 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> If you never played games on a platform this old then it will probably
>> hold no interest for you, compared with modern systems.
>
> Is the ZX Spectrum 128 old enough?-)
Absolutely! Exactly the same age in fact. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> With the recent gaming-related threads, I thought about creating one
> myself: Do you have any game gems which you would recommend people to try?
> Maybe an older game which most people have forgotten, which is still today
> as great as back then? Or a game which didn't get too much media attention
> but is actually incredibly cool?
Nethack.
Ancient Art of War
Commander Keen!
I need to kill this thread. Everytime I think of old games, I lose a few
days.
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/6/2009 7:50 PM, nemesis wrote:
> - Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64) (you know)
>
> If you ever can get your hands in any of these games, do it. Yes, I know
> that Zelda was a huge hit, not an underdog, but worth mentioning anyway.
I have to say, Zelda 64 is definitely where they jumped the shark. A
Link to the Past was a far better game :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Commander Keen!
Oh man I'd forgotten about that game! I used to love it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> In later years I've been digging interactive-fiction games (AKA
>
> If you're into that sort of thing, this is a very cool authoring system
> for them. Basically, the same sort of parser that the game uses is
> employed to write the game itself.
>
> http://inform-fiction.org/I7/Welcome.html
Yes, Inform is one of those systems I was talking about. Graham Nelson
reverse engineered Infocom's z-machine format and wrote a compiler for
it still in the nineties. Inform 7 is the latest evolution: a (almost)
natural language parser that compiles to previous Inform 6 format. It's
a joy to behold. Unfortunately I don't have enough english skills
(mostly vocabulary) nor literary talent to try my hand at writing games
with it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> I was quite disappointed with FF7 when I got to play it recently.
> (I had never even seen it before, only read about how "great" it is.)
> Not only is it technically completely sub-par (even for the Playstation,
> especially compared to other similar PS games such as Chrono Cross or
> FF9)
Well, I can assure you that when it came in 1997 it was the most
impressive game to ever grace a game screen. I'm talking of the battle
scenes, mostly, but the video scenes were pretty amazing too. And if
you couldn't be moved by the creepy atmosphere as you learn Cloud's
past, well, you're made of ice, man... ;)
>> - Super Metroid (SNES) (best action/adventure side-scroller ever)
>
> How exactly is one of the best-ranked, best-selling games of all times
> an "underdog"?-)
Huh, did it really sell all that? Well, still a favorite...
>> - Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64) (you know)
>
> This one even more. (Gets regularly on the top of "best games of all
> time" lists.)
I have to insist.
> The problem with the modern ones: The best Spectrum text adventures had
> images for each room (and there could be graphics of collectible objects,
> doors in in closed and open states, etc.), while all the modern text
> adventures are text-only.
That's what text mean, I guess. In any case, the best Spectrum (or PS3
for the matter) images are not the same quality as my brain pictures it
from reading the descriptions.
> I would really like to play those text adventures with graphics, but
> there just doesn't seem to be any nowadays.
Have you actually tried any of the ones I linked to? No, no images, but
perhaps they could change your mind. I dare you try it, at least Shade.
Like I said, they are not quite games in the same sense of the old
ones. They are more like experimental interactive role playing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Nethack.
I have tried it seriously three times. Every time I understood what the
appeal of the game is, but I still didn't dig the game all that much.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:498ce5b6$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Myst series seemed utterly boring to me. With a storyline that is
sterile,
> > alien and convoluted, and puzzles that are artificial , I never
understood
> > what the appeal was. Then again, I've never been a "gamer", in that most
I
> > can play is 1/2 hr or so at a sitting, and to mentally and physically
relax,
> > not as a second job. For similar demographics, I guess games that are
more
> > like sitcoms than films are more appealing.
> Did you play Myst shortly after it came out or later on? I recall the
> the technology rather stunning when it came out, but has since been long
> surpassed by other games, so that might play into your assessment.
If by technology you mean the stills and some videos, yes, I remember being
impressed with those, and I believe that's the only reason people bought it.
I wouldn't consider those technology, but the game art. Visual artists did a
good job for sure, but any single beginner programmer could have coded the
game itself in a matter of days.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> If by technology you mean the stills and some videos, yes, I remember being
> impressed with those, and I believe that's the only reason people bought it.
> I wouldn't consider those technology, but the game art. Visual artists did a
> good job for sure, but any single beginner programmer could have coded the
> game itself in a matter of days.
Fair enough, but I'm not sure it's fair to distinguish the level design
from the "game", since I have no doubt that the vast majority of the
development time was spent designing the levels. Sure the interaction
was very simple, but that was the first time that I saw anything that
really did a good job of visually emulating a virtual world.
Not that I can't understand why you wouldn't like it, and I agree that
the visuals are the only really interesting part, I just found the
visuals impressive and engrossing enough (at the time) that I still
regard it as a groundbreaking game.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Nethack.
>
> I have tried it seriously three times. Every time I understood what the
> appeal of the game is, but I still didn't dig the game all that much.
It helps if you tried it in the days of CGA...
--
He collects mouthwash bottles, and they're all in mint condition.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
