Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
differences between games of the various eras in which they were
released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games? Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?
The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the industry?
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
* read it here yourself https://www.gamesindustry.biz/were-in-the-era-of-the-perennial-game-plan-accordingly-opinion
I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
differences between games of the various eras in which they were
released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games? Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?
The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the industry?
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't >>selling anymore or like around 2014?
The 'not being sold anymore' is a pretty awesome delineation, I think.
I don't care if the game came out two weeks ago; if the publisher
chooses not to support it anymore, it's going directly into the 'old'
pile. ;-)
I don't like to classify games as "old", but the only games that feel
old to me are the ones categorised as "This game has not aged well".
Super mario World, released between 1990 and 1992 feels as fresh as
ever. Yet, I look at those mid-2000s games with the brown-yellow piss
look and the bloom effect, and it's like looking at bygone era from
another generation.
On 4/7/2024 11:20 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
differences between games of the various eras in which they were
released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?
The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
industry?
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
* read it here yourself
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/were-in-the-era-of-the-perennial-game-plan-accordingly-opinion
I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
selling anymore or like around 2014?
I dunno, I would push that a bit further. Pre-2010 maybe, or 2008 even.
I think that's about the time where the games get... I don't want to say
bad, but maybe "noticeably different".
I wanna go into how you can notice with the use of wide-screen as the
default and other stuff, but those were the times when I was running exclusively Linux on my machines and did not really follow gaming that
much.
On 4/8/2024 3:36 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't >>> selling anymore or like around 2014?
The 'not being sold anymore' is a pretty awesome delineation, I think.
I don't care if the game came out two weeks ago; if the publisher
chooses not to support it anymore, it's going directly into the 'old'
pile. ;-)
Well, that's more abandoned than old, isn't it?
Wasn't there a game recently that got delisted a month after coming out?
I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
differences between games of the various eras in which they were
released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games? Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?
The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the industry?
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
I don't like to classify games as "old", but the only games that feel
old to me are the ones categorised as "This game has not aged well".
Super mario World, released between 1990 and 1992 feels as fresh as
ever. Yet, I look at those mid-2000s games with the brown-yellow piss
look and the bloom effect, and it's like looking at bygone era from
another generation.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
game was when I purchased it).
On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
games definitely fall into that last category.
But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
game was when I purchased it).
On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
games definitely fall into that last category.
But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
On 4/8/2024 11:09 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
game was when I purchased it).
On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
games definitely fall into that last category.
But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
Similar to that I have some old programming books in storage at my
parents' house which have listings for some games.
The oldest other stuff would be some old Sega Master System games, the
oldest most likely being California Games from 1989.
The oldest PC game I have physical media off would be Battletech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge from 1990. I once bought this in a grab box in
the shop, and I think someone had already played it and returned it
later, as it gave my computer it's first virus.
On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:09:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
Quick glance....
I think the oldest for me on the PC at least is tied between Wizardry
1 and Might & Magic 1 - Copyright 1987 - 5 1/4 Floppies.
But the oldest I can quickly tell is Questron on the C-64, 5 1/4
Floppies, Copyright 1983
But I have a lot more C-64 games stored away in bins in my garage,
including many Infocom titles. They are probably even older.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 21:09 this Monday (GMT):
If single-game handhelds count, I think I have some Tiger
Electronics-esque ones somewhere. Otherwise, probably one of my NDS >>cartridges..
Ooh, I hadn't considered those.
I'm not sure it's older than my "Hitchhiker's Guide" disk, but it's
ofthe same era: I have an Nintendo "Game & Watch" with an LCD screen
where Mickey Mouse tries to catch eggs (a gift from a well-meaning
relative).
Well, I say I still have it, but honestly, I don't know. I didn't get
rid of it, but I've no idea where I have stashed it. I haven't seen it
in years. It still worked last time I tried, although that probably
speaks more of the robustness of the coin-cell batteries than the
device. ;-)
I had a love-hate affair with that game. It was the most tedious game
I've ever played, but it was also the only hand-held game I owned for decades. So it inevitably got tossed into the bag - and played -
whenever I knew I would otherwise be stuck somewhere doing nothing.
Eventually I replaced the device with a Palm Pilot hand-held, which
not only had a greater variety (and depth!) of games that could be
loaded onto it, but apps and books that could entertain me when I
tired of the games.
Unfortunately my Intellivision, C-64, and Kaypro are long gone,traded
off or sold for something else I don't remember.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
I have to admit I never properly used 5 1/4 floppies. I was a child of
the 3.5 era. We had one or two 5 1/4 floppies floating around the house,
we just never had a drive to even use them.
