Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> And you? What Have You Been Playing... IN JULY 2022?

Tried to get into Prey but I'm not sure. It didn't really grab me.

A little Borderlands 3, enough that I finished second playthrough with
my little mecha trooper. Still munchkin, which is kind of odd. Then
again, if the fights had been harder I would've quit.

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> writes:

> I don't want to get into spoilers here, I might save that for it's own
> thread but suffice it to say to those who love RPGs for the R, this
> is an absolute must buy even at full price. I'd also strongly
> suggest playing a male Nomad if you haven't.

Maybe it's worth a second playthrough. I played as female corpo but I
felt no connection to anything. Maybe I was asking for it playing corpo
though.

But I just found things in Cyberpunk 2077 mostly mediocre or
poor. Combat was OK to me, by the numbers cover shooter. Skill tree was
more of a thorny bush where I had no idea where to put points. Didn't
seem to matter much though.

Writing was mostly meh where the interesting bits were mostly
yesterday's cyberpunk tropes warmed over.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2022 16:26:24 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>> And you? What Have You Been Playing... IN JULY 2022?

>Tried to get into Prey but I'm not sure. It didn't really grab me.

Prey (2006) or Prey (2017)?

Ehn, it doesn't matter. I didn't warm up to either game.

But both had their moments; the 2006 game was imaginative, had some
interesting visuals and its portal technology was a neat gimmick for
its time. But it's story was silly and I couldn't engage with its
gunplay. It was - at best - an average game, even when new, and it
hasn't aged well in the decade-plus since its release.

The 2017 game was... well, it was an Arkane Studios game, and I've
never really been able to get into them. But I think that's more an
issue of taste than a fault with the game; I can understand why some
people rave about it even if I don't feel the same emotion. It's
partly the art style, partly the over-reliance on "sandbox combat"
(e.g., all the obvious spikes and pits and oil pools that you can
trigger as traps during a fight), and partly the low-key plot heavily
dependent on your scrounging all the hidden audio-logs to make sense
of it all.* I played - and finished - "Prey (2017)" but it was a real
struggle for me to keep going to the end.

-------------------
* God, I hate this trope. I was novel in 1995 when System Shock did
it, but it's so, so tired now. If I never had to read another
audio-log again, I'd be happy.

>A little Borderlands 3, enough that I finished second playthrough with
>my little mecha trooper. Still munchkin, which is kind of odd. Then
>again, if the fights had been harder I would've quit.

And frakkin long! Gonarch's Lair is pretty, huge, and long! :O

Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Speaking of Black Mesa, Xen is a beautiful scary world. :O

> Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> > I briefly played Northgard, Hard West, Black Mesa, etc. Not playing much.

> > Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Argh... the hardest part of these threads is thinking on how to start
> > > them. There's only so many ways I can say "a month has just ended so
> > > let's list the games we've played", and over the past decade-plus, I
> > > think I've used most of them. So let's skip the small-talk and just
> > > dive right into the games.
....
--
Xen is a beautiful scary world! Uh oh! Another war soon? Dang old leaks, spams, bodies, crashes, etc. :( Quiet week again before a slammy next week?
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:

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2022 16:26:24 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>>> And you? What Have You Been Playing... IN JULY 2022?
>
>>Tried to get into Prey but I'm not sure. It didn't really grab me.
>
> Prey (2006) or Prey (2017)?
>
> Ehn, it doesn't matter. I didn't warm up to either game.

The 2017 Prey. May have been a freebie recently, EPIC maybe?

As for the 2006 game, I played it back when, I should have it
somewhere. I remember it was praised for the licensed sound track, I
think I actually went back and played the tunes in the bar's jukebox
where the game begins.

Unfortunately that was the only place in the game where you could play
them. Really too bad, playing "You've Got Another Thing Comin'" during a
fight scene might've made the game a little more memorable. I can't
remember much about the game, a boss fight against your player's
cyborgified girlfriend stands out though.

> The 2017 game was... well, it was an Arkane Studios game, and I've
> never really been able to get into them.

Oh, right, Arkane. I've tried that famousish steampunk game from them
but it didn't really grab me either. Maybe it's the "too weird" factor
although as I recall Dishonored starts with fairly basic swordplay. But
I'm not really a fan of that any more than steampunk.

