!

The HD resolution works in full screen, but not windowed mode. I was
trying to do windowed, but I found some info that the old fallouts don't
play well with windowed.

I was getting tired of the restrictive inventory (and no companion to
load up in Nevada) so I was looking up inventory mods. I found that
Fallout 2 from GoG and Steam have the FO2 Engine Tweaks (Sfall) 3.2 in
it, and you can change the line in the fallout 2 root

ddraw.ini

CritterInvSizeLimitMode=0

to

CritterInvSizeLimitMode=4

that only counts your equipped items for carry weight.

There's also a mod to make inventory management easier, though I haven't
tried it out yet as it requires updating the Sfall mod to at least
4.2.8.1 I'll give it a try as soon as I figure that out. I think an
updated Sfall might be part of the restoration project though.

https://www.nma-fallout.com/resources/inventory-filter-mod-english-version.142/

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 5/2/2024 6:36 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 10:52 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 30/04/2024 22:21, Justisaur wrote:
>>> So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2.  It's
>>> supposed to be a lot more story than the other games.  It has the HD
>>> mod, but the resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything.  The
>>> scaler works though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than
>>> without the scaler.
>>
>> I've now tried the scaler x2 and put it back to the higher resolution.
>> That is so much solved!
>
> The HD resolution works in full screen, but not windowed mode.  I was
> trying to do windowed, but I found some info that the old fallouts don't
> play well with windowed.
>
> I was getting tired of the restrictive inventory (and no companion to
> load up in Nevada) so I was looking up inventory mods.  I found that
> Fallout 2 from GoG and Steam have the FO2 Engine Tweaks (Sfall) 3.2 in
> it, and you can change the line in the fallout 2 root
>
> ddraw.ini
>
> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=0
>
> to
>
> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=4
>
> that only counts your equipped items for carry weight.
>
> There's also a mod to make inventory management easier, though I haven't
> tried it out yet as it requires updating the Sfall mod to at least
> 4.2.8.1  I'll give it a try as soon as I figure that out.  I think an
> updated Sfall might be part of the restoration project though.
>
> https://www.nma-fallout.com/resources/inventory-filter-mod-english-version.142/

*Sigh* I just suddenly haven't felt like playing it the last couple
days. I don't know why, I was enjoying the game.

My daughter did get me to play some EDF with her yesterday, maybe the
better action drew me away. Though I stopped playing the day before.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Sat, 4 May 2024 11:39:44 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>*Sigh* I just suddenly haven't felt like playing it the last couple
>days. I don't know why, I was enjoying the game.

This happens to me and I just assumed it happens to most gamers.

You play a game... you are enjoying it a lot.... and then all of a
sudden, you don't feel like playing it anymore. After some time
passes, you may want to play it again, you still may not.

On Sun, 05 May 2024 09:28:38 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 4 May 2024 11:39:44 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>*Sigh* I just suddenly haven't felt like playing it the last couple
>>days. I don't know why, I was enjoying the game.
>
>This happens to me and I just assumed it happens to most gamers.
>
>You play a game... you are enjoying it a lot.... and then all of a
>sudden, you don't feel like playing it anymore. After some time
>passes, you may want to play it again, you still may not.

I have a seriously low threshold for repetition. So long as a game
keeps offering me (or promising me) a novel experience, I can deal
with it, but I've little tolerance (usually) once a game starts
repeating itself.

It's why I dislike 'git gud' games, where you have to bang your head
against the wall repeatedly until you master a mechanic. I'm not
interested in the mechanics. I want to see new map locations, new
monsters, new weapons. I want to see the story progress. I want new
ideas. It's why I look at dismay with so many games going the 'open
world' route (or worse, 'procedurally generated open worlds!') because
they extend a very basic idea over far too much gameplay, and I know a
lot of it is going to be the same old thing over and over again.

Some games affect me more than others. Ubisoft games have
dull-as-dishwater gameplay (and Uwe Boll style story-telling!) but
their maps are so expansive and full of new things to explore that it
keeps me going to the end. But even then, I still find the games
pretty tedious. And there are exceptions to the rule, the most
prominent for me being a certain game about driving a truck around
Europe.

