I've mixed feelings about the "Command & Conquer" franchise. On the
one hand, it was undeniably a ground-breaking game when it first
released in 1995. It had solid gameplay but its production values -
right from the start, with its installation program! - were what
really set it apart from its rivals. Its immediate sequels were quite
fun too - "Red Alert" was imaginative in setting (oh, and the
acting!!!!) - and "Command & Conquer 2" added new mechanics and an
improved engine.

But with each passing sequel, the magic started to drain away and by
the time "Command & Conquer 4" was released, I struggled to fight my
way through the campaign, driven more by a need to 'finish the fight'
than any real interest in how the game played or what the story was
about.

Still, there's a nugget of love for the franchise lodged in my heart,
so the announcement of an 'Ultimate Collection' bringing the whole
thing to modern computers - and Steam! - couldn't help but install a
bit of lust.
(see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )

Especially since the whole thing can be had for under a tenner (in
American money, at least). That's value on the dollar!

Of course, calling it the "Ultimate Collection" is a bit of a
misnomer, since its missing the 'remastered' versions of C&C1 and the
first Red Alert game. AFAIK, these are just the original games -
tweaked to work on modern operating systems. It isn't really a single
bundled game either; you're just buying all 12 games for a reduced
price.

I'm not complaining, though. I still own a number of these titles
/only/ on CD-ROMs, so having an easily-installed digital download
alone is worth the price to me. I might not get much playtime out of
the bundle, but it'll be nice to revist the games, even if only
briefly.

Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:58 this Friday (GMT):
>
> I've mixed feelings about the "Command & Conquer" franchise. On the
> one hand, it was undeniably a ground-breaking game when it first
> released in 1995. It had solid gameplay but its production values -
> right from the start, with its installation program! - were what
> really set it apart from its rivals. Its immediate sequels were quite
> fun too - "Red Alert" was imaginative in setting (oh, and the
> acting!!!!) - and "Command & Conquer 2" added new mechanics and an
> improved engine.
>
> But with each passing sequel, the magic started to drain away and by
> the time "Command & Conquer 4" was released, I struggled to fight my
> way through the campaign, driven more by a need to 'finish the fight'
> than any real interest in how the game played or what the story was
> about.
>
> Still, there's a nugget of love for the franchise lodged in my heart,
> so the announcement of an 'Ultimate Collection' bringing the whole
> thing to modern computers - and Steam! - couldn't help but install a
> bit of lust.
> (see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )
>
> Especially since the whole thing can be had for under a tenner (in
> American money, at least). That's value on the dollar!
>
> Of course, calling it the "Ultimate Collection" is a bit of a
> misnomer, since its missing the 'remastered' versions of C&C1 and the
> first Red Alert game. AFAIK, these are just the original games -
> tweaked to work on modern operating systems. It isn't really a single
> bundled game either; you're just buying all 12 games for a reduced
> price.
>
> I'm not complaining, though. I still own a number of these titles
> /only/ on CD-ROMs, so having an easily-installed digital download
> alone is worth the price to me. I might not get much playtime out of the bundle, but it'll be nice to revist the games, even if only
> briefly.
>
> Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?

As someone who has never played (or really heard much about) C&C,
that does sound quite a bit lazy on the part of EA. Though,
of course, it is nice to have games on a digital format, especially
since most computers don't have a disk drive anymore.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:00:08 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:58 this Friday (GMT):

>> Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
>
>As someone who has never played (or really heard much about) C&C,
>that does sound quite a bit lazy on the part of EA. Though,
>of course, it is nice to have games on a digital format, especially
>since most computers don't have a disk drive anymore.

On the plus side, the collection /does/ include "Command & Conquer:
Renegade", the oft-overlooked FPS spin-off. That was so surprising
that I had to go back and re-write my original post because I assumed
that - once again - it wasn't included in the bundle, because in the
past it never has been.

EA has never been very big on putting a lot of effort into
re-releasing its older games, but at least it does release them. And
the bundle is pretty good if you enjoy the games, including not only
the base titles but all the many, many expansions. It's far more
complete than any other previous compilations.

