Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Praise where praise due.

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 14, 2005 9:17:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html

In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
Life 2 or Doom 3.

More about : praise praise due

August 14, 2005 10:17:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Kevin C. wrote:
> "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1124021868.095205.58850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html
> >
> > In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
> > Life 2 or Doom 3.
> >
> >
>
> *rolls eyes*
>
> SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong
> on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list
> (NFL Blitz??).
>
> Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and
> you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too.

Why on earth would they be?

An *ANCIENT* game mechanics with great graphics...
For sure, every Joe Sixpack loves them, but that´s it.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 4:53:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1124021868.095205.58850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html
>
> In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
> Life 2 or Doom 3.
>
>

*rolls eyes*

SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong
on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list
(NFL Blitz??).

Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and
you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 5:10:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Maybe Doom 3, but not Half-Life 2
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 5:45:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

just so noone misunderstands me, I dont think Doom 3 will be on such a
list, but Half-Life 2 will absolutely be on the list.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 7:50:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Kevin C. wrote:
> "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1124021868.095205.58850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html
>>
>>In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
>>Life 2 or Doom 3.
>>
>>
>
>
> *rolls eyes*
>
> SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong
> on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list
> (NFL Blitz??).
>
> Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and
> you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too.
>
>

There is no hope in hell for Doom 3 to be on any list like that, the
engine was great, but the game itself was far from it. Half life 2 I can
agree with

--
Byron Hinson
My Photography
http://www.byronhinson.com/dd/photography
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 1:59:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Johan" <josendk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124050258.254807.291810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe Doom 3, but not Half-Life 2

LOL!!!!
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 1:59:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mother Farquhar" <fake@ddress.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>
>"Johan" <josendk@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1124050258.254807.291810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Maybe Doom 3, but not Half-Life 2
>
>LOL!!!!


He may be right - it is a _gamespot_ list after all.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:20:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 14 Aug 2005 05:17:48 -0700, "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote:

>
>In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
>Life 2 or Doom 3.

HL2 and Doom 3 are good games - at least the enemies didn't always drone
towards you (or if they did, it wouldn't appear out of character.)

Quake, on the other hand, still made the list:
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestg...
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:24:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

SS2 is, without question, the best PC action game ever made. I can say
this objectively and without bias. The only single game I can think of
that's better is Nethack.

It's funny you would mention HL2 and Doom 3; of course neither is top
material but the original versions of these games are certainly top 10.
Doom 3 is utter retread, but it's pretty. HL2 is worth the price of
admission. It's head and shoulders above Doom 3.

As a plug for Valve, the original Half Life is certainly number 2,
behind System Shock II. In terms of play *value* Half-Life is the
all-time #1. I played TFC more hours than any other game except
Nethack. But that's only because of TFC. It is and remains the best
online multiplayer action game I've ever played.

Sometimes a work of man-made media transcends product and becomes art.
I can remember sitting in the theatre after Schindler's List and
feeling dull numb, simply shocked from the effect of the picture. Or
hearing Mozart's 40th, or Metallica's "One" at volume 11. Can a simple
game be compared to these works of pure grace? I say Yes.

The "immersion" of a game is tossed around like it's a measurable
factor, like the screen resolution or frames-per-second. Oh yeah, Doom
3 made me jump a few times and the Shalebridge Cradle level of Thief 3
was really creepy. But if you've played through SS2 and not jumped out
of your seat and audibly SHREAKED then you're legally dead. Not just
once but the WHOLE TIME. This game just nailed it. OK the graphics
are dated (sometimes comical) and the endgame is silly. But man, these
guys combined sound, visual, voice acting and storyline into a truly
FLAWLESS interface and emerged with something that is greater than the
sum of its parts. System Shock II is not just a game. It's sitting on
my shelf alongside my favorite DVD's & CD's waiting to be experienced
again.

Maybe it's #1, maybe not, that's a subjective question. In my mind it
certainly is. If you've never played it then you have no business
owning a computer.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:57:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Kevin C." <nomail@dot.com> wrote in message
news:G9HLe.9$hF1.0@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> *rolls eyes*
>
> SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't
belong
> on an all-time list

Someones *always* gotta be different and stand out from the
rest. I'm rolling *my* eyes so bad that it took me a few minutes
to get them back straight so I could compose this post. SS2 is
most definately one of the greatest games ever.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:35:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major
downside of the game...