There are a lot of other games that I find extremely tedious because
they fail to offer any new experiences, and past the first few hours
you've pretty much seen everything the game has to offer. "Days Gone"
is one such example. It's gameplay is a direct copy from the Ubisoft
open-world playbook, and - beyond the 'hey, you're a motorcycle gang
member!' story line, it doesn't really say or do anything that hasn't
been done in dozens of other video games or movies.

It's not necessarily that I think that games like "Days Gone" are
bad... but - having played so many similar games - they fail to
inspire any excitement. They don't energize me to finish the games
naturally. A lot of games I complete not out of any real interest, but
because I paid money for them and want to say I got value for my
dollar (and so I can honestly write an opinion about it at the end of
the month).

On 5/5/2024 7:31 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> want to see new map locations, new
> monsters, new weapons. I want to see the story progress. I want new
> ideas. It's why I look at dismay with so many games going the 'open
> world' route (or worse, 'procedurally generated open worlds!') because
> they extend a very basic idea over far too much gameplay, and I know a
> lot of it is going to be the same old thing over and over again.
>
> Some games affect me more than others. Ubisoft games have
> dull-as-dishwater gameplay (and Uwe Boll style story-telling!) but
> their maps are so expansive and full of new things to explore that it
> keeps me going to the end. But even then, I still find the games
> pretty tedious. And there are exceptions to the rule, the most

I think I'm same but different.

Looking at it, I've definitely got a bit of that. ER was too long and
repetitive for me being open world, even still way less repetitive than
a lot of other games. The enemies do change, they bring them back, but
they're a bit changed. I don't mind the boss fights being a little
repetitive as I enjoy the combat, but I was never stuck in ER long
enough to get too frustrated as I'm at leas half-good. I also tend to
play magic classes and look at it a little as a puzzle (odd I know as I
don't like a lot of computer puzzles probably because they're
non-sensical and contrived.) What spells are most effective, is there a
way I can outsmart a boss etc? Yes there's a few bosses this isn't
effective on, but they're actually few and far between.

In FO:Nevada I just hit New Reno, which is a large settlement with a lot
to do compared to the earlier small settlements. A bit too daunting
perhaps to go through all that, and yeah the inventory management is
starting to get a bit too much and too poor. Pretty much what finally
killed BG3 for me too. I'm probably not enjoying it as much because
there's a lot more crafting too.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:31 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sun, 05 May 2024 09:28:38 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 4 May 2024 11:39:44 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>*Sigh* I just suddenly haven't felt like playing it the last couple
>>>days. I don't know why, I was enjoying the game.
>>
>>This happens to me and I just assumed it happens to most gamers.
>>
>>You play a game... you are enjoying it a lot.... and then all of a
>>sudden, you don't feel like playing it anymore. After some time
>>passes, you may want to play it again, you still may not.
>
> I have a seriously low threshold for repetition. So long as a game
> keeps offering me (or promising me) a novel experience, I can deal
> with it, but I've little tolerance (usually) once a game starts
> repeating itself.
>
> It's why I dislike 'git gud' games, where you have to bang your head
> against the wall repeatedly until you master a mechanic. I'm not
> interested in the mechanics. I want to see new map locations, new
> monsters, new weapons. I want to see the story progress. I want new
> ideas. It's why I look at dismay with so many games going the 'open
> world' route (or worse, 'procedurally generated open worlds!') because
> they extend a very basic idea over far too much gameplay, and I know a
> lot of it is going to be the same old thing over and over again.
>
> Some games affect me more than others. Ubisoft games have
> dull-as-dishwater gameplay (and Uwe Boll style story-telling!) but
> their maps are so expansive and full of new things to explore that it
> keeps me going to the end. But even then, I still find the games
> pretty tedious. And there are exceptions to the rule, the most
> prominent for me being a certain game about driving a truck around
> Europe.
>
> There are a lot of other games that I find extremely tedious because
> they fail to offer any new experiences, and past the first few hours
> you've pretty much seen everything the game has to offer. "Days Gone"
> is one such example. It's gameplay is a direct copy from the Ubisoft
> open-world playbook, and - beyond the 'hey, you're a motorcycle gang
> member!' story line, it doesn't really say or do anything that hasn't
> been done in dozens of other video games or movies.
>
> It's not necessarily that I think that games like "Days Gone" are
> bad... but - having played so many similar games - they fail to
> inspire any excitement. They don't energize me to finish the games
> naturally. A lot of games I complete not out of any real interest, but
> because I paid money for them and want to say I got value for my
> dollar (and so I can honestly write an opinion about it at the end of
> the month).