(It /is/ missing the 'Sole Survivor' game, a multiplayer-only version
of C&C released in 1997, but reports are that it was extremely tied to
Win95 architecture, was difficult to port, and wasn't a very good game
to begin with. So I'll forgive this particular lapse ;-)

That EA chose to release them as individual games rather than as an
actual all-in-one bundle is actually a point in its favor, as far as
I'm concerned. I'd much rather have the games listed separately in my
library than all collected into a 'Ultimate C&C' game. I'm much
happier installing each game individually at need than having to
install the entire bunch all at once.

AFAIK none of the games require EA/Origin either, which is surprising.
Normally EA is quick to shove their launcher into our faces, but these
games start directly from Steam and don't even launch EA/Origin in the
background. The only exception is C&C4. It doesn't use Origin either,
but it does require an EA/C&C account to play. In fairness, this was a
limitation of the original game too (it's one of the reason it's the
most hated game in the franchise).

But mostly it's just nice having the complete series on Steam. The
original remains a blast to play (even in all its pixelated glory) and
I eagerly await getting to the part in Red Alert where Tim Curry
escapes into 'spaaace'.

C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too

rms

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:14:31 -0700, "rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net>
wrote:

>C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too

But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)

I was underwhelmed by the remasters. There's something much more
appealing about the crunchy visuals of the original. The remasters
were too smooth; it looked like a Flash game from the mid-2000s. It
was an inconguous match to the old-school gameplay.

I'm much happier playing the original games with their original
visuals.

Although the upscaled cinematics of the remasters were nice. I'm fine
with pixelated sprites, but the huge blocks in heavily compressed
video are an eyesore.

>>C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too
>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)

My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA
launcher? Or is that wrong

rms

rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote at 17:22 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too
>>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
>
> My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA
> launcher? Or is that wrong
>
> rms

Apparently, this collection doesn't.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote at 17:22 this Sunday (GMT):
> >>>C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too
> >>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
> >
> > My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA
> > launcher? Or is that wrong
> >
> > rms

> Apparently, this collection doesn't.

Can it still play online for multiplayers?
--
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.' Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.'" ???Galatians 3:10-11. Can we pls keep PDT 4eva? Still achy. :) Mar10 day!
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| |
\ _ /
( )

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?

I seriously doubt I will. I remember playing a few missions of the first
remastered C&C before losing interest, some time ago.

But was the Remastered Collection free? I guess cheap since it goes for
6.99 euros currently.

Anyways, last time I was really into C&C was C&C3 and that was way back
in 2007. I remember the single player campaign on GDI side was pretty
hard but the balance was skewed in favor of vehicles so I could fend off
the computer guided NOD hordes fairly easily by just parking a couple of
APCs on bridges or some other choke points and as soon as they upgraded
themselves to self healing elite status, it was all fine.

Later patches changed that balance so I'm just horrified as to how good
I'd need to be to beat the campaign now.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:48:59 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

>candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote at 17:22 this Sunday (GMT):
>> >>>C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too
>> >>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
>> >
>> > My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA
>> > launcher? Or is that wrong
>> >
>> > rms
>
>> Apparently, this collection doesn't.

I installed and ran the following games in the bundle from Steam:

Command & Conquer (original); Command & Conquer:
Tiberian Sun; Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Wars,
Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath; Command & Conquer:
Generals, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 - Uprising;
Command & Conquer: Renegade

None of them launched EA/Origin. As mentioned in an earlier post, C&C4
did demand I create an account to run the game but it did this without
the EA App. This was a restriction of the original game when it
released in 2010.

>Can it still play online for multiplayers?

From what I can tell, no, you can't.

Specifically, I can attest that neither C&C2, C&C Generals, C&C
Renegade, nor Red Alert 3: Uprising have working multiplayer. Some
require services no longer available (such as Gamespot); others just
don't work. Attempting to utilize multiplayer in RA3: Uprising, for
instance, just crashes the game.