--
there is no .sig
"Jim Vieira" <WhiplashrAT@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:S%PLe.7371$32.2311@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> "Kevin C." <nomail@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:G9HLe.9$hF1.0@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> *rolls eyes*
>>
>> SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't
> belong
>> on an all-time list
>
> Someones *always* gotta be different and stand out from the
> rest. I'm rolling *my* eyes so bad that it took me a few minutes
> to get them back straight so I could compose this post. SS2 is
> most definately one of the greatest games ever.
>
>
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:54:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

x-no-archive: yes

mace wrote:

<snip>

both will be in history books but for very different reasons

doom 3 will be in the history books for good reasons, being
the first "cinematic/movie like" graphic quality pc game

hl2 will be in the history books for BAD reasons, being the
first game featuring abusive against consumer rights steam
technologies

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 4:15:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Kevin C." <nomail@dot.com> wrote:
>
>"mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:1124021868.095205.58850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html
>>
>> In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
>> Life 2 or Doom 3.
>>
>>
>
>*rolls eyes*
>
>SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong
>on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list
>(NFL Blitz??).
>
>Besides, Gamespot only picks aged games for that list. Wait a few years, and
>you can be pretty sure that HL2, if not Doom 3, will be on that list too.

Well it is impressive that the fan community is still going after all
this time. Tried to find any mods for Unreal lately?
August 15, 2005 5:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9zQLe.514$AT7.93@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major
> downside of the game...
>

So true.
Most of SS2 was great but the end-game was a major disappointment.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 7:06:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Johan" <josendk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124052357.374422.116750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> just so noone misunderstands me, I dont think Doom 3 will be on such a
> list, but Half-Life 2 will absolutely be on the list.

I personally don't think SS2 deserves to be on this list but at least it
qualifies to be in consideration given that I can install it and play it now
whether or not Irrational is still in business and running a validation
server.

Since HL2's lifetime is by design constrained to the business lifetime of
Valve and their willingness to validate the game online, it's automatically
disqualified for any "All time greatest game" list I'd consider
authoritative (it's also automatically disqualified from any game purchase
list I'll put together.) In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to
be installable and playable for "all time"!

If Valve should someday deign to put out a downloadable, archivable,
offline-installable patch that frees HL2 from this umbilical, then we can
talk.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 3:59:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Kevin C. wrote:
> "mace" <mmace@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1124021868.095205.58850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>http://www.gamespot.com/features/6130956/index.html
>>
>>In a couple of years time NOBODY even remembers the shitpiles like Half
>>Life 2 or Doom 3.
>>
>>
>
>
> *rolls eyes*
>
> SS2 is underplayed and overrated. A cult classic, yes, but it doesn't belong
> on an all-time list -- neither do many of the other titles on their list
> (NFL Blitz??).
>

SS2 is an al time class IMO. Sales mean nothing.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 5:17:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

SpammersDie wrote:
> "Johan" <josendk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124052357.374422.116750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>just so noone misunderstands me, I dont think Doom 3 will be on such a
>>list, but Half-Life 2 will absolutely be on the list.
>
>
> I personally don't think SS2 deserves to be on this list but at least it
> qualifies to be in consideration given that I can install it and play it now
> whether or not Irrational is still in business and running a validation
> server.

So the fact that an old game runs, for free, on your modern system is
one of your parameters for "greatness". I see.

>
> Since HL2's lifetime is by design constrained to the business lifetime of
> Valve and their willingness to validate the game online, it's automatically
> disqualified for any "All time greatest game" list I'd consider
> authoritative (it's also automatically disqualified from any game purchase
> list I'll put together.) In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to
> be installable and playable for "all time"!

Hmm Hmm.

So solitaire and chess would be up there then?

>
> If Valve should someday deign to put out a downloadable, archivable,
> offline-installable patch that frees HL2 from this umbilical, then we can
> talk.


To yourselves probably.
August 15, 2005 5:59:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thus spake "QV" <qv@qvnospam.com>, Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:46:05 GMT, Anno
Domini:

>
>"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:9zQLe.514$AT7.93@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> But not as good as the original. The Body of the Many being the major
>> downside of the game...
>>
>
>So true.
>Most of SS2 was great but the end-game was a major disappointment.

I thought the start of SS2 was major disappointment. And that's where I
stopped...

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 1:19:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:33:38 GMT, "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote:

>
>- Forced use of certain skills (you have to hack at a fairly high level to
>get past one plot-critical problem - you have to research a specific item to
>get past another.) In an RPG, no single skill should be mandatory.

I agree here.

>In
>addition, the game is unbalanced wrt RPG choices - in the early game,
>Navy-types have a large advantage - in the BotM, psi-types have a large
>advantage, etc.

Actually, this is merely balancing stuff in a different fashion - the
player must choose between an early-game benefit or a late-game benefit.