> But I think that's more an issue of taste than a fault with the game;
> I can understand why some people rave about it even if I don't feel
> the same emotion. It's partly the art style, partly the over-reliance
> on "sandbox combat" (e.g., all the obvious spikes and pits and oil
> pools that you can trigger as traps during a fight)

I understand that. It seemed silly in some Mass Effect game (2?) when
you could just tell you're going to be attacked by the shape of the area
you were entering. Convenient cover sprinkled all around a large arena
was typical.

I remember another silly shooter where you could kick your enemies into
spikes or alien man eating plants or whatever environmental hazards had
been conveniently placed everywhere. It kinda makes me feel the devs
think I'm stupid or maybe they're just trying too hard. Environmental
hazards here and there, sure, but not everywhere. Another annoying trope
is magically everything proof pipes that break only at certain
points. But I guess more than minimally destructible structures are
still way too hard to really implement in a game engine.

> * God, I hate this trope. I was novel in 1995 when System Shock did
> it, but it's so, so tired now. If I never had to read another
> audio-log again, I'd be happy.

I remember I got extremely bored in SS2 when I tried to play it on the
hardest difficulty. Audio logs at least relieved the tedium so I had
something game related to listen to while I scrounged through every desk
drawer and cabinet for what little supplies I could find at that
difficulty. I don't think I finished that playthrough. But, I haven't
played the original System Shock much, maybe when the remake comes out.

On 07/08/2022 09:19, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2022 16:26:24 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> And you? What Have You Been Playing... IN JULY 2022?
>>
>>> Tried to get into Prey but I'm not sure. It didn't really grab me.
>>
>> Prey (2006) or Prey (2017)?
>>
>> Ehn, it doesn't matter. I didn't warm up to either game.
>
> The 2017 Prey. May have been a freebie recently, EPIC maybe?
>

I got that in a sale as it seemed to have a set of ingredients that I
thought I'd like but nope just didn't click with me.

> As for the 2006 game, I played it back when, I should have it
> somewhere. I remember it was praised for the licensed sound track, I
> think I actually went back and played the tunes in the bar's jukebox
> where the game begins.
>
> Unfortunately that was the only place in the game where you could play
> them. Really too bad, playing "You've Got Another Thing Comin'" during a
> fight scene might've made the game a little more memorable. I can't
> remember much about the game, a boss fight against your player's
> cyborgified girlfriend stands out though.
>
>> The 2017 game was... well, it was an Arkane Studios game, and I've
>> never really been able to get into them.
>
> Oh, right, Arkane. I've tried that famousish steampunk game from them
> but it didn't really grab me either. Maybe it's the "too weird" factor
> although as I recall Dishonored starts with fairly basic swordplay. But
> I'm not really a fan of that any more than steampunk.
>
>> But I think that's more an issue of taste than a fault with the game;
>> I can understand why some people rave about it even if I don't feel
>> the same emotion. It's partly the art style, partly the over-reliance
>> on "sandbox combat" (e.g., all the obvious spikes and pits and oil
>> pools that you can trigger as traps during a fight)
>
> I understand that. It seemed silly in some Mass Effect game (2?) when
> you could just tell you're going to be attacked by the shape of the area
> you were entering. Convenient cover sprinkled all around a large arena
> was typical.
>
> I remember another silly shooter where you could kick your enemies into
> spikes or alien man eating plants or whatever environmental hazards had
> been conveniently placed everywhere. It kinda makes me feel the devs
> think I'm stupid or maybe they're just trying too hard. Environmental
> hazards here and there, sure, but not everywhere. Another annoying trope
> is magically everything proof pipes that break only at certain
> points. But I guess more than minimally destructible structures are
> still way too hard to really implement in a game engine.
>

I tend to agree, the first few times it's rather novel but that quickly
wears off. It's something that put me off Divinity: Original Sin,
environmental combat which pretty common but was mostly fire, ice etc.
and exploding barrels.

>> * God, I hate this trope. I was novel in 1995 when System Shock did
>> it, but it's so, so tired now. If I never had to read another
>> audio-log again, I'd be happy.
>
> I remember I got extremely bored in SS2 when I tried to play it on the
> hardest difficulty. Audio logs at least relieved the tedium so I had
> something game related to listen to while I scrounged through every desk
> drawer and cabinet for what little supplies I could find at that
> difficulty. I don't think I finished that playthrough. But, I haven't
> played the original System Shock much, maybe when the remake comes out.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2022 11:19:03 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

>I understand that. It seemed silly in some Mass Effect game (2?) when
>you could just tell you're going to be attacked by the shape of the area
>you were entering. Convenient cover sprinkled all around a large arena
>was typical.