(Although some games do have LAN multiplayer modes, and those may
still work. However, I haven't tested to see if any of them are
actually functional. But I wouldn't count on any of these working over
the Internet)

There are a number of fan patches which re-enable multiplayer support,
but a) they aren't included in the bundle, and b) I haven't tested the
patches, so I've no idea how well they work. If playing these games
online is the most important thing to you, I'd recommend you research
the issue first. Myself, I'm more interested in revisiting the
single-player campaigns.

With these releases, EA largely limited themselves to just making
sure the games will run on Win10/11, and work through Steam. In this,
it looks like they succeeded admirably. But these are in no way
remasters; they're the same clunky early 2000s games you probably
already own on CD-ROM. They just are easier to install and won't bitch
about running on an OS newer than WindowsXP anymore. Still, at only a
couple bucks a game (or $10 USD for the lot) I think that's a fair
price for what you get.

Although maybe they could have knocked off an extra few dollars for
making us take C&C4. That was /such/ an awful game. ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 23:07 this Monday (GMT):
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:48:59 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>
>>candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote at 17:22 this Sunday (GMT):
>>> >>>C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too
>>> >>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
>>> >
>>> > My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA
>>> > launcher? Or is that wrong
>>> >
>>> > rms
>>
>>> Apparently, this collection doesn't.
>
> I installed and ran the following games in the bundle from Steam:
>
> Command & Conquer (original); Command & Conquer:
> Tiberian Sun; Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Wars,
> Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath; Command & Conquer:
> Generals, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 - Uprising;
> Command & Conquer: Renegade
>
> None of them launched EA/Origin. As mentioned in an earlier post, C&C4
> did demand I create an account to run the game but it did this without
> the EA App. This was a restriction of the original game when it
> released in 2010.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Can it still play online for multiplayers?
>
> From what I can tell, no, you can't.
>
> Specifically, I can attest that neither C&C2, C&C Generals, C&C
> Renegade, nor Red Alert 3: Uprising have working multiplayer. Some
> require services no longer available (such as Gamespot); others just
> don't work. Attempting to utilize multiplayer in RA3: Uprising, for
> instance, just crashes the game.
>
> (Although some games do have LAN multiplayer modes, and those may
> still work. However, I haven't tested to see if any of them are
> actually functional. But I wouldn't count on any of these working over
> the Internet)
>
> There are a number of fan patches which re-enable multiplayer support,
> but a) they aren't included in the bundle, and b) I haven't tested the
> patches, so I've no idea how well they work. If playing these games
> online is the most important thing to you, I'd recommend you research
> the issue first. Myself, I'm more interested in revisiting the
> single-player campaigns.

Bit sad that they didn't revive the online services..

> With these releases, EA largely limited themselves to just making
> sure the games will run on Win10/11, and work through Steam. In this,
> it looks like they succeeded admirably. But these are in no way
> remasters; they're the same clunky early 2000s games you probably
> already own on CD-ROM. They just are easier to install and won't bitch
> about running on an OS newer than WindowsXP anymore. Still, at only a
> couple bucks a game (or $10 USD for the lot) I think that's a fair
> price for what you get.
>
>
>
>
> Although maybe they could have knocked off an extra few dollars for
> making us take C&C4. That was /such/ an awful game. ;-)

Negative value?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:01:57 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 23:07 this Monday (GMT):

>>>Can it still play online for multiplayers?

>> From what I can tell, no, you can't.

>Bit sad that they didn't revive the online services..

Understandable, though. They'd have to invest in recreating not only
the software but the entire infrastructure of services like Gamespy or
MPlayer.com, and there's little financial advantage for their doing
so. Especially since there are fan-made patches that do the same, and
are being maintained for free by the end-users.

Trust a mega-corp to always take the cheaper route. ;-)

>> Although maybe they could have knocked off an extra few dollars for
>> making us take C&C4. That was /such/ an awful game. ;-)

>Negative value?

Yes.