Of course, there are game balance issues across skills - for example, there
isn't much practical reason to improve Heavy and Exotic to maximum as there
are only a few weapons with questionable overall firepower. There's also
Repair being next to useless unless you didn't pick-up maintenance.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:08:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"i own a yacht" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tizNe.1195$BB1.604@fe72.usenetserver.com...
> SpammersDie <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>> In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to be installable and
>> playable for "all time"!
>
> even games that require third party applications, emulation, and in many
> cases, community designed patches to run?

Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the
next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is
down or just decides it doesn't want to let you play anymore.

>
> whine about steam,

I'm not just whining about Steam, I'm hitting the companies that use it in
the pocketbook. You use Steam, you're fired. End of story.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 6:18:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"i own a yacht" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:p q%Ne.47053$6Z.2276@fe20.usenetserver.com...
> SpammersDie <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>> Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the
>> next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is
>> down or just decides it doesn't want to let you play anymore.
>
> that's the point, innit. when those other companies went under, and
> their ancient games no longer worked out of the box,

Um... Looking Glass went down years ago and guess what, SS1, Thief, etc.
didn't suddenly stop working.

Yes, it takes an effort to get SS1 *if you change the underlying OS* - so
what, when LG went down, my Win98 CD's didn't just vanish in a poof of
orange smoke - I can always dual boot or VPC or just keep my older hardware
around as an offline DOS/Win9x game console, which is in fact exactly what I
do - I'm not dependent on third party hacks of questionable legality and
origin.

I have no choice to do that with HL2 because it's *designed* to become
nonfunctional whenever Valve decides to - the game's lifetime is under their
control, not mine. Since that's an intentional design decision by Valve (as
opposed to the other games who did nothing intentional to become hard to run
a decade later under an OS with an entirely different kernel and device
driver architecture), I *will* penalize Valve and not those other companies.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:22:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 05:35:21 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>SpammersDie <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>> In order to pass the "all time" test, you have to be installable and
>> playable for "all time"!
>
>even games that require third party applications, emulation, and in many
>cases, community designed patches to run?

Only so if they are tried to be run on systems or operating systems
for which they were not designed. You don't expect to run Super
Nintendo games on Playstation, do you?

>whine about steam, and forget all those hundreds of old games that
>simply wont run without special effort and software.

Why wouldn't they run on their target machine? Steam games might not,
though.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:30:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:35:17 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>SpammersDie <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>> Which still means that once you get it to run, it won't stop working the
>> next day because some computer out there that you have no control over is
>> down or just decides it doesn't want to let you play anymore.
>
>that's the point, innit. when those other companies went under, and
>their ancient games no longer worked out of the box, the gamers had to
>find ways to get them going again. there's absolutely no reason
>whatsoever the same wouldn't happen in the unlikely event that valve
>went under leaving their steam catalogue of games unplayable. it's the
>exact same thing.

No it isn't. Emulation etc. are only needed when you try to run games
on foreign systems (foreign to the game). For example running Amiga
games on PC, or DOS games on WinXP.

Steam is an _additional_ hurdle to get the games to work. In the
situation there would be no support for the games anymore, Steam games
would not work even in the original system.

>if you're not going to penalize companies for disappearing and no longer
>supporting their games so that they work currently, i don't see how you
>can criticize steam based on some prediction that if valve ever went
>under you would no longer be able to play their games.

Read above. You can't demand a game to work on all future machines
irrespective to their hardware and OS, but you can demand a game to
continue working on the system the game was intended for.

>you may have
>other issues with steam, and that's fine, but we're talking about
>something specific here and it's something a lot of people bring up and
>it's stupid.

No, you have a simple comprehension problem here, that's all. You are
comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same situation.

>dopey john lewis will sit there and boast about his
>collection of old hardware he keeps around just to play games that no
>longer work under a modern OS and then gripe about the possibilities of
>half-life 2 no longer functioning in the future.

....even in the original machine. That's the difference.

>use your brain. offline
>play is already guaranteed based on software that came out before hl2
>was even on the shelves.

1. Cracks are illegal.

2. I guess that would be fine, if HL2 would be the only Steam game
around.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:42:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

SpammersDie wrote:
> Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS and other
> long-dead DOS game makers. Those guys did the best they could reasonably do
> given the state of DOS and the lack of a decent abstraction layer for
> hardware at the time. Valve, on the other hand, purposefully put a hurdle in
> for the game's long term accesssibility.

That hasn't happened yet so stop talking about it like it has. You have
no idea if HL2 has long term accessibility or not. It's accessible
RIGHT NOW and that's all you can actually say. If and when Valve goes
out of business, only THEN can you say whether or not HL2 will have
long-term accessibility. For all we know Valve will release a patch to
HL2 before they close their doors making it playable without requiring
Steam at all. Or not. We DO NOT KNOW YET.