Agreed. My tolerance is a bit higher I think, but I still can't stand
it. And yet I keep going for rougelikes..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:31:30 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

>I have a seriously low threshold for repetition. So long as a game
>keeps offering me (or promising me) a novel experience, I can deal
>with it, but I've little tolerance (usually) once a game starts
>repeating itself.
>
>It's why I dislike 'git gud' games, where you have to bang your head
>against the wall repeatedly until you master a mechanic. I'm not
>interested in the mechanics. I want to see new map locations, new
>monsters, new weapons. I want to see the story progress. I want new
>ideas. It's why I look at dismay with so many games going the 'open
>world' route (or worse, 'procedurally generated open worlds!') because
>they extend a very basic idea over far too much gameplay, and I know a
>lot of it is going to be the same old thing over and over again.

For me, your post corresponds to my tastes and doesn't at the same
time. I have no interest in trying to master a mechanic. I hate trying
to fight the same boss over and over again until I figure it out. It
halts the gameplay for me. I just want to move on.

But I am ok with repetitious gameplay like what you would get in a
Diablo clone or MMO. I have no issues with grinding. So doing the same
thing over and over again does not bother me and I usually do not get
bored of it.

On Sun, 05 May 2024 14:39:11 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 May 2024 10:31:30 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>
>>I have a seriously low threshold for repetition. So long as a game
>>keeps offering me (or promising me) a novel experience, I can deal
>>with it, but I've little tolerance (usually) once a game starts
>>repeating itself.
>>
>>It's why I dislike 'git gud' games, where you have to bang your head
>>against the wall repeatedly until you master a mechanic. I'm not
>>interested in the mechanics. I want to see new map locations, new
>>monsters, new weapons. I want to see the story progress. I want new
>>ideas. It's why I look at dismay with so many games going the 'open
>>world' route (or worse, 'procedurally generated open worlds!') because
>>they extend a very basic idea over far too much gameplay, and I know a
>>lot of it is going to be the same old thing over and over again.
>
>For me, your post corresponds to my tastes and doesn't at the same
>time. I have no interest in trying to master a mechanic. I hate trying
>to fight the same boss over and over again until I figure it out. It
>halts the gameplay for me. I just want to move on.
>
>But I am ok with repetitious gameplay like what you would get in a
>Diablo clone or MMO. I have no issues with grinding. So doing the same
>thing over and over again does not bother me and I usually do not get
>bored of it.

I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
(and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
back and replay it.

It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
- even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
a game I've already played!

But I've come to accept that perhaps, maybe other people have
different wants and preferences from their gaming, and what works for
me isn't the same for them. So while I'll cheerfully rant about how so
many games have tedious, repetitive gameplay, I'll also accept that -
for some - that's just what they want. ;-)

On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:49:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
>content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
>isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
>lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
>(and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
>pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
>were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
>levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
>sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
>game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
>back and replay it.

The better sword is the carrot on the stick that keeps me playing. It
is the constant improving of my character that I find interesting.

>It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
>those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
>the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
>friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
>- even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
>why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
>a game I've already played!

Yeah, I love remakes and remasters. There is a market for these.
Someone should and will fill it.

I always assumed your tastes would be better served by the indie
market, but I think you complain about them as well.

On 02/05/2024 14:36, Justisaur wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 10:52 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 30/04/2024 22:21, Justisaur wrote:
>>> So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2.  It's
>>> supposed to be a lot more story than the other games.  It has the HD
>>> mod, but the resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything.  The
>>> scaler works though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than
>>> without the scaler.
>>
>> I've now tried the scaler x2 and put it back to the higher resolution.
>> That is so much solved!
>
> The HD resolution works in full screen, but not windowed mode.  I was
> trying to do windowed, but I found some info that the old fallouts don't
> play well with windowed.
>
> I was getting tired of the restrictive inventory (and no companion to
> load up in Nevada) so I was looking up inventory mods.  I found that
> Fallout 2 from GoG and Steam have the FO2 Engine Tweaks (Sfall) 3.2 in
> it, and you can change the line in the fallout 2 root
>
> ddraw.ini
>
> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=0
>
> to
>
> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=4
>
> that only counts your equipped items for carry weight.
>
> There's also a mod to make inventory management easier, though I haven't
> tried it out yet as it requires updating the Sfall mod to at least
> 4.2.8.1  I'll give it a try as soon as I figure that out.  I think an
> updated Sfall might be part of the restoration project though.
>
> https://www.nma-fallout.com/resources/inventory-filter-mod-english-version.142/
>