It wasn't just that the game entirely changed how C&C played and felt.

It wasn't just the mandatory online account.

It was that the game just wasn't fun to play. EA was so fixated on
transforming the franchise - the sheen had long since worn off, and
C&C's popularity in 2010 was tiny compared to what it had been a
decade earlier - that they desperately tried to shoehorn in new
mechanics without ensuring they were making an entertaining game. It
was a tedious chore to play, and had none of the charm of the earlier
titles. The only reason to play C&C4 was to see how the story ended...
and even then, it wasn't a satisfying narrative.

If pressed, I'd have to admit it wasn't TERRIBLE. The game ran, it had
competent (if dull) gameplay, and the production values were above
average. But even for a fallen franchise like C&C, "Tiberium Twilight"
was sub-par. The series deserved to go out better than it did. That's
probably why it's left such a sour taste in my mouth.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:01:57 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 23:07 this Monday (GMT):
>
>
>>>>Can it still play online for multiplayers?
>
>>> From what I can tell, no, you can't.
>
>>Bit sad that they didn't revive the online services..
>
> Understandable, though. They'd have to invest in recreating not only
> the software but the entire infrastructure of services like Gamespy or
> MPlayer.com, and there's little financial advantage for their doing
> so. Especially since there are fan-made patches that do the same, and
> are being maintained for free by the end-users.
>
> Trust a mega-corp to always take the cheaper route. ;-)

And to shut down fan's efforts to do it.

>>> Although maybe they could have knocked off an extra few dollars for
>>> making us take C&C4. That was /such/ an awful game. ;-)
>
>>Negative value?
>
> Yes.
>
> It wasn't just that the game entirely changed how C&C played and felt.
>
> It wasn't just the mandatory online account.
>
> It was that the game just wasn't fun to play. EA was so fixated on
> transforming the franchise - the sheen had long since worn off, and
> C&C's popularity in 2010 was tiny compared to what it had been a
> decade earlier - that they desperately tried to shoehorn in new
> mechanics without ensuring they were making an entertaining game. It
> was a tedious chore to play, and had none of the charm of the earlier
> titles. The only reason to play C&C4 was to see how the story ended...
> and even then, it wasn't a satisfying narrative.
>
> If pressed, I'd have to admit it wasn't TERRIBLE. The game ran, it had
> competent (if dull) gameplay, and the production values were above
> average. But even for a fallen franchise like C&C, "Tiberium Twilight"
> was sub-par. The series deserved to go out better than it did. That's
> probably why it's left such a sour taste in my mouth.

Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
Star..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):

>Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
>times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
>Star..

It's an understandable happenstance.

Game is popular. Customers want more. Developer makes sequel that's
the original game but gussied up. Game sells well. Customers want more
(but hey, maybe add a few new features?). Developer makes new game
with new features. Game sells well... but not as well as original.
Customers happy, but starting to eye other games. Still, they want
more. Developer makes new game, adds even more new features. Core
audience happy, but sales are down. Publishers panic; franchise dying!
Quick, do something! Developers revamp game dramatically, often with a
much smaller budget (because last game didn't sell that well and
publisher confidence is low) and with less time to test. But popular
franchise name and "new" is all that's needed, right? Customers hate
it, game bombs.

(Twenty years later, remaster old game, maybe reboot franchise)

This problem becomes exagerated if the franchise is farmed out between
different developers, some of whom may not really understand what made
the original so captivating in the same place.

What so many developers - and gamers - forget is that there's a
limited longevity to games. The tastes and trends that made a game so
popular originally won't necessarily apply in five or ten years.
Similarly, a franchise is often associated with certain ideas and
mechanics, and if you stray too far from them, you'll alienate your
core audience, and if you stick too closely, you won't attract new
customers. The end result: you can't keep milking a franchise and
expecting it to sell indefinitely. It's better in the long run - for
both developer and customer - to start investing in a new IP (bolster
it by saying, "created by developers who made Old IP!") than dragging
out an old franchise long past its sell date.