If you want to bitch about having to go online to do validation then
bitch about that, but don't bitch about not being able to play a game
in 2010 or whenever, since that hasn't occured yet. BTW, Valve isn't
the only one doing online validation for offline content. Bioware is
also doing it with their premium modules for NWN. I'm sure in the
future this will become more and more common, so get used to it.
Personally I prefer this type of "intrusion" to other forms of copy
protection like Star Force.

Knight37
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:31:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"i own a yacht" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:lXpOe.9885$EI3.7297@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> SpammersDie <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>> Um... Looking Glass went down years ago and guess what, SS1, Thief, etc.
>> didn't suddenly stop working.
>
> actually, they did.

Um, no they didn't.

The day LGS died, my installations of SS1 and Thief booted up for me just
fine. They still do.

No hyperspace transmission went out from LGS's HQ to kill all their
previously installed games.


> hell, i remember trying to get ss1 going several
> years ago and having problems with it.

Because you upgraded the underlying OS.

As riku has already pointed out, you are comparing apples and oranges.


> i'm sure there's a solid way now
> but no game is guaranteed to continue working out of the box once the
> developer and support vanishes.

No game is guaranteed to work on future OS's that didn't even exist when the
game was developed.

But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism
designed into the way Steam games do.

Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS and other
long-dead DOS game makers. Those guys did the best they could reasonably do
given the state of DOS and the lack of a decent abstraction layer for
hardware at the time. Valve, on the other hand, purposefully put a hurdle in
for the game's long term accesssibility.



> i'll take the ~100k file over keeping dusty old hardware around, kthx.
> it seems the rabid anti-steam folk aren't much for convenience.

And I'll take control and security over convenience.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:06:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96BACDAD36C1Fknight37m@130.133.1.4...
> "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> once tried to test me with:
>
>>
>> "knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1124743365.180263.135090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> SpammersDie wrote:
>>>> Thus, once again, I will punish Valve for that and not punish LGS
>>>> and other
>>>> long-dead DOS game makers. Those guys did the best they could
>>>> reasonably do
>>>> given the state of DOS and the lack of a decent abstraction layer
>>>> for hardware at the time. Valve, on the other hand, purposefully put
>>>> a hurdle in
>>>> for the game's long term accesssibility.
>>>
>>> That hasn't happened yet so stop talking about it like it has. You
>>> have no idea if HL2 has long term accessibility or not. It's
>>> accessible RIGHT NOW and that's all you can actually say. If and when
>>> Valve goes out of business, only THEN can you say whether or not HL2
>>> will have long-term accessibility. For all we know Valve will release
>>> a patch to HL2 before they close their doors making it playable
>>> without requiring Steam at all. Or not. We DO NOT KNOW YET.
>>
>> And as I've already said on this very thread, *if* they release such a
>> patch or even annouce officially when the Steam leash will come off
>> the SP version, I'll reconsider the way I look at them but I'm not
>> going to agree that I have "no idea" whether HL2 has long term
>> accessibility or not.
>
> Why, do you have a crystal ball? No you don't. So yes, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

Oh please. The continuum of predictions isn't divided into two neat boxes of
"We have 100% proof" and "We have NO IDEA." "NO IDEA" means you have *little
or no* basis on which to make a confident prediction, not that you lack 100%
proof. If it did, you had no right by your own logic to state just now
without qualification that "I HAVE NO IDEA" since for all you know, I could
have a high-level inside contact inside Valve that confirms without a doubt
that Valve will never release a patch to free HL2 from Steam. I'm not saying
I have such a contact but if I did, I would still deny it publically so my
refusal to confirm it is no proof.

So if you're not gonna live by your own rule that everything that isn't in
the past or right in front of your nose can never be asserted without
qualification in a usenet group about GAMES, then don't get on someone
else's case for it. Go around telling people you have "NO IDEA" whether the
sun will rise in the east tomorrow (you don't have a crystal ball, do you?)
and count all the funny looks you get. That's the funny look I'm giving you
right now. There's a difference between being open-minded and ignoring the
reality of how a for-profit corporation will act. I'm open-minded enough to
know I *might* be wrong about that and I've already stated that possibility
in this thread. I'm realistic enough to know I'm confident that I won't be
wrong.
August 23, 2005 11:41:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2005 01:13:07 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:

>That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever
>I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen
>this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely
>happening. So as I said. Get used to it.