Mike S <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote at 12:50 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:12:51 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I have to admit I never properly used 5 1/4 floppies. I was a child of
the 3.5 era. We had one or two 5 1/4 floppies floating around the house, >>> we just never had a drive to even use them.
I am old enough that I started with a tape drive.
Wow, that is old.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:12:51 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I have to admit I never properly used 5 1/4 floppies. I was a child of
the 3.5 era. We had one or two 5 1/4 floppies floating around the house,
we just never had a drive to even use them.
I am old enough that I started with a tape drive.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:20:12 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 >>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
If single-game handhelds count, I think I have some Tiger >>>>Electronics-esque ones somewhere. Otherwise, probably one of my NDS >>>>cartridges..
Ooh, I hadn't considered those.
I'm not sure it's older than my "Hitchhiker's Guide" disk, but it's
ofthe same era: I have an Nintendo "Game & Watch" with an LCD screen
where Mickey Mouse tries to catch eggs (a gift from a well-meaning
relative).
Sounds cool!! I also forgot I used to have a leapfrog.
It absolutely wasn't. It was a game-of-last-resort, only played
because I didn't have any other portable electronic game. It wasn't
just that the gameplay was tedious - you had to move your character
into one of four positions, mapped to one of the four keys - it was repetitive as well, with recognizable patterns. Its only challenge was
that it kept going faster and faster.
But it was pocket-sized, quick to start, and had amazing battery life.
Also it was the only portable I had. So it got played. Just never
really enjoyed.
So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games? >Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find >PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:09:57 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:Sega Genesis cartridges. They're in the basement with a v1.0 Sega
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom, >>cartridge) you still have for a game?
Genesis. c 1991.
I have IMGs of some of my old 3.5" PC floppies, but they're all post
1991.
I may have some C=64 5.25" around here somewhere, but I doubt it's still >readable. If I could find that, that would be the oldest.
Where does 'old' begin for you?
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:40:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:54 this Wednesday (GMT):
But it was pocket-sized, quick to start, and had amazing battery life.
Also it was the only portable I had. So it got played. Just never
really enjoyed.
Fair. I didn't know what a good game was for a few years, so I had a
ton of shovelware DS games.
It's true!
Even I, back when I was a younger person and only had as many games as
could be counted on a single hand, any game would get played and
replayed because a) I didn't know what made a good game from a bad
one, and b) I only had a limited selection anyway. I'm sorry, younger
me, but "Sierra's 3D Helicopter Simulator" was /not/ a good game, and
all that time you spent with it was better spent elsewhere.
But on the flip side, having a library of [number redacted] - and
having played a significant percentage of those games - isn't without
penalty either. I can too easily see the similarity in mechanics and
tropes, this lack of novelty makes it harder to enjoy new games which
simply ape older games just because those games were popular. There's
a reason I bitch about the lack of novelty in games so often! I don't
really wish to return to my days of callow youth when I didn't know
any better - I rather enjoy my grumpy cynicism - but it would make me
be able to look less critically at the crap Ubisoft regularly shits
out ;-)
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:00:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
I grew up playing emulators, so I don't really care that much.
Thenagain, I was scared of fullscreen games :)
I still have that fear when it comes to full-screen games from the Win9x/early XP era. They were so... FRAGILE when it came to running in full-screen (or, more importantly, when you tried to alt-tab out of
them). Back in the '95 days, switching away from a full-screen game
could lock up your computer (these days, the older game might lock up,
but you're PC will keep running fine otherwise. That's progress, I
suppose).
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:00:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
I grew up playing emulators, so I don't really care that much.
Thenagain, I was scared of fullscreen games :)
I still have that fear when it comes to full-screen games from the Win9x/early XP era. They were so... FRAGILE when it came to running in full-screen (or, more importantly, when you tried to alt-tab out of
them). Back in the '95 days, switching away from a full-screen game
could lock up your computer (these days, the older game might lock up,
but you're PC will keep running fine otherwise. That's progress, I
suppose).
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 ><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 01:14 this Saturday (GMT):
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:00:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 >>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
I grew up playing emulators, so I don't really care that much. >>>>Thenagain, I was scared of fullscreen games :)
I still have that fear when it comes to full-screen games from the
Win9x/early XP era. They were so... FRAGILE when it came to running in
full-screen (or, more importantly, when you tried to alt-tab out of
them). Back in the '95 days, switching away from a full-screen game
could lock up your computer (these days, the older game might lock up,
but you're PC will keep running fine otherwise. That's progress, I
suppose).