There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)

On 14/03/2024 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
> times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
> Star..

I think sequels are hard as, well at least for me, what makes the
original game so special is that it was doing something a bit new and a
sequel just won't have that. A couple of exceptions I can think of are
Combat Mission II:Barbarossa to Berlin and Close Combat III: The Russian
Front. Both of them improved a formula that I really liked but the big
draw was they were based on the Eastern Front which I just find more
interesting. Oh and a special mention to FO:NV.

Most of the time though, I know I'm not going to enjoy it as much as the
game that came before.

On 3/15/2024 6:26 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
> have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
> being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
> was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
> never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
> begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
> lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)
>
"I can kill my friends while being Rambo!!!"

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

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 14:01 this Friday (GMT):
> On 14/03/2024 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
>> times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
>> Star..
>
> I think sequels are hard as, well at least for me, what makes the
> original game so special is that it was doing something a bit new and a
> sequel just won't have that. A couple of exceptions I can think of are
> Combat Mission II:Barbarossa to Berlin and Close Combat III: The Russian
> Front. Both of them improved a formula that I really liked but the big
> draw was they were based on the Eastern Front which I just find more
> interesting. Oh and a special mention to FO:NV.
>
> Most of the time though, I know I'm not going to enjoy it as much as the
> game that came before.

*Sometimes* sequels are actually good, but it usually seems like a way
to make more money off the brand.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:26 this Friday (GMT):
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):
>
>
>>Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
>>times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
>>Star..
>
> It's an understandable happenstance.
>
> Game is popular. Customers want more. Developer makes sequel that's
> the original game but gussied up. Game sells well. Customers want more
> (but hey, maybe add a few new features?). Developer makes new game
> with new features. Game sells well... but not as well as original.
> Customers happy, but starting to eye other games. Still, they want
> more. Developer makes new game, adds even more new features. Core
> audience happy, but sales are down. Publishers panic; franchise dying!
> Quick, do something! Developers revamp game dramatically, often with a
> much smaller budget (because last game didn't sell that well and
> publisher confidence is low) and with less time to test. But popular
> franchise name and "new" is all that's needed, right? Customers hate
> it, game bombs.
>
> (Twenty years later, remaster old game, maybe reboot franchise)
>
> This problem becomes exagerated if the franchise is farmed out between
> different developers, some of whom may not really understand what made
> the original so captivating in the same place.
>
> What so many developers - and gamers - forget is that there's a
> limited longevity to games. The tastes and trends that made a game so
> popular originally won't necessarily apply in five or ten years.
> Similarly, a franchise is often associated with certain ideas and
> mechanics, and if you stray too far from them, you'll alienate your
> core audience, and if you stick too closely, you won't attract new
> customers. The end result: you can't keep milking a franchise and
> expecting it to sell indefinitely. It's better in the long run - for
> both developer and customer - to start investing in a new IP (bolster
> it by saying, "created by developers who made Old IP!") than dragging
> out an old franchise long past its sell date.
>
> There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
> have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
> being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
> was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
> never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
> begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
> lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)