I would say easily within 5 years.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:45:21 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>> Yes, it takes an effort to get SS1 *if you change the underlying OS* - so
>> what, when LG went down, my Win98 CD's didn't just vanish in a poof of
>> orange smoke - I can always dual boot or VPC or just keep my older hardware
>> around as an offline DOS/Win9x game console, which is in fact exactly what I
>> do - I'm not dependent on third party hacks of questionable legality and
>> origin.
>
>so, having to keep old operating systems, old hardware, and use
>emulation software is no big deal.. but using a 100k crack to make sure
>half-life 2 keeps working is completely unreasonable.
>
>i'll take the ~100k file over keeping dusty old hardware around, kthx.
>it seems the rabid anti-steam folk aren't much for convenience. taking
>up space, using extra electricity, just to play some old games.
>installing extra applications, dual-booting. how silly.

Are you really that stupid or only acting so? Having the 100k crack is
an extra hurdle, not an alternative to the old hardware/OS. Nowhere
does it say Half-life 2 will run out of the box, or even with that
crack, in 11 years in contemporary gaming machines and OSes (PC with
WindowsXP128bit or whatever).
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:00:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2005 13:42:45 -0700, "knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:

>That hasn't happened yet so stop talking about it like it has. You have
>no idea if HL2 has long term accessibility or not. It's accessible
>RIGHT NOW and that's all you can actually say. If and when Valve goes
>out of business, only THEN can you say whether or not HL2 will have
>long-term accessibility.

Human has this ability of thinking about consequences and thinking of
"what if"-scenarios with potential risks . It is pretty stupid to put
one's head into sand thinking "Well it is not a problem at the moment,
so I'd better not think about the future either.".

>For all we know Valve will release a patch to
>HL2 before they close their doors making it playable without requiring
>Steam at all. Or not. We DO NOT KNOW YET.

So why should we assume everything will surely end up according to the
good scenario? Why do people wear seatbelts, or buy insurances? That's
right, they are able to think about the bad scenarios as well, if
everything does not go as planned.

>If you want to bitch about having to go online to do validation then
>bitch about that, but don't bitch about not being able to play a game
>in 2010 or whenever, since that hasn't occured yet.

Sorry, but that line of thinking is simply quite stupid. Putting one's
head into sand.

>BTW, Valve isn't
>the only one doing online validation for offline content. Bioware is
>also doing it with their premium modules for NWN. I'm sure in the
>future this will become more and more common, so get used to it.

That's exactly putting head into sand. I'm sure you don't have any
problems having to be online to watch HD-DVD movies either, right?
Funnily enough, many times I also want to watch movies in places where
there is no internet connection available.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:06:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2005 01:13:07 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why, do you have a crystal ball? No you don't. So yes, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

It is called common sense, something you apparently lack. PC game
companies which are about to fold don't usually seem to be too keen to
continue supporting their old games which bring them no money
whatsoever anymore.

>There's ZERO business reason to make such an announcement NOW, when it's
>only relative if and when they get in financial trouble and Steam becomes
>impossible to maintain.

There's no business reason if they really think all people are as
stupid as those who are unable to see potential risks in the future.

But I am sure you were saying all this same to the people who were
against CircuitCity DIVX (pay-per-view DVD with online
authentication). For some reason, the people who were against it and
voted with their wallet won.

>That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever
>I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen
>this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely
>happening. So as I said. Get used to it.

And so said the only real CC DIVX customer promoter in the whole known
universe. Every other customer seemed to be against it, luckily.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:22:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

SpammersDie wrote:
>
> But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism
> designed into the way Steam games do.
>

I wonder how Valve would react to such baseless, potentially harmful
slander?

You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer".
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:22:49 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
wrote:

>SpammersDie wrote:
>>
>> But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism
>> designed into the way Steam games do.
>>
>
>I wonder how Valve would react to such baseless, potentially harmful
>slander?

It is not slander, you blind Valve fanboi. Remember the Steam offline
mode timer?

>You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer".

And you need to change yours to "Rabid blind Valve fanboi who couldn't
get over the demise of CircuitCity DIVX".
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:25:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Knight37 wrote:
>
>
> That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever
> I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen
> this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely
> happening. So as I said. Get used to it.
>

Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery.

It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued
online and available anywhere in the world is a great plus.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:25:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" predicted:

> Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery.
>
> It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued online
> and available anywhere in the world is a great plus.

But, but, I'll miss the *box*! Maybe the box could be purchased as an
option.

Like we could buy it from the "Gamers Gift Shop" - along with the logo
t-shirts, the logo thongs, the logo noserings, and the logo golf shoes (all
available separately or together - as the ultimate gaming fashion ensemble).

Mark
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:25:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:25:26 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Knight37 wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever
>> I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen
>> this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely
>> happening. So as I said. Get used to it.
>>
>
>Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery.
>
>It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued
>online and available anywhere in the world is a great plus.

Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like
they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5
years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place.
Not even close.

After that requiring an active internet connection in order to watch
your DVD movies, listening to your purchased music, playing your games
on your laptop etc. is far for convenient.

But I am sure knight, andrew and walter mitty were first in the line
buying CircuitCity DIVX pay-per-view boxes. Too bad it failed, but
that didn't destroy their hopes of everything requiring online
validation in the future.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:14:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:25:26 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Knight37 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well whatever
>>>I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It won't happen
>>>this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's slowly but surely
>>>happening. So as I said. Get used to it.
>>>
>>
>>Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery.
>>
>>It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued
>>online and available anywhere in the world is a great plus.
>
>
> Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like
> they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5
> years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place.
> Not even close.
>
>

Well, just about every laptop comes with wireless as base feature now.
As do PPCs.

I think you'll be surprised.

And I dont see how your argument matters anyway : if they have a laptop
they can take their games with them and just play offline.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:16:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:22:49 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>SpammersDie wrote:
>>
>>>But most games don't have an intentional built-in remote-destruct mechanism
>>>designed into the way Steam games do.
>>>
>>
>>I wonder how Valve would react to such baseless, potentially harmful
>>slander?
>
>
> It is not slander, you blind Valve fanboi. Remember the Steam offline
> mode timer?
>

That was an error : they removed it.

It is slander because this dick is suggesting that their IS a
remote-destruct system built in. Prove it.

>
>>You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer".
>
>
> And you need to change yours to "Rabid blind Valve fanboi who couldn't
> get over the demise of CircuitCity DIVX".
>

I'm not a rabid Valve fan boy : I enjoyed HL2 and have moved on. It
seems you're the one frothing and defending a slanderer here on the 'net.


--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
" Format wars could 'confuse users'"
http://www.tinyurl.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:56:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3n08c5F18bg40U2@uni-berlin.de...
> Knight37 wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's fine. I'll be playing my Steam games and you can play, well
>> whatever I guess. The future of gaming is online content delivery. It
>> won't happen this year, it won't happen in five years maybe, but it's
>> slowly but surely happening. So as I said. Get used to it.
>>
>
> Within 3 years the majority will be online content delivery.
>
> It's just too convenient and the fact that the games are catalogued online
> and available anywhere in the world is a great plus.

Irrelevant to the discusson.

How you obtain the content initially has nothing to do with whether you need
an internet connection on the deployment platform and the publisher's
continued willingness to authenticate you to use the content *after* you've
obtained it.

My firewall, PDF reader, and patches for a whole slew of non-Steam games
were all delivered online and I had no objection to any of that because all
of those were delivered as standalone installers that could be burned to CD,
reinstalled offline as many times as I want and the content doesn't call
home to authenticate. I only have to download *once* and I can use the
machine best suited for that task whether or it's not the machine I
ultimately intend to use the content on.
August 23, 2005 7:48:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2005 07:44:50 -0700, "knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:

>Broadband penetration is going to have to improve dramatically in the
>next 2 or 3 years for game distribution to go to online delivery for
>the majority. Also major players like EA, VU, and Ubi are going to have
>to switch to online content delivery mechanisms (or at least offer it).
>I can see 5 years from now nearly any game you would care to buy will
>be available online (that's almost the case now, actually) but I don't
>see retail dying off for PC gaming in 5 years. Maybe 10. And console
>gaming will take even longer to die in retail. Way longer.

Yup, Consoles will keep the retail channel chugging along for the
foreseeable future. That is a nice little conundrum for you know who
to get his microscopic mind around.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:05:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

x-no-archive: yes

MP wrote:

> But, but, I'll miss the *box*! Maybe the box could be
> purchased as an option.

you are not the only one wanting a "box"
i also want a "box" and the majority too

what must happen is the pc game industry maintaining
choice
like you say maintaining all options open so the market
can choose what is best
this is essential
the delivery method in pc games must be choose by us
us pc gamers! not by publishers or developers!
they create and sell and we choose!
that's not negotiable
we choose were to buy play and install our own pc games
either via online delivery system or traditional retail
that's why steam is so wrong cause it cuts choice
with steam there is no choice
you don't see a proper retail box steam free half-life 2
but rather valve forcing and making you use an online
delivery system
this kind of arrogant attitude by valve is UNTOLERABLE

ok many like online delivery for pc games, fair enough
but those that like it CAN'T FORCE THE OTHERS TO USE IT
YOU and ME and MILLIONS of others prefer the current
dominating format which has been used for over a decade
the format of a physical package with the software in a
self contained cd/dvd meaning you buy it in a retail store
and bring it home and you install it and you play it right
out of the box
right out of the box without being dependant on anything
else! this is essential! essential!
this is very important cause valve is trying to impregnate
a internet technology into the retail market and this is
very wrong, that is infecting and damaging the retail
market
there has to be a CLEAR SEPARATION of what is retail and
what is internet online delivery technology
steam has no place in retail! no place period
systems like steam only belong to the internet! ONLY!