Oh look, waist-high blocks everywhere! Everybody heal up before
entering because a battle will soon ensue! Yeah, that was a problem
with a lot of games in the late 2000s/mid 2010s (it still is, to a
degree, but it's better disguised nowadays).

>I remember another silly shooter where you could kick your enemies into
>spikes or alien man eating plants or whatever environmental hazards had
>been conveniently placed everywhere. It kinda makes me feel the devs
>think I'm stupid or maybe they're just trying too hard. Environmental
>hazards here and there, sure, but not everywhere. Another annoying trope
>is magically everything proof pipes that break only at certain
>points. But I guess more than minimally destructible structures are
>still way too hard to really implement in a game engine.

I was originally going to say, "Oh, you mean Dark Messiah of Might &
Magic" (which was also an Arkane game), as that game was /rife/ with
far-too-obvious environmental traps... then I put together "silly" and
"man-eating plants" and realized you must be thinking of
"Bulletstorm".

>> * God, I hate this trope. I was novel in 1995 when System Shock did
>> it, but it's so, so tired now. If I never had to read another
>> audio-log again, I'd be happy.

>I remember I got extremely bored in SS2 when I tried to play it on the
>hardest difficulty. Audio logs at least relieved the tedium so I had
>something game related to listen to while I scrounged through every desk
>drawer and cabinet for what little supplies I could find at that
>difficulty. I don't think I finished that playthrough. But, I haven't
>played the original System Shock much, maybe when the remake comes out.

I don't have a problem with audio logs per se. They were wonderfully
used in System Shock 1/2. My problem with them is that they are
overused. System Shock put them in because the developers didn't have
the resources to create proper NPCs, and that was the only way to feed
players information (it also enhanced the post-apocalyptic feel of the
setting). But in a lot of games, they're used as a lazy way to provide
backstory, and often the only way to understand the plot is if you
rigorously scour the levels to find every log. This absolutely
destroys the pacing and narrative.

Especially bad are audio logs that you can't listen to while walking
around, and either have to listen through the game's interface
("Aliens vs Predator" 2010 suffered from this problem), or stay in one
place because the audio is tied to a specific point.

Audio-logs are a terrific tool, but they require a lot more skill and
subtlety than most developers have (or care to develop).

>I remember another silly shooter where you could kick your enemies into
>spikes or alien man eating plants or whatever environmental hazards had
>been conveniently placed everywhere.

Bulletstorm. I liked that game :( and both Preys as well (the new Hulu
movie Prey is very good too!)

rms

On 06/08/2022 03:22, Justisaur wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:04:39 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:31:37 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> Admittedly, going off the beaten path can result in a drop in quality
>> as the GM scrambles to take into account the players' unexpected
>> change of direction... but a good GM will a) have developed enough of
>> the surrounding world to make it up as he goes, and b) either have the
>> talent or third-party resources nearby to slot in a new encounter
>> without much trouble. And let's face it, a lot of the "random"
>> off-the-path encounters in CRPGs are pretty weak too, often being
>> little better than stock monster encounters.
>
> Procedural generation (i.e. random tables)
> I love them, but I do add a touch beyond "here's 10 goblins."
>
> Though I did drive players nuts one campaign where they were on
> a quest to find something and travelling the world trying to find
> it and it was 99% wilderness random encounters.
>
> They did like it when they killed the penguin merchants mounted
> on flying pigs taking their flying ship and load of treasure though. :)
>

Personally I'm not a big fan of random encounters in general and instead
prefer the GM to have a number of non-plot encounters/scenes that can
then be used to add colour to the world as required.

As always, horses for courses and all that!

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:28:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 06/08/2022 03:22, Justisaur wrote:
>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:04:39 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:31:37 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Admittedly, going off the beaten path can result in a drop in quality
>>> as the GM scrambles to take into account the players' unexpected
>>> change of direction... but a good GM will a) have developed enough of
>>> the surrounding world to make it up as he goes, and b) either have the
>>> talent or third-party resources nearby to slot in a new encounter
>>> without much trouble. And let's face it, a lot of the "random"
>>> off-the-path encounters in CRPGs are pretty weak too, often being
>>> little better than stock monster encounters.
>>
>> Procedural generation (i.e. random tables)
>> I love them, but I do add a touch beyond "here's 10 goblins."
>>
>> Though I did drive players nuts one campaign where they were on
>> a quest to find something and travelling the world trying to find
>> it and it was 99% wilderness random encounters.
>>
>> They did like it when they killed the penguin merchants mounted
>> on flying pigs taking their flying ship and load of treasure though. :)
>>
>
>Personally I'm not a big fan of random encounters in general and instead
>prefer the GM to have a number of non-plot encounters/scenes that can
>then be used to add colour to the world as required.

