Sometimes GOG reminds me of a little sister. Big brother Epic keeps
doing its thing - giving away free games once a week - and every now
and then GOG has to do the same. Except its efforts - while not
unappreciated - are always less spectacular, and maybe a little bit
embarrassing.

Case in point, this give-away. This time they're offering
"Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory"
(https://www.gog.com/en/game/wolfenstein_enemy_territory ), which is a
great game and it's nice to see it being made available... except it's
not much of a give-away because it's /always/ been a free game. From
Day One it was offered gratis. It's been free on Steam for ages. So
for GOG to plaster it on their front page as some awesomely generous
charity is... well, it's sort of sad.

It's a good game, though. I don't know how active it is - it's a
multiplayer-only game so user count is important - but its worth
taking a look. It was an influential game that helped push multiplayer
beyond simple deathmatch towards more involved game-types, after all,
and its DNA is in pretty much every online-FPS since. I'm happy to add
it (again) to my library.

I used to play WolfET a bunch back during its heyday in the 00s.
What ruined the game, or rather made it worse, were the players
themselves in how they modded the game to include useless things. Often
servers had their own mods to add some personality, which was fine, but
others took it even further and even modded the menu in the game and
even sometimes interfered with the server browser itself.
I typically filtered servers to exclude these kinds of minds as best I
could.

My favorite mod was ETpro.

An excellent game but today most servers, at leats when I tried it a few
years ago, had bots not many real players.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:21:56 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> Sometimes GOG reminds me of a little sister. Big brother Epic keeps
> doing its thing - giving away free games once a week - and every now
> and then GOG has to do the same. Except its efforts - while not
> unappreciated - are always less spectacular, and maybe a little bit
> embarrassing.
>
> Case in point, this give-away. This time they're offering
> "Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory"
> (https://www.gog.com/en/game/wolfenstein_enemy_territory ), which is a
> great game and it's nice to see it being made available... except it's
> not much of a give-away because it's /always/ been a free game. From
> Day One it was offered gratis. It's been free on Steam for ages. So
> for GOG to plaster it on their front page as some awesomely generous
> charity is... well, it's sort of sad.
>
> It's a good game, though. I don't know how active it is - it's a
> multiplayer-only game so user count is important - but its worth
> taking a look. It was an influential game that helped push multiplayer
> beyond simple deathmatch towards more involved game-types, after all,
> and its DNA is in pretty much every online-FPS since. I'm happy to add
> it (again) to my library.
>
>
>
>

It's also free to play on Steam. I used to play it a lot when it was new!

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sometimes GOG reminds me of a little sister. Big brother Epic keeps
> doing its thing - giving away free games once a week - and every now
> and then GOG has to do the same. Except its efforts - while not
> unappreciated - are always less spectacular, and maybe a little bit
> embarrassing.

> Case in point, this give-away. This time they're offering
> "Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory"
> (https://www.gog.com/en/game/wolfenstein_enemy_territory ), which is a
> great game and it's nice to see it being made available... except it's
> not much of a give-away because it's /always/ been a free game. From
> Day One it was offered gratis. It's been free on Steam for ages. So
> for GOG to plaster it on their front page as some awesomely generous
> charity is... well, it's sort of sad.

> It's a good game, though. I don't know how active it is - it's a
> multiplayer-only game so user count is important - but its worth
> taking a look. It was an influential game that helped push multiplayer
> beyond simple deathmatch towards more involved game-types, after all,
> and its DNA is in pretty much every online-FPS since. I'm happy to add
> it (again) to my library.

--
"I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart." --Psalm 40:8. Another death again. :~(
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 21 Oct 2022 16:10:26 +0100, "yerr" <me@wherever.com> wrote:

>I used to play WolfET a bunch back during its heyday in the 00s.
>What ruined the game, or rather made it worse, were the players
>themselves in how they modded the game to include useless things. Often
>servers had their own mods to add some personality, which was fine, but
>others took it even further and even modded the menu in the game and
>even sometimes interfered with the server browser itself.
>I typically filtered servers to exclude these kinds of minds as best I
>could.
>
>My favorite mod was ETpro.
>
>An excellent game but today most servers, at leats when I tried it a few
>years ago, had bots not many real players.

A shame, but not unexpected.