so for a packaged box game to be properly sold in retail
it must meet what i call the 3 unnegotiable requirement
what i call the three unnegotiable requirements are:
.. physical package with a cd/dvd sold in retail stores
.. patches freely available as individual files
.. software in cd/dvd is totally self contained and plays
immediatly out of the box with no humiliating ask for
permission to use

this is the way i want to buy play install and patches pc
games but others like it different ok, so lets keep all
options available and let pc gamers choose
if this format becomes the chosen one only by a very small
minority and stops being FINANCIALLY profitable then off
course i don't have the right to ask publishers to make
games available in it
i don't want for publishers to create games in a format
that only me will use it but the facts and reality are
clear its not only me that wants pc games this way but
the majority of pc games DO PREFER this format
let me repeat its been proven the majority still prefers
buying a pc game in a box with a cd/dvd! so don't anyone
try to deny this!
as long as pc gamers PREFER this format the box/package
cd dvd sold in retail then publishers and developers must
keep releasing their game using it

publishers and developers must RESPECT US
we will not tolerate being forced to use a system only to
favour them
let the pc gamer choose
have both options available for pc games to choose
traditional self contained retail box in a cd/dvd
and online delivery
and we already have this now
for example, popular games like farcry and painkiller can
be bought via online delivery but they are also available
in retail stores in a PROPER box in a cd/dvd
this is what must happen! choice!
with choice them will see what format will win
let it be a fair competition!
fair competition! something valve doesn't want
valve is playing DIRTY cause its INFECTING the retail
market with a internet online delivery system
valve is FORCING a system upon us all
valve is using retail to SPREAD they own system
that's totally unacceptable!
i can buy farcry and painkiller in a PROPER box retail
package but i CANNOT do the same with half-life 2 and all
these games have an online delivery alternative but hl2
forces the technology behind the online delivery system
to be used by those buying the game in retail and this
is totally unacceptable! UNACCEPTABLE!
why they are doing this?
cause the online delivery system favours them!
the online delivery system gives them immense power and
with power comes the ability to ask for more money
the reason why they are doing this is not to better serve
the customer but to FAVOUR THEMSELVES! and no matter what
businesses can't be ruled by this attitude total careless
about customers and neglect of basic consumer rights

as for what system will win... lets wait and see
but if the market is split 50/50 why not maintaining both
if its financially viable
if half pc gamers prefer one system and another half the
other pc game industry MUST MAINTAIN both system available
there has to be MUTUAL RESPECT
we live in democracy NOT IN A DICTATORSHIP
its in DICTATORSHIP that everyone must be the same
remember george orwell 1984? that's what steam is
life is diversity!
so lets respect diversity!
the main thing here is being financially viable
if its financially viable the pc game industry has no
excuse to kill the retail physical package format

i don't have any problem with any online delivery except
for the fact i want to have choice and options of every
single pc game release being available also in a retail
box

do you see me going against any other online delivery
system with the exception of steam?
no!
i only fight against steam
i don't have any problem with any other online delivery
system cause with those i have the option to buy a game
in a retail store like i've been doing for the past
years
its with steam that i don't have that option
valve took that option and that choice away from me and
that i will never accept never!

give us choice is what i'm asking
let us choose is what i'm asking
respect our will is what i'm asking
them will see what will be the system pc games choose
but don't impose and force systems upon us!
that never! which is exactly what is happening with valve
and steam

ps: i do think one of the reasons for the recent push in
online delivery systems like steam is to cut on piracy
fighting piracy is protecting the traditional box package
its essential to fight piracy essential and we must all
try our best cause every single pc gamer has the power to
change things and to make a difference that's what i meant
with the other day saying its also our own responsibility
as pc gamers to actively fight against piracy
if we want to maintain the traditional box package we must
also protect it and protecting it means actively fighting
against piracy cause if not then arrogant publishers like
valve will have an "excuse" to IMPOSE and FORCE upon us
thing we don't like
i do apologize if i tried to insinuate anything else which
wasn't true about your person cause it wasn't what i was
trying to say but i admit the way i wrote was wrong

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:45:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:14:31 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like
>> they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5
>> years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place.
>> Not even close.