Nah, I was way more irrational. Was outright scared bc I couldn't close
it as easily. Then again, I mostly play games in windowed mode nowadays
bc it's easier to have other windows open in the bg.
That's a sensible method.
I, on the other hand, just plug in more and more monitors and make
everything full-screen. ;-)
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:44:01 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 4/12/2024 6:14 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:00:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
I grew up playing emulators, so I don't really care that much.
Thenagain, I was scared of fullscreen games :)
I still have that fear when it comes to full-screen games from the
Win9x/early XP era. They were so... FRAGILE when it came to running in
full-screen (or, more importantly, when you tried to alt-tab out of
them). Back in the '95 days, switching away from a full-screen game
could lock up your computer (these days, the older game might lock up,
but you're PC will keep running fine otherwise. That's progress, I
suppose).
I've had the same problem with at least 2 of the recent games I played,
Deathloop and Dragon's Dogma. Both would hard freeze the game if you
left it paused in fullscreen. Even not alt-tabbing, a few minutes and
it would freeze. I had to run both in windowed for them not to freeze.
Those are rarer for me. Although I do worry about leaving the game
paused long enough for the screensaver to kick-in, since some games
don't play well when another application grabs hold of the 3D
renderer. So I almost always make sure to save/quit-to-desktop if I
know I'm going to be away from the computer for a while.
But at least it isn't BSODing and taking down the whole PC like would
happen in the Win9x days.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:59:22 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I haven't used a screen saver in so long I don't remember when the last >>time was. I do have the power settings to turn off the screen after 15 >>minutes, but it was happening in less than 5 minutes.
Yeah, screensavers are quite pointless, especially since computers
come out of suspend so quickly. There's no necessity to them anymore,
so it's no surprise that most people don't use them. In fact,
Microsoft has made it pretty hard even to get to screensaver settings
in Windows 11. Arguably, they're even counter productive, since they
waste electricity. But they're pretty. ;-)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:59:22 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I haven't used a screen saver in so long I don't remember when the last >time was. I do have the power settings to turn off the screen after 15 >minutes, but it was happening in less than 5 minutes.
Yeah, screensavers are quite pointless, especially since computers
come out of suspend so quickly. There's no necessity to them anymore,
so it's no surprise that most people don't use them. In fact,
Microsoft has made it pretty hard even to get to screensaver settings
in Windows 11. Arguably, they're even counter productive, since they
waste electricity. But they're pretty. ;-)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:59:22 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I haven't used a screen saver in so long I don't remember when the last >>time was. I do have the power settings to turn off the screen after 15 >>minutes, but it was happening in less than 5 minutes.
Yeah, screensavers are quite pointless, especially since computers
come out of suspend so quickly. There's no necessity to them anymore,
so it's no surprise that most people don't use them. In fact,
Microsoft has made it pretty hard even to get to screensaver settings
in Windows 11. Arguably, they're even counter productive, since they
waste electricity. But they're pretty. ;-)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:59:22 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I haven't used a screen saver in so long I don't remember when the last
time was. I do have the power settings to turn off the screen after 15
minutes, but it was happening in less than 5 minutes.
Yeah, screensavers are quite pointless, especially since computers
come out of suspend so quickly. There's no necessity to them anymore,
so it's no surprise that most people don't use them. In fact,
Microsoft has made it pretty hard even to get to screensaver settings
in Windows 11. Arguably, they're even counter productive, since they
waste electricity. But they're pretty. ;-)
On 4/15/2024 8:53 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:48 this Monday (GMT):
I use xscreensaver bc I like how they look :)
there's some nice ones in there, but I think nothing new has been added
the last decade or so?
It kind of went away. People don't set them anymore.
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 4/15/2024 8:53 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:48 this Monday (GMT):
I use xscreensaver bc I like how they look :)
there's some nice ones in there, but I think nothing new has been added
the last decade or so?
It kind of went away. People don't set them anymore.
It's no wonder with us all using flat screens of some kind.
CRTs were _very_ prone to burn in, LCDs and such far less so.
I don't even turn em off anymore, much less use a blank screen
screensaver, and the one LCD is at least 10 years old, not even a trace
of burn in.
A CRT of that age, on all the time, with the same images, icons etc,
would be showing burn in.
Screen savers died as a thing cause we just don't need them anymore.
They're the modern day buggy whip, once everyone had em and used em, now
it's just the Amish types. I dare say there are still folks out there
with CRT monitors.