I'm struggling to work out how I'm supposed to actually talk to people.
I seem to have managed to get myself stuck in combat mode!

On 5/6/2024 1:32 PM, JAB wrote:
> On 02/05/2024 14:36, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 10:52 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2024 22:21, Justisaur wrote:
>>>> So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2.  It's
>>>> supposed to be a lot more story than the other games.  It has the HD
>>>> mod, but the resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything.
>>>> The scaler works though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than
>>>> without the scaler.
>>>
>>> I've now tried the scaler x2 and put it back to the higher
>>> resolution. That is so much solved!
>>
>> The HD resolution works in full screen, but not windowed mode.  I was
>> trying to do windowed, but I found some info that the old fallouts
>> don't play well with windowed.
>>
>> I was getting tired of the restrictive inventory (and no companion to
>> load up in Nevada) so I was looking up inventory mods.  I found that
>> Fallout 2 from GoG and Steam have the FO2 Engine Tweaks (Sfall) 3.2 in
>> it, and you can change the line in the fallout 2 root
>>
>> ddraw.ini
>>
>> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=0
>>
>> to
>>
>> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=4
>>
>> that only counts your equipped items for carry weight.
>>
>> There's also a mod to make inventory management easier, though I
>> haven't tried it out yet as it requires updating the Sfall mod to at
>> least 4.2.8.1  I'll give it a try as soon as I figure that out.  I
>> think an updated Sfall might be part of the restoration project though.
>>
>> https://www.nma-fallout.com/resources/inventory-filter-mod-english-version.142/
>>
>
> I'm struggling to work out how I'm supposed to actually talk to people.
> I seem to have managed to get myself stuck in combat mode!

The game should have a manual pdf in the root I think. That might help
with all the obtuse controls. You should be able to click 'end combat'
on the button on the lower right which if you're not hostile to anyone
will get you out of combat mode, sometimes you have to click 'end turn'
first. If you are hostile to anyone you need to move a dozen or so
hexes away from them, move to another map, or kill them before you can
end combat.

I think I remember some that can become hostile but won't attack from
stealing or taking things from receptacles which will cause you to enter
combat when you get near them.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 06/05/2024 22:27, Justisaur wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 1:32 PM, JAB wrote:
>> On 02/05/2024 14:36, Justisaur wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 10:52 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>> On 30/04/2024 22:21, Justisaur wrote:
>>>>> So I decided to try Nevada, which is a mod of Fallout 2.  It's
>>>>> supposed to be a lot more story than the other games.  It has the
>>>>> HD mod, but the resolution I'm setting doesn't seem to do anything.
>>>>> The scaler works though - which I'm using 2x, it looks better than
>>>>> without the scaler.
>>>>
>>>> I've now tried the scaler x2 and put it back to the higher
>>>> resolution. That is so much solved!
>>>
>>> The HD resolution works in full screen, but not windowed mode.  I was
>>> trying to do windowed, but I found some info that the old fallouts
>>> don't play well with windowed.
>>>
>>> I was getting tired of the restrictive inventory (and no companion to
>>> load up in Nevada) so I was looking up inventory mods.  I found that
>>> Fallout 2 from GoG and Steam have the FO2 Engine Tweaks (Sfall) 3.2
>>> in it, and you can change the line in the fallout 2 root
>>>
>>> ddraw.ini
>>>
>>> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=0
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> CritterInvSizeLimitMode=4
>>>
>>> that only counts your equipped items for carry weight.
>>>
>>> There's also a mod to make inventory management easier, though I
>>> haven't tried it out yet as it requires updating the Sfall mod to at
>>> least 4.2.8.1  I'll give it a try as soon as I figure that out.  I
>>> think an updated Sfall might be part of the restoration project though.
>>>
>>> https://www.nma-fallout.com/resources/inventory-filter-mod-english-version.142/
>>>
>>
>> I'm struggling to work out how I'm supposed to actually talk to
>> people. I seem to have managed to get myself stuck in combat mode!
>
> The game should have a manual pdf in the root I think. That might help
> with all the obtuse controls.  You should be able to click 'end combat'
> on the button on the lower right which if you're not hostile to anyone
> will get you out of combat mode, sometimes you have to click 'end turn'
> first.  If you are hostile to anyone you need to move a dozen or so
> hexes away from them, move to another map, or kill them before you can
> end combat.
>
> I think I remember some that can become hostile but won't attack from
> stealing or taking things from receptacles which will cause you to enter
> combat when you get near them.
>