>Well, just about every laptop comes with wireless as base feature now.
>As do PPCs.
>
>I think you'll be surprised.

Sorry, but WLAN coverage, especially for FREE WLAN, is very restricted
around the world. And GSM/GPRS are not broadband either.

>And I dont see how your argument matters anyway : if they have a laptop
>they can take their games with them and just play offline.

Steam offline is prone not to work, but you wouldn't know that since
you never really use it. Other "electronic content delivery systems"
like the one used for NWN modules don't even offer offline play,
because they want to control your gaming even stricter.

Plus, you can't install&play Steam games offline either.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:49:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:16:28 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> It is not slander, you blind Valve fanboi. Remember the Steam offline
>> mode timer?
>>
>
>That was an error : they removed it.

That's your ASSumption, Valve fanboi. How on earth can you insert an
"error" to code which disables offline mode depending on date??? If
the offline mode was supposed to remain forever, why was there ANY
dependence at all in the code to the system clock date? Try to think
logically this time.

>>>You need to change your name to something like "shitstirrer".
>>
>> And you need to change yours to "Rabid blind Valve fanboi who couldn't
>> get over the demise of CircuitCity DIVX".
>
>I'm not a rabid Valve fan boy : I enjoyed HL2 and have moved on. It
>seems you're the one frothing and defending a slanderer here on the 'net.

If you "moved on" from Steam, why are you still discussing and blindly
defending it in every thread?
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:04:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:08:18 -0400, don <don@no.spam> wrote:

>Right. People who live in big cities and have all sorts of broadband
>options don't realize that 80% of the internet users in the US still
>have dial-up connections, and for many of them, there will most likely

Pull numbers out of your ass much?
--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:39:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:33:37 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>anyway, nope. apples and apples. you're complaining that half-life
>2's longevity isn't guaranteed in the event valve goes out of business.
>and i'm saying that's true of every single game out there, including
>ones i'm sure you have no such complaint about.

They still work on the system and OS they were targeted for, and
future systems which are able to emulate those systems. Steam games
won't. This is something you seem to have problems comprehending.

So what is your take in CircuitCity DIVX? "So what if your movie
collection becomes useless if the company supporting the system goes
bust (as it has done)? Big deal."
August 25, 2005 3:27:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:08:18 -0400, don <don@no.spam> wrote:

>DSL only works within about 3 miles of the base station. If you live 15
>miles out in the country, that won't work, and cable companies don't
>want to string 15 miles of cable to service one or two homes. It's just
>not cost effective for them.

ADSL2 works over much longer range, plus there are satellite options
for people in really remote places.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:29:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

i own a yacht <me@privacy.net> once tried to test me with:

> riku? the guy who changed his posting name to get out of all the
> killfiles he ended up in?

Isn't Riku that chick from Final Fantasy 10 that could make all the gadgets
and stuff?

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 7:51:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:14:31 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Unless, of course, people demand more and more mobility as well, like
>>>they are doing right now (more and more laptops sold etc.). And in 3-5
>>>years, we still will not have wireless Internet all over the place.
>>>Not even close.
>
>
>>Well, just about every laptop comes with wireless as base feature now.
>>As do PPCs.
>>
>>I think you'll be surprised.
>
>
> Sorry, but WLAN coverage, especially for FREE WLAN, is very restricted
> around the world. And GSM/GPRS are not broadband either.
>
>
>>And I dont see how your argument matters anyway : if they have a laptop
>>they can take their games with them and just play offline.
>
>
> Steam offline is prone not to work, but you wouldn't know that since
> you never really use it. Other "electronic content delivery systems"

Wrong.

> like the one used for NWN modules don't even offer offline play,
> because they want to control your gaming even stricter.
>
> Plus, you can't install&play Steam games offline either.
>

Well, DUH!
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 25 Aug 2005 00:29:42 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:

>Isn't Riku that chick from Final Fantasy 10 that could make all the gadgets
>and stuff?

Isn't knight37 the middle-aged nerd living in his mother's basement
collecting medieval knight figurines, yelling at the mirror "Have at
thee!", and dreaming about gaming chicks in console RPGs?
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:14:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

riku <riku@none.invalid.com> once tried to test me with:

> On 25 Aug 2005 00:29:42 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Isn't Riku that chick from Final Fantasy 10 that could make all the
>>gadgets and stuff?
>
> Isn't knight37 the middle-aged nerd living in his mother's basement
> collecting medieval knight figurines, yelling at the mirror "Have at
> thee!", and dreaming about gaming chicks in console RPGs?

I dream about Star Wars, dork.


--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
!