You know it just occurred to me that even saying CRT might get confusing these days, since there's another meaning to those letters now (Critical
Race Theory vs Cathode Ray Tube.)
Xocyll
On 4/15/2024 8:53 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:48 this Monday (GMT):
I use xscreensaver bc I like how they look :)
there's some nice ones in there, but I think nothing new has been added
the last decade or so?
It kind of went away. People don't set them anymore.
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
game was when I purchased it).
On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
games definitely fall into that last category.
But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?
I still have a box full my old Commodore 64 games in their original packaging. The oldest game in that collection would be the Commodore
version of the Infocom game Suspended. The oldest media I have though
would be a floppy for the C64 version Lode Runner, but I don't think I
have the box for that.
I'm not sure what the oldest PC game media I have is. I have 5.25"
floppies for Command HQ, Dragon Wars, MegaTraveller 1, and SSG's Panzer Battles. I believe Panzer Battles is the oldest of these games in terms
of release date, but I would purcased them all a few years after they
were released.
I still have a box full my old Commodore 64 games in their original >packaging. The oldest game in that collection would be the Commodore
version of the Infocom game Suspended. The oldest media I have though
would be a floppy for the C64 version Lode Runner, but I don't think I
have the box for that.
I'm not sure what the oldest PC game media I have is. I have 5.25"
floppies for Command HQ, Dragon Wars, MegaTraveller 1, and SSG's Panzer >Battles. I believe Panzer Battles is the oldest of these games in terms
of release date, but I would purcased them all a few years after they
were released.
I have the Commodore 64 versions of both of these games, in their
original boxes, but the Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy is missing
some of feelies.
I'm not sure why I kept them but I have a copy of the November and
December 1983 issues of Compute!. It was robably because they were
unusally thick issues for the magazine at the time. I don't think any
of the type-in programs included were particularly interesting.
Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
Megatraveler, there's a game I liked I haven't thought about in a long
time. Are you sure at least MegaTraveller wasn't 3.5" it was released
in 1990 as far as I can tell, and that seems a bit late for 5.25"? But
I could be wrong, that's 34 years ago.
Nah, 1990 still was in the 5.25" time. They only faded from view a few
years later. I remember when we bought our first 486 in... 1993? we had
the choice between one with a 3.5" and one with both 3.5" and 5.25", and
my dad took the one without the 5.25" drive. To my consternation,
because I thought those disks looked kinda cool, and my uncle had a huge >collection of games on them already.
(and for what it's worth, here is an ebay offer for a sealed 5.25" copy
of the game: https://www.ebay.com/itm/235038004341)
On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
Today.
Yeah, that's another good delineation: if a game can't do widescreen,
it automatically feels old to me. It's really hard for me to play
fencepost'd games on a modern monitor; I have to REALLY enjoy the game
to keep playing at that point. I'd almost certainly be looking for a wide-screen hack (or, at the very least, an option to play the game in
a window, which I oddly find less offensive than 4:3 fullscreen)
before continuing.
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
Today.
Same. Still have them, but not in used.
On 4/18/2024 1:01 PM, Ant wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >>> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
Today.
Same. Still have them, but not in used.
I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sony Trinitron monitor, older games
and consoles looked far better on it than modern LCDs. Unfortunately
space, and the weight of the thing with all the moves was a problem and
it's long gone.
I never thought about that, but that actually is totally true. I thought
it was mostly the convenience, but yes, just shipping one disc instead
of 8 was certainly cheaper, even with the higher prices for CDs back then.
I still remember that some publishers went overboard and started to ship
some games on multiple CDs (FMV games mostly, which everybody forgets
for good reason)
On 4/18/2024 1:01 PM, Ant wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >>> Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 11:08 this Wednesday (GMT):
On 4/16/2024 6:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
I'm sure CRT's will continue to be well known..
Not sure, when was the last time you actually saw one?
I mean, my kids know they existed, but mostly from movies and stuff.
Today.
Same. Still have them, but not in used.
I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sony Trinitron monitor, older games
and consoles looked far better on it than modern LCDs. Unfortunately
space, and the weight of the thing with all the moves was a problem and
it's long gone.
Floppy disks were a surprisingly costly part of game development in
the 90s, and ate up a significant chunk of the profits for publishers.
Disks were expensive and - even purchased in bulk - could cost
anywhere from 50 cents to 2 dollars US! So with a game that shipped on
8 floppy disks, that might mean $10 of that might be spent on media
alone!
I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.