My random encounters tend to be more of the latter. It's almost never
"roll d20, get a 6, oh 3d6 goblins attack" but an entire pre-arranged
mini-scenario from a list of similar mini-scenarios that I just happen
to randomly select.

Most of them aren't combat scenarios either. A lot of them are used
for world-building or setting the mood: anything from a rumor-carrying
bard to an ominous storm to a farmstead burnt during a civil war.

Creating the random encounters is actually one of the best parts of
the adventure for me. ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> I was originally going to say, "Oh, you mean Dark Messiah of Might &
> Magic" (which was also an Arkane game), as that game was /rife/ with
> far-too-obvious environmental traps... then I put together "silly" and
> "man-eating plants" and realized you must be thinking of
> "Bulletstorm".

Thanks, I couldn't dig the name Bulletstorm out of my head just
then. While it was silly I did like the mouse-guidable sniper rounds
though. You'd think it gets old but no, at least not in one playthrough.

> But in a lot of games, they're used as a lazy way to provide
> backstory, and often the only way to understand the plot is if you
> rigorously scour the levels to find every log. This absolutely
> destroys the pacing and narrative.

I get it. One game that comes to mind was that FPS puzzler Talos
Principle. I had little idea what was going on (other than the puzzles)
but apparently it's possible to find out, from reading enough people's
emails in the various terminals scattered around the landscape. No idea
why those are there, come to think of it. And those were text only, not
audio logs.

On 08/08/2022 17:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:28:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/08/2022 03:22, Justisaur wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:04:39 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:31:37 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Admittedly, going off the beaten path can result in a drop in quality
>>>> as the GM scrambles to take into account the players' unexpected
>>>> change of direction... but a good GM will a) have developed enough of
>>>> the surrounding world to make it up as he goes, and b) either have the
>>>> talent or third-party resources nearby to slot in a new encounter
>>>> without much trouble. And let's face it, a lot of the "random"
>>>> off-the-path encounters in CRPGs are pretty weak too, often being
>>>> little better than stock monster encounters.
>>>
>>> Procedural generation (i.e. random tables)
>>> I love them, but I do add a touch beyond "here's 10 goblins."
>>>
>>> Though I did drive players nuts one campaign where they were on
>>> a quest to find something and travelling the world trying to find
>>> it and it was 99% wilderness random encounters.
>>>
>>> They did like it when they killed the penguin merchants mounted
>>> on flying pigs taking their flying ship and load of treasure though. :)
>>>
>>
>> Personally I'm not a big fan of random encounters in general and instead
>> prefer the GM to have a number of non-plot encounters/scenes that can
>> then be used to add colour to the world as required.
>
> My random encounters tend to be more of the latter. It's almost never
> "roll d20, get a 6, oh 3d6 goblins attack" but an entire pre-arranged
> mini-scenario from a list of similar mini-scenarios that I just happen
> to randomly select.
>
> Most of them aren't combat scenarios either. A lot of them are used
> for world-building or setting the mood: anything from a rumor-carrying
> bard to an ominous storm to a farmstead burnt during a civil war.
>
> Creating the random encounters is actually one of the best parts of
> the adventure for me. ;-)
>

For me that's how I prefer 'random' encounters to be. Really they are
about adding colour and they aren't really random. The normal caveat of
that doesn't mean I think your average random encounter is wrong but
instead it's not something I enjoy.

On 09/08/2022 08:14, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>> But in a lot of games, they're used as a lazy way to provide
>> backstory, and often the only way to understand the plot is if you
>> rigorously scour the levels to find every log. This absolutely
>> destroys the pacing and narrative.
>
> I get it. One game that comes to mind was that FPS puzzler Talos
> Principle. I had little idea what was going on (other than the puzzles)
> but apparently it's possible to find out, from reading enough people's
> emails in the various terminals scattered around the landscape. No idea
> why those are there, come to think of it. And those were text only, not
> audio logs.

Talos Principle is a bit of a weird one as there are some audio logs
that try and explain the back story but there's also the text based
terminals. I actually really enjoyed those as they are not really
backstory but instead raising questions about what it means to be human.