I wasn't as dedicated to ET as you. By 2003, I was already starting to
bow out of online shooters; the genre was just getting too repetitive
and online battles for the sake of battling online was quickly losing
its appeal (Hurrah, our team won the match. Ooh, the excitement.). I
really appreciated how W:ET was trying to add more impact and meaning
to the hobby with its more mission-based design and character classes,
but it really wasn't enough to keep me at it for very long. I liked it
more as a technical/design achievement than as a game.

Certainly I didn't hang around long enough to see mods take over.

So my praise of it remains somewhat distant and while I think it
deserves to be in people's library because of its historical import
(it's worth looking at it), I'm not sure it's a game worth /playing/
anymore. All of its worthwhile evolutions have been adopted by modern
online shooters, and its aging graphics and gameplay (not to mention,
you know, the lack of playerbase) will probably annoy more than they
please.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:24:37 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> On 21 Oct 2022 16:10:26 +0100, "yerr" <me@wherever.com> wrote:
>
> >I used to play WolfET a bunch back during its heyday in the 00s.
> >What ruined the game, or rather made it worse, were the players
> >themselves in how they modded the game to include useless things. Often
> >servers had their own mods to add some personality, which was fine, but
> >others took it even further and even modded the menu in the game and
> >even sometimes interfered with the server browser itself.
> >I typically filtered servers to exclude these kinds of minds as best I
> >could.
> >
> >My favorite mod was ETpro.
> >
> >An excellent game but today most servers, at leats when I tried it a few
> >years ago, had bots not many real players.
>
> A shame, but not unexpected.
>
> I wasn't as dedicated to ET as you. By 2003, I was already starting to
> bow out of online shooters; the genre was just getting too repetitive
> and online battles for the sake of battling online was quickly losing
> its appeal (Hurrah, our team won the match. Ooh, the excitement.). I
> really appreciated how W:ET was trying to add more impact and meaning
> to the hobby with its more mission-based design and character classes,
> but it really wasn't enough to keep me at it for very long. I liked it
> more as a technical/design achievement than as a game.
>
> Certainly I didn't hang around long enough to see mods take over.
>
> So my praise of it remains somewhat distant and while I think it
> deserves to be in people's library because of its historical import
> (it's worth looking at it), I'm not sure it's a game worth /playing/
> anymore. All of its worthwhile evolutions have been adopted by modern
> online shooters, and its aging graphics and gameplay (not to mention,
> you know, the lack of playerbase) will probably annoy more than they
> please.
>
>

I'd still highly recommend giving WolfET a try, preferably on
etlegacy.com engine which makes the game run better on modern machines,
as well as bug fixes. It's free, doesn't hurt to try :>

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 7:24:57 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2022 16:10:26 +0100, "yerr" <m...@wherever.com> wrote:
>
> >I used to play WolfET a bunch back during its heyday in the 00s.
> >What ruined the game, or rather made it worse, were the players
> >themselves in how they modded the game to include useless things. Often
> >servers had their own mods to add some personality, which was fine, but
> >others took it even further and even modded the menu in the game and
> >even sometimes interfered with the server browser itself.
> >I typically filtered servers to exclude these kinds of minds as best I
> >could.
> >
> >My favorite mod was ETpro.
> >
> >An excellent game but today most servers, at leats when I tried it a few
> >years ago, had bots not many real players.
> A shame, but not unexpected.
>
> I wasn't as dedicated to ET as you. By 2003, I was already starting to
> bow out of online shooters; the genre was just getting too repetitive
> and online battles for the sake of battling online was quickly losing
> its appeal (Hurrah, our team won the match. Ooh, the excitement.). I
> really appreciated how W:ET was trying to add more impact and meaning
> to the hobby with its more mission-based design and character classes,
> but it really wasn't enough to keep me at it for very long. I liked it
> more as a technical/design achievement than as a game.
>
> Certainly I didn't hang around long enough to see mods take over.
>
> So my praise of it remains somewhat distant and while I think it
> deserves to be in people's library because of its historical import
> (it's worth looking at it), I'm not sure it's a game worth /playing/
> anymore. All of its worthwhile evolutions have been adopted by modern
> online shooters, and its aging graphics and gameplay (not to mention,
> you know, the lack of playerbase) will probably annoy more than they
> please.