The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
atop it at need.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
(especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
- like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
much.
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/24/2024 4:25 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>> say:
<snip>
I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
(especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am >>>> here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors >>>> - like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
much.
At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.
it also was harder to put them in the wrong way round more than once,
unlike usb drives which you have to try in at least three different ways
until they work as they should
USB-C fixed that though. :P
On 4/24/2024 4:25 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
(especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am
here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting
that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors
- like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I
loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
much.
At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.
it also was harder to put them in the wrong way round more than once,
unlike usb drives which you have to try in at least three different ways until they work as they should
On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
USB-C fixed that though. :P
Upped it to 5 different
 ways?
On 25/04/2024 02:05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
USB-C fixed that though. :P
Upped it to 5 different
ways?
The USB-C on my phone is a bit rubbish as the port has a habit of
collecting dust which means the cable gets a bit loose and prone to
falling out. Every few months it's out with the specially crafted
toothpick and for an extra clean the compressor I use with my airbrush.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:38:29 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.
The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
atop it at need.
Although God forbid something you put on top of the monitor fell
off... and then you'd have to shift the bastard device to get to your
lost documents.
The closest I've gotten, in this age of flat-screens, to that lost >functionality was when I bought a little drawer for my tower computer
that slotted into a 5.25" external drive bay. ;-)
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 25/04/2024 02:05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
USB-C fixed that though. :P
Upped it to 5 different
ways?
The USB-C on my phone is a bit rubbish as the port has a habit of >>collecting dust which means the cable gets a bit loose and prone to
falling out. Every few months it's out with the specially crafted
toothpick and for an extra clean the compressor I use with my airbrush.
That's all my complaint with the new computer, instead of the case
having the USB on the front, it's on the top, where it would be
guaranteed to fill up with dust until it became non-functional if I
didn't have the external CD/DVD covering the hole.
What retarded ass monkey thought that was a good idea?
And it's not some brand-x it's a fucking corsair 4000d.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:38:29 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
I do NOT miss the weight of CRT TVs and monitors.
The /only/ thing I miss about CRTs is that you could put things on top
of them. Files. Disks. A keyboard. It was a useful storage area; out
of the way enough that you weren't cluttering up your immediate
work-area, but still accessible enough that you could grab stuff from
atop it at need.
The only thing that got "stored" on top of a CRT (monitor or TV) at our place, was the cat.
Kitties loved CRTs for the delicious heat they produced.
Although God forbid something you put on top of the monitor fell
off... and then you'd have to shift the bastard device to get to your
lost documents.
The closest I've gotten, in this age of flat-screens, to that lost
functionality was when I bought a little drawer for my tower computer
that slotted into a 5.25" external drive bay. ;-)
So you almost created that age old tech support tales of the cup holder (putting a coffee cup on the extended cd-rom.)
My monitor sits on a little "hutch" which is actually the top case of an ancient desktop XT, turned back to front - old burned dvds in cases underneath (and the new sound bar) and pills/watches/rings/etc on top.
I used to put the CRTs on it to lift them high enough so I wasn't
looking down at them, the lcds put much less strain on it, but then
those old cases were strong enough to stand on easily.
I swear new case material is so thin you could bend it if you sneezed in
it's general direction.
On 4/24/2024 5:25 PM, Ant wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/24/2024 4:25 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/23/2024 10:44 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:30:06 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from
reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>>>> say:
<snip>
I can't say I /miss/ floppy disks, but I do miss the form factor.
There was something very reassuring about those slender cassettes
(especially 3.5" disks); a solidity and presence that said, "Yes, I am >>>>> here holding your data". Slotting the disk into the drive and getting >>>>> that reassuring 'clunk' was quite satisfying too. Smaller form-factors >>>>> - like thumb-drives - never quite recaptured that. I think it's why I >>>>> loved ZIP disks (and its competitors, like LS120 super-floppies) so
much.
At least they were much harder to lose than the numerous USB thumb
drives I've got now, and all fit in the same container the same way.
it also was harder to put them in the wrong way round more than once,
unlike usb drives which you have to try in at least three different ways >>> until they work as they should
USB-C fixed that though. :P
Upped it to 5 different
 ways?
That's all my complaint with the new computer, instead of the case
having the USB on the front, it's on the top, where it would be
guaranteed to fill up with dust until it became non-functional if I
didn't have the external CD/DVD covering the hole.
What retarded ass monkey thought that was a good idea?
And it's not some brand-x it's a fucking corsair 4000d.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:41:14 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,090 |