COD is probably surviving off the brand and nostalgia? FF seems
interesting, but I prefer the Mario RPGS (and PMD) (and Earthbound/M3)
(and undertale/deltarune) over the traditional stuff.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:40:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:26 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>
>>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>
>>
>>>Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
>>>times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
>>>Star..
>>
>> It's an understandable happenstance.
>>
>> Game is popular. Customers want more. Developer makes sequel that's
>> the original game but gussied up. Game sells well. Customers want more
>> (but hey, maybe add a few new features?). Developer makes new game
>> with new features. Game sells well... but not as well as original.
>> Customers happy, but starting to eye other games. Still, they want
>> more. Developer makes new game, adds even more new features. Core
>> audience happy, but sales are down. Publishers panic; franchise dying!
>> Quick, do something! Developers revamp game dramatically, often with a
>> much smaller budget (because last game didn't sell that well and
>> publisher confidence is low) and with less time to test. But popular
>> franchise name and "new" is all that's needed, right? Customers hate
>> it, game bombs.
>>
>> (Twenty years later, remaster old game, maybe reboot franchise)
>>
>> This problem becomes exagerated if the franchise is farmed out between
>> different developers, some of whom may not really understand what made
>> the original so captivating in the same place.
>>
>> What so many developers - and gamers - forget is that there's a
>> limited longevity to games. The tastes and trends that made a game so
>> popular originally won't necessarily apply in five or ten years.
>> Similarly, a franchise is often associated with certain ideas and
>> mechanics, and if you stray too far from them, you'll alienate your
>> core audience, and if you stick too closely, you won't attract new
>> customers. The end result: you can't keep milking a franchise and
>> expecting it to sell indefinitely. It's better in the long run - for
>> both developer and customer - to start investing in a new IP (bolster
>> it by saying, "created by developers who made Old IP!") than dragging
>> out an old franchise long past its sell date.
>>
>> There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
>> have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
>> being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
>> was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
>> never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
>> begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
>> lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)
>
>COD is probably surviving off the brand and nostalgia? FF seems
>interesting, but I prefer the Mario RPGS (and PMD) (and Earthbound/M3)
>(and undertale/deltarune) over the traditional stuff.

It's not really that. COD always provided good multiplayer for the
crowd that enjoys a good hand-eye-coordination challenge. It's always
been more twitch than tactical.. I can't even call it tactical at all
because everything moves that fast. But, for those that like the
genre they seemed to have tapped into a recycleable formula:

1-Vary the maps
2-Improve graphics (slightly) over time
3-Retain the basic mechanics, but tweak them slightly so the player
feels they are somewhere new

Within the realm of this genre of multiplayer shooter, that's "all"
they have to keep doing. I put "all" in quotes because keeping things
feeling new and different given a set of constraints and finite
variables is not as easy to do as some would have you to believe.

It's a lot like music production.. there are only a certain number of
musical chords and scales available (possible) on a given instrument.
What makes the difference in the final outcome is how each note is
played. A really talented artist knows how to add something that the
listener both relates to, yet at the same time finds newness in. A
mega-talented artist knows how to take basic elements the listener is
already familiar with, and send them somewhere new they'll never
forget. Problem is, the incentives for the "mega-talented" have been
diminishing for a long time now, so in certain genres at least, the
pool of options has been diminishing for some time.

COD, for whatever reason (maybe good funding for talent? maybe good
management?) has been doing a reasonable job of at least delivering
consistency to its fans. Yeah it's sort of the same ole in terms of
gameplay but it's become kind of a dependable staple.

COD sort of reminds me of the "Tom Petty" of the gaming world. Not
everybody was a fan, but if you did appreciate his work, my god... his
ability to deliver more of same was like this never-ending flow that
kept giving decade after decade. Then he was gone, all at once. That
seems to have happened to the Battlefield franchise, I hope it doesn't
happen to the COD franchise as well.

But no... for those like me who still enjoy it, and the mental
benefits of keeping our twitch skills current (hand-eye coordination
fends off dementia supposedly.. or at least we use that as an excuse
:).. It's not just nostalgia. In fact in the latest release, there
are a lot of remastered maps from MW3. I'd rather see them create new
maps. I think they concluded that the old ones were designed better
than the Gen Zs of today were capable of, thus recycled them with a
facelift. And that may not be a good omen for gaming in the long run,
but for those that like COD, its not a bad release at all.

On 15/03/2024 20:40, candycanearter07 wrote:
> JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 14:01 this Friday (GMT):
>> On 14/03/2024 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
>>> times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
>>> Star..
>>
>> I think sequels are hard as, well at least for me, what makes the
>> original game so special is that it was doing something a bit new and a
>> sequel just won't have that. A couple of exceptions I can think of are
>> Combat Mission II:Barbarossa to Berlin and Close Combat III: The Russian
>> Front. Both of them improved a formula that I really liked but the big
>> draw was they were based on the Eastern Front which I just find more
>> interesting. Oh and a special mention to FO:NV.
>>
>> Most of the time though, I know I'm not going to enjoy it as much as the
>> game that came before.
>
> *Sometimes* sequels are actually good, but it usually seems like a way
> to make more money off the brand.