Yep I realised that there's a combat mode button a bit later. It's easy
to forget just how standardised controls/mechanisms have become in
today's games but this one I think requires a read of the 60+ page
manual. That's something I don't miss about old games.

The good thing is that it hasn't taken long for me to get used to
somewhat interesting graphics which seem a bit meh even considering when
it was released.

On 06/05/2024 17:49, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
> content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
> isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
> lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
> (and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
> pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
> were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
> levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
> sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
> game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
> back and replay it.

Generally I'm not a fan of those type of games but I have put many an
hour into both Torchlight II and Titan Quest. I just found them a nice
diversion to fire up for 30 mins or so and go around killing things.

On Mon, 06 May 2024 15:12:53 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:49:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
>>content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
>>isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
>>lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
>>(and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
>>pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
>>were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
>>levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
>>sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
>>game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
>>back and replay it.
>
>The better sword is the carrot on the stick that keeps me playing. It
>is the constant improving of my character that I find interesting.
>
>>It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
>>those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
>>the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
>>friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
>>- even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
>>why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
>>a game I've already played!
>
>Yeah, I love remakes and remasters. There is a market for these.
>Someone should and will fill it.
>
>I always assumed your tastes would be better served by the indie
>market, but I think you complain about them as well.

I'm an equal-opportunity whinger! ;-)

I /love/ Indie publishers. I'm not crazy about their products.

Indies come up with a lot of interesting ideas. They aren't so tied
down that they're afraid to experiment. Triple-A studios are terrified
of doing releasing anything except a proven product, and
understandably so. When you're risking $100 million USD, you want a
pretty good guarantee of return. So it's up to the Indies to try new
things.

But there are several problems with this. The most obvious is that -
thanks to their much smaller budgets - Indie games have a lot less
polish. A second problem is Sturgeon's law applies to Indie games too;
they might have a lot of new ideas, but most of those new ideas are
stupid. And the tiny budgets of Indies means that there are /a lot/ of
Indie developers out there, which only amplifies the problem. Crappy
Indie games have inundated the market. Finally Indie games often are
ultra-focused on their new gimmick, to the detriment of the overall
experience (recently released "Exit 8" is a perfect example of this.
It's core gameplay is interesting... in short bursts. But there's not
enough actual game to make it worth the purchase).

So, yay for Indies! You guys are saving the hobby. But I've usually no
desire to buy or play their games.

It's the rare mid-tier publishers/developers that I tend to favor
most. They've the budgets to create solid games with just enough
polish and experience that I can overlook the rougher issues, while
still not being scared to take chances with new gameplay mechanics. I
get the necessary novelty without the aggravatingly bad design.

;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:26 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Mon, 06 May 2024 15:12:53 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:49:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
>>>content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
>>>isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
>>>lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
>>>(and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
>>>pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
>>>were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
>>>levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
>>>sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
>>>game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
>>>back and replay it.
>>
>>The better sword is the carrot on the stick that keeps me playing. It
>>is the constant improving of my character that I find interesting.
>>
>>>It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
>>>those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
>>>the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
>>>friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
>>>- even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
>>>why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
>>>a game I've already played!
>>
>>Yeah, I love remakes and remasters. There is a market for these.
>>Someone should and will fill it.
>>
>>I always assumed your tastes would be better served by the indie
>>market, but I think you complain about them as well.
>
> I'm an equal-opportunity whinger! ;-)
>
> I /love/ Indie publishers. I'm not crazy about their products.
>
> Indies come up with a lot of interesting ideas. They aren't so tied
> down that they're afraid to experiment. Triple-A studios are terrified
> of doing releasing anything except a proven product, and
> understandably so. When you're risking $100 million USD, you want a
> pretty good guarantee of return. So it's up to the Indies to try new
> things.
>
> But there are several problems with this. The most obvious is that -
> thanks to their much smaller budgets - Indie games have a lot less
> polish. A second problem is Sturgeon's law applies to Indie games too;
> they might have a lot of new ideas, but most of those new ideas are
> stupid. And the tiny budgets of Indies means that there are /a lot/ of
> Indie developers out there, which only amplifies the problem. Crappy
> Indie games have inundated the market. Finally Indie games often are
> ultra-focused on their new gimmick, to the detriment of the overall
> experience (recently released "Exit 8" is a perfect example of this.
> It's core gameplay is interesting... in short bursts. But there's not
> enough actual game to make it worth the purchase).
>
> So, yay for Indies! You guys are saving the hobby. But I've usually no
> desire to buy or play their games.
>
> It's the rare mid-tier publishers/developers that I tend to favor
> most. They've the budgets to create solid games with just enough
> polish and experience that I can overlook the rougher issues, while
> still not being scared to take chances with new gameplay mechanics. I
> get the necessary novelty without the aggravatingly bad design.
>
> ;-)

There have definitely been some solo/unprofessional devs that made
fantastic games (dwarf fortress and ss13 comes to mind) (and funny
enough i happen to be sorta friends with a dev for both :D) (putnam)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 5/7/2024 12:00 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:26 this Tuesday (GMT):
>> On Mon, 06 May 2024 15:12:53 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:49:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
>>>> content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
>>>> isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
>>>> lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
>>>> (and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
>>>> pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
>>>> were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
>>>> levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
>>>> sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
>>>> game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
>>>> back and replay it.
>>>
>>> The better sword is the carrot on the stick that keeps me playing. It
>>> is the constant improving of my character that I find interesting.
>>>
>>>> It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
>>>> those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
>>>> the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
>>>> friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
>>>> - even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
>>>> why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
>>>> a game I've already played!
>>>
>>> Yeah, I love remakes and remasters. There is a market for these.
>>> Someone should and will fill it.
>>>
>>> I always assumed your tastes would be better served by the indie
>>> market, but I think you complain about them as well.
>>
>> I'm an equal-opportunity whinger! ;-)
>>
>> I /love/ Indie publishers. I'm not crazy about their products.
>>
>> Indies come up with a lot of interesting ideas. They aren't so tied
>> down that they're afraid to experiment. Triple-A studios are terrified
>> of doing releasing anything except a proven product, and
>> understandably so. When you're risking $100 million USD, you want a
>> pretty good guarantee of return. So it's up to the Indies to try new
>> things.
>>
>> But there are several problems with this. The most obvious is that -
>> thanks to their much smaller budgets - Indie games have a lot less
>> polish. A second problem is Sturgeon's law applies to Indie games too;
>> they might have a lot of new ideas, but most of those new ideas are
>> stupid. And the tiny budgets of Indies means that there are /a lot/ of
>> Indie developers out there, which only amplifies the problem. Crappy
>> Indie games have inundated the market. Finally Indie games often are
>> ultra-focused on their new gimmick, to the detriment of the overall
>> experience (recently released "Exit 8" is a perfect example of this.
>> It's core gameplay is interesting... in short bursts. But there's not
>> enough actual game to make it worth the purchase).
>>
>> So, yay for Indies! You guys are saving the hobby. But I've usually no
>> desire to buy or play their games.
>>
>> It's the rare mid-tier publishers/developers that I tend to favor
>> most. They've the budgets to create solid games with just enough
>> polish and experience that I can overlook the rougher issues, while
>> still not being scared to take chances with new gameplay mechanics. I
>> get the necessary novelty without the aggravatingly bad design.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>
> There have definitely been some solo/unprofessional devs that made
> fantastic games (dwarf fortress and ss13 comes to mind) (and funny
> enough i happen to be sorta friends with a dev for both :D) (putnam)

Stardew Valley.