The only online PVP FPS I ever played with any longevity was Counterstrike,
which was fun for a bit, but after about 6 months of off and on, and mostly
because a friend played it, it waned and I've no desire for PVP FPS ever
again.

- Justisaur

On 24/10/2022 17:36, Justisaur wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 7:24:57 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2022 16:10:26 +0100, "yerr" <m...@wherever.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I used to play WolfET a bunch back during its heyday in the 00s.
>>> What ruined the game, or rather made it worse, were the players
>>> themselves in how they modded the game to include useless things. Often
>>> servers had their own mods to add some personality, which was fine, but
>>> others took it even further and even modded the menu in the game and
>>> even sometimes interfered with the server browser itself.
>>> I typically filtered servers to exclude these kinds of minds as best I
>>> could.
>>>
>>> My favorite mod was ETpro.
>>>
>>> An excellent game but today most servers, at leats when I tried it a few
>>> years ago, had bots not many real players.
>> A shame, but not unexpected.
>>
>> I wasn't as dedicated to ET as you. By 2003, I was already starting to
>> bow out of online shooters; the genre was just getting too repetitive
>> and online battles for the sake of battling online was quickly losing
>> its appeal (Hurrah, our team won the match. Ooh, the excitement.). I
>> really appreciated how W:ET was trying to add more impact and meaning
>> to the hobby with its more mission-based design and character classes,
>> but it really wasn't enough to keep me at it for very long. I liked it
>> more as a technical/design achievement than as a game.
>>
>> Certainly I didn't hang around long enough to see mods take over.
>>
>> So my praise of it remains somewhat distant and while I think it
>> deserves to be in people's library because of its historical import
>> (it's worth looking at it), I'm not sure it's a game worth /playing/
>> anymore. All of its worthwhile evolutions have been adopted by modern
>> online shooters, and its aging graphics and gameplay (not to mention,
>> you know, the lack of playerbase) will probably annoy more than they
>> please.
>
> The only online PVP FPS I ever played with any longevity was Counterstrike,
> which was fun for a bit, but after about 6 months of off and on, and mostly
> because a friend played it, it waned and I've no desire for PVP FPS ever
> again.
>

I did try CS:Source but rapidly gave up as basically I just died all the
time and very, very quickly. Oh how much fun I having with yet another
player bouncing around the corner and head shotting me.

Ones that I played far more were Medal of Honour, Call of Duty and my
favourite of all, Team Fortress 2. They just seemed far more laid back
and relaxed that CS:S. I did try and get into Day of Defeat:Source but
although I could see there was a good game there it was just one of
those ones that I think you need to put the effort in to get the reward.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 08:58:54 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 24/10/2022 17:36, Justisaur wrote:

>> The only online PVP FPS I ever played with any longevity was Counterstrike,
>> which was fun for a bit, but after about 6 months of off and on, and mostly
>> because a friend played it, it waned and I've no desire for PVP FPS ever
>> again.
>>
>
>I did try CS:Source but rapidly gave up as basically I just died all the
>time and very, very quickly. Oh how much fun I having with yet another
>player bouncing around the corner and head shotting me.
>
>Ones that I played far more were Medal of Honour, Call of Duty and my
>favourite of all, Team Fortress 2. They just seemed far more laid back
>and relaxed that CS:S. I did try and get into Day of Defeat:Source but
>although I could see there was a good game there it was just one of
>those ones that I think you need to put the effort in to get the reward.

If there's one genre that you need to get day-1, it's online shooters.
Wait too long and it's going to fill up with either die-hards (who
know every twist of the map and all the best stratagems) or cheaters.
Six months into any online-shooters game and all the casuals who are
just playing the game for simple fun are gone, and trying to learn and
explore your new game becomes a frustrating experience as you get shot
through the head by somebody across the map.

I gotta admit, I never saw the appeal of Counterstrike... or at least,
never understood why it was so much more appealing than any of its
near-identical contemporanies. Certainly I cannot imagine trying to
break into it today.

I did enjoy "Day of Defeat", even if it did sometimes feel like an
also-ran for "W:ET". It was a bit heavier on bunny-hopping tactics
than I'd have liked, but on the whole it was a satisfying mixture of
realism and gamifie mechanics.