So if you can create an AI that has self-consciousness, emotions, wants,
needs etc. the same as humans should it be considered human. If not does
that entail a non-materialist world in what makes us human is because we
alone have souls and a AI will never have that. It also touches on
religion, so would this AI consider its creators god(s) and worship it.
It's not often you see game designers touching on philosophy.

The good thing is, if you want you can ignore all of that and just treat
it as a damn fine puzzle game.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 11:07:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 08/08/2022 17:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:28:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/08/2022 03:22, Justisaur wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:04:39 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:31:37 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Admittedly, going off the beaten path can result in a drop in quality
>>>>> as the GM scrambles to take into account the players' unexpected
>>>>> change of direction... but a good GM will a) have developed enough of
>>>>> the surrounding world to make it up as he goes, and b) either have the
>>>>> talent or third-party resources nearby to slot in a new encounter
>>>>> without much trouble. And let's face it, a lot of the "random"
>>>>> off-the-path encounters in CRPGs are pretty weak too, often being
>>>>> little better than stock monster encounters.
>>>>
>>>> Procedural generation (i.e. random tables)
>>>> I love them, but I do add a touch beyond "here's 10 goblins."
>>>>
>>>> Though I did drive players nuts one campaign where they were on
>>>> a quest to find something and travelling the world trying to find
>>>> it and it was 99% wilderness random encounters.
>>>>
>>>> They did like it when they killed the penguin merchants mounted
>>>> on flying pigs taking their flying ship and load of treasure though. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I'm not a big fan of random encounters in general and instead
>>> prefer the GM to have a number of non-plot encounters/scenes that can
>>> then be used to add colour to the world as required.
>>
>> My random encounters tend to be more of the latter. It's almost never
>> "roll d20, get a 6, oh 3d6 goblins attack" but an entire pre-arranged
>> mini-scenario from a list of similar mini-scenarios that I just happen
>> to randomly select.
>>
>> Most of them aren't combat scenarios either. A lot of them are used
>> for world-building or setting the mood: anything from a rumor-carrying
>> bard to an ominous storm to a farmstead burnt during a civil war.
>>
>> Creating the random encounters is actually one of the best parts of
>> the adventure for me. ;-)
>>
>
>For me that's how I prefer 'random' encounters to be. Really they are
>about adding colour and they aren't really random. The normal caveat of
>that doesn't mean I think your average random encounter is wrong but
>instead it's not something I enjoy.
>
In truth, my 'random encounters' are only semi-random. I have a huge
list of the things (when writing adventures, I tend to reuse earlier
encounters and the list just gets longer and longer). The dice rolls
are ridiculous sometimes (e.g., "to pick a random encounter, first
roll: 2d100 + 1d20 + 1d6" :)

Except even then, I usually do the initial roll... read the result
from the list, decide that particular encounter /doesn't quite fit/
the situation, then close my eyes and point at another encounter,
repeating until I find one that does seem appropriate.

As mentioned, most of those encounters aren't combat related. Some of
them barely count as 'encounters'; for instance, one might be
something as simple as the forest going suddenly, eerily quiet for ten
minutes: no bugs, no birds, scampering animals underfoot no longer
scampering, everything seems muted and there's an underlying feeling
of wrongness... which then suddenly just passes. There's no reason for
it, nothing the PCs can detect or do about it... it's just there to
set mood.

Although, given how deadly I tend to make combat, the lack of frequent
combat encounters is usually a boon to players. As a GM, I /really/
hate killing PCs and actually go out of my way to avoid it... but I
will wreck them up. I give my monsters every advantage and they're
usually highly mobile; rarely will a a party face off against a static
line of foes. Even the lowliest monsters can wreak havoc on a party;
its unlikely they'll kill them, but they'll do enough damage that the
party will have to take steps to recover. And healing magic isn't as
accessible in my campaigns as others...

On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 10:14:07 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:

>Thanks, I couldn't dig the name Bulletstorm out of my head just
>then. While it was silly I did like the mouse-guidable sniper rounds
>though. You'd think it gets old but no, at least not in one playthrough.

I wasn't as much of a fan of the game. It had some impressive
set-pieces (the giant rolling death wheel tearing through the terrain,
for instance) and conceptually some of the weapons were interesting,
but the story was awful, I remember being unimpressed by the monsters
and the almost frat-boy level of humor has never appealed to me. Even
barring the humor, I never found the game to be better than average,
and -IIRC - it leaned too heavily on the cover-shooter mechanics that
were popular at the time. I tolerated the game long enough to get to
the end, but I've never had a desire to go back and play it a second
time.