--
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 at 00:53 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On 5/7/2024 12:00 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:26 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>> On Mon, 06 May 2024 15:12:53 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:49:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>>>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
>>>>> content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
>>>>> isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
>>>>> lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
>>>>> (and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
>>>>> pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
>>>>> were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
>>>>> levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
>>>>> sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
>>>>> game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
>>>>> back and replay it.
>>>>
>>>> The better sword is the carrot on the stick that keeps me playing. It
>>>> is the constant improving of my character that I find interesting.
>>>>
>>>>> It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
>>>>> those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
>>>>> the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
>>>>> friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
>>>>> - even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
>>>>> why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
>>>>> a game I've already played!
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I love remakes and remasters. There is a market for these.
>>>> Someone should and will fill it.
>>>>
>>>> I always assumed your tastes would be better served by the indie
>>>> market, but I think you complain about them as well.
>>>
>>> I'm an equal-opportunity whinger! ;-)
>>>
>>> I /love/ Indie publishers. I'm not crazy about their products.
>>>
>>> Indies come up with a lot of interesting ideas. They aren't so tied
>>> down that they're afraid to experiment. Triple-A studios are terrified
>>> of doing releasing anything except a proven product, and
>>> understandably so. When you're risking $100 million USD, you want a
>>> pretty good guarantee of return. So it's up to the Indies to try new
>>> things.
>>>
>>> But there are several problems with this. The most obvious is that -
>>> thanks to their much smaller budgets - Indie games have a lot less
>>> polish. A second problem is Sturgeon's law applies to Indie games too;
>>> they might have a lot of new ideas, but most of those new ideas are
>>> stupid. And the tiny budgets of Indies means that there are /a lot/ of
>>> Indie developers out there, which only amplifies the problem. Crappy
>>> Indie games have inundated the market. Finally Indie games often are
>>> ultra-focused on their new gimmick, to the detriment of the overall
>>> experience (recently released "Exit 8" is a perfect example of this.
>>> It's core gameplay is interesting... in short bursts. But there's not
>>> enough actual game to make it worth the purchase).
>>>
>>> So, yay for Indies! You guys are saving the hobby. But I've usually no
>>> desire to buy or play their games.
>>>
>>> It's the rare mid-tier publishers/developers that I tend to favor
>>> most. They've the budgets to create solid games with just enough
>>> polish and experience that I can overlook the rougher issues, while
>>> still not being scared to take chances with new gameplay mechanics. I
>>> get the necessary novelty without the aggravatingly bad design.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> There have definitely been some solo/unprofessional devs that made
>> fantastic games (dwarf fortress and ss13 comes to mind) (and funny
>> enough i happen to be sorta friends with a dev for both :D) (putnam)
>
> Stardew Valley.

Oh that too.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote in
news:v1ev4d$3olp7$7@dont-email.me:

> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Oh, for pity's sake can't you snip rather than quoting the **entire effing previous post** before
adding a single cutesy-poo one-line comment?

Sheesh.

Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:
>For me, your post corresponds to my tastes and doesn't at the same
>time. I have no interest in trying to master a mechanic. I hate trying
>to fight the same boss over and over again until I figure it out. It
>halts the gameplay for me. I just want to move on.
>
>But I am ok with repetitious gameplay like what you would get in a
>Diablo clone or MMO. I have no issues with grinding. So doing the same
>thing over and over again does not bother me and I usually do not get
>bored of it.

I'm sort of like this, but it's more like I don't mind "git gud"
gameplay when I can actually become good. I remember Gothic's combat
(and controls) taking some time to master, but once I got over that it was
rewarding. But I'm never going to master gameplay that requires precise
twitchy timing. In Destiny 2, for example, any content with a platforming
section that's time limited or has limited revives is blocked for me.
This is despite getting a lot better jumping so I rarely die now on the
more mundane platforming sections found throughout the game's content.

Griding doesn't bother me much as well. So I have no problem doing
the same Destiny 2 content over and over just to progress some system
or another. Often times I'm just doing it to unlock some reward just for
the sake of unlocking it, like scoring points in a classic arcade game.

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