bluetree <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Aren't FPS more interesting, when played online pvp?

  I find it quickly rather boring.

  Usually online FPS games consist of a ridiculously small level where
either everyone kills everyone else, or in a few cases a team kills
the other team. Over and over. Hundreds of times. Always in the same
ridiculously small level. (Yeah, sure, there exist dozens of different
multiplayer levels, but in a typical server it takes like 4 hours for
it to change the level.)

  Counter Strike style online FPS games have a slightly more interesting
idea in that there could be, at least in theory, a bit of teamplay and
team tactics. But that works only if you have a well-established group
of friends and have played with them for a long time. If you just pop in
into a random server, it doesn't really matter what you do. There's not
much difference from a everyone-against-everyone game (with the only
exception that you shouldn't shoot people of your own team).

  The online game which I have played the most (but not anymore in a
rather long time) is batmud, where I got to level 50. The difference
to FPS online games is that the world is *huge*, teams are true teams
(because of the game mechanics), and there's a lot to do. OTOH, batmud
in particular becomes a bit boring because you just can't solo there
(especially not if you are a low level), because you will simply die
quickly. Team-playing often consists of level-grinding and looting,
and that's about it. Forget about actual roleplaying.

  From what I have seen, Word of Warcraft is a bit like that, but fully
graphical, so maybe I could enjoy that for a while if I really wanted
to try it. OTOH, I'm pretty certain I would get bored of it relatively
quickly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> bluetree wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>   Anyways, the main element which keeps FPS games interesting is the
> >>> skill factor.
> >> I think what keeps them interesting for me is the story line. Sure,
> >> playing the whole thing thru on God mode makes it much less interesting,
> >> but if it's too hard[1], I don't feel I miss anything by God-ing over
> >> some areas.
> >
> > Aren't FPS more interesting, when played online pvp?
>
> My experience is that I never found an online forum where I could
> compete at all. Plus, the best way to win was to do extremely silly
> stuff, like bunny-hopping All The F'ing Time so nobody can line up a
> shot on them. Even stuff like Black and White multiplayer I got my butt
> kicked. Probably because I don't really have time to play more than an
> hour or two a week usually.
>
> When I played PvP on the network at work against the coworkers, that was
> fun, yes. But my experience is that PvP also lacks any sort of story.
>
> I thought the online Myst game Uru might be fun, since it was more
> multi-player puzzles than multi-player killing, but it apparently never
> came to fruition.
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>   Helpful housekeeping hints:
>    Check your feather pillows for holes
>     before putting them in the washing machine.

Hm, that's true. And the worst thing is: When you stop rushing to watch the
beautiful modelled landscape around you, also your team members want to kill
you after some time... :-)
There I like TES, playing one game as months went by, I just wandered to every
place only to collect herbs and enjoy the environments. It's relaxing, believe
me! ^^

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:41:26 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>The misterious stranger = satan, heaven = aliens' club [facetious], adam and eve
>= scientific orientated humans, not to forget the frog... ^^

I'm having difficulty watching them. It might be connection problems
or everyone here is trying to peek. 

>It's really well made!

It is that :)

>I'm not sure, if it might be a childrens' tale or if it target adults?

I think that the content is a bit too adult for children. It is a tad
irreligious, in the traditional sense.

BTW Glad to see you back here.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

So batmud isn't all graphical?
Might be a reason, why I couldn't find a screenshot easily. :-)

I'm not sure, if I'd like to play games, I had to pay for every minute playing
online...
it forces you to play and level fast. Is it possible to enjoy such a game?
Ok, because you'd be charged, they can maintain the serves, create new worlds
and creatures, but OTOH if you don't like to play a very, very long time, it
wouldn't bring a return, would it?
E.g. Guildwars, which you can't play offline...

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:41:26 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >The misterious stranger = satan, heaven = aliens' club [facetious], adam and eve
> >= scientific orientated humans, not to forget the frog... ^^
>
> I'm having difficulty watching them. It might be connection problems
> or everyone here is trying to peek.

Perhaps the last one.
I intrigued you all. :-)

> >It's really well made!
>
> It is that :)
>
> >I'm not sure, if it might be a childrens' tale or if it target adults?
>
> I think that the content is a bit too adult for children. It is a tad
> irreligious, in the traditional sense.
>
> BTW Glad to see you back here.
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

Thanks.
I'm glad to be back here. :-)
(If that doesn't sound too flatteringly.) ;-)

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:26:41 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>Thanks.
>I'm glad to be back here. :-)
>(If that doesn't sound too flatteringly.) ;-)

Is it possible to be too flattering? :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

bluetree <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> So batmud isn't all graphical?

  Completely text-based. (With ansi-colored characters, at least.)

> Might be a reason, why I couldn't find a screenshot easily. :-)

http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/upload/BatMUD.gif

  It's not as bad as it looks. :)

> I'm not sure, if I'd like to play games, I had to pay for every minute playing
> online...

  At least batmud is free...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:26:41 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >
> >Thanks.
> >I'm glad to be back here. :-)
> >(If that doesn't sound too flatteringly.) ;-)
>
> Is it possible to be too flattering? :-)
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen


Might that be a trick question? ;-)

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> bluetree <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > So batmud isn't all graphical?
>
>   Completely text-based. (With ansi-colored characters, at least.)
>
> > Might be a reason, why I couldn't find a screenshot easily. :-)
>
> http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/upload/BatMUD.gif
>
>   It's not as bad as it looks. :)

Thanks.
Yes, now I remember, I'd played such a MUD, long time ago.
Oh, yeah, these kind of games are great!
I could use my own fantasy to create the environment!
But there is one problem with them: they are pretty addictive! :-)

> > I'm not sure, if I'd like to play games, I had to pay for every minute playing
> > online...
>
>   At least batmud is free...
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp


It would be dangerous for an addict...
could relapse... hm...

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:46:34 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:26:41 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >I'm glad to be back here. :-)
>> >(If that doesn't sound too flatteringly.) ;-)
>>
>> Is it possible to be too flattering? :-)
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>      Stephen
>
>
>Might that be a trick question? ;-)
>
You know me! :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message