Oh don't get me wrong they can be good but for me it's pretty rare that
they surpass the original. Did I like BG:II, yes I did but it couldn't
capture the magic of BG:I. It also didn't help that I find that D&D
starts to break down when you get to higher levels as the game starts
being dominated by magic/skills and balanced encounters start going out
the window.

You see it the same in films/TV, how many sequels would you find better
than the original. I can think of ones that I would say were good but
better, not sure about that. Then you have sequels where they seem to
have completely forgotten what made the original special, Das Boot is
top of my list for that. It was all about just some ordinary men going
about their basically mundane tasks punctuated with sheer terror. That
just wasn't there in the re-boot.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:11:01 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Oh don't get me wrong they can be good but for me it's pretty rare that
>they surpass the original. Did I like BG:II, yes I did but it couldn't
>capture the magic of BG:I. It also didn't help that I find that D&D
>starts to break down when you get to higher levels as the game starts
>being dominated by magic/skills and balanced encounters start going out
>the window.

I like the way you worded that. I liked BG2 but it just didn't
'capture the magic' of the first one for me either. And I think the
reason for that, at least in part, (as you mention here as well) is I
prefer the low level game more where D&D is concerned. There are so
many +2 and +3 weapons in the game, it just started getting a bit
silly to me.

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> I've mixed feelings about the "Command & Conquer" franchise. On the
> one hand, it was undeniably a ground-breaking game when it first
> released in 1995. It had solid gameplay but its production values -
> right from the start, with its installation program! - were what
> really set it apart from its rivals. Its immediate sequels were quite
> fun too - "Red Alert" was imaginative in setting (oh, and the
> acting!!!!) - and "Command & Conquer 2" added new mechanics and an
> improved engine.
>
> But with each passing sequel, the magic started to drain away and by
> the time "Command & Conquer 4" was released, I struggled to fight my
> way through the campaign, driven more by a need to 'finish the fight'
> than any real interest in how the game played or what the story was
> about.
>
> Still, there's a nugget of love for the franchise lodged in my heart,
> so the announcement of an 'Ultimate Collection' bringing the whole
> thing to modern computers - and Steam! - couldn't help but install a
> bit of lust.
> (see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )
>
> Especially since the whole thing can be had for under a tenner (in
> American money, at least). That's value on the dollar!
>
> Of course, calling it the "Ultimate Collection" is a bit of a
> misnomer, since its missing the 'remastered' versions of C&C1 and the
> first Red Alert game. AFAIK, these are just the original games -
> tweaked to work on modern operating systems. It isn't really a single
> bundled game either; you're just buying all 12 games for a reduced
> price.
>
> I'm not complaining, though. I still own a number of these titles
> /only/ on CD-ROMs, so having an easily-installed digital download
> alone is worth the price to me. I might not get much playtime out of
> the bundle, but it'll be nice to revist the games, even if only
> briefly.
>
> Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
>
>
>
>
>
You are wicked to dangle this carrot in front of my eyes.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:32:08 -0500, Lane Larson
<lnlarson@stoat.inhoin.edu> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> (see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )

>> Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?

>You are wicked to dangle this carrot in front of my eyes.

C'mon, get it. You know you want it. All those games, and so
inexpensive too! Think of how happy this will make The Number! How can
you resist? Do it, do it, do it!

>;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 21:59 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:32:08 -0500, Lane Larson
><lnlarson@stoat.inhoin.edu> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> (see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )
>
>>> Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
>
>>You are wicked to dangle this carrot in front of my eyes.
>
> C'mon, get it. You know you want it. All those games, and so
> inexpensive too! Think of how happy this will make The Number! How can
> you resist? Do it, do it, do it!
>
>>;-)

The all-consuming number
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom