That's another thing GoG. DOSbox versions whenever and where ever possible. I don't give a damn what the whiners have to say. DOSbox versions are superior to the wonky early Windows shit. This is why I have not purchased the Fallout games from you.
There are very good unofficial windows patches for fallout (also allowing high resolution support). They should probably look into that.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
They can't use that stuff because they don't own it. They do link to that sort of thing on their forums though and write or link to extensive guides on setting them up.
And I've used the high res patches for Fallout and don't like them much. They break the game slightly by artificially increasing your view range, allowing you to see things that you shouldn't at those distances. I also don't like the way it makes all the assets smaller.
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
I wish etoychest still posted here because that dude loved him some Wizardry. He was like TheSonicRetard of old school western rpg's.
I bought the Ultimate Wizardry Archives off of Ebay many years ago (contains 1 through 7 and the remake of 7), but for some reason haven't gotten around to playing it. I had planned to play through the later trilogy (was it 6, 7, and 8?) but never did, and I don't own a copy of 8, unfortunately.
New website redesign is up. Legend of Grimrock available for preorder for $12, Trine and The Whispered World available now for $10 and $15, respectively. There are also Darwinia, Machinarium, and SpaceChem coming soon.
Edit: Wow, they actually revamped the wishlist too!
They can't use that stuff because they don't own it. They do link to that sort of thing on their forums though and write or link to extensive guides on setting them up.
And I've used the high res patches for Fallout and don't like them much. They break the game slightly by artificially increasing your view range, allowing you to see things that you shouldn't at those distances. I also don't like the way it makes all the assets smaller.
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Fallout hi-res patches either. They make everything a strain on your eyes to read.
Also, the revamped wishlist is interesting! Heartening to see that the two games I really want on GOG are decently high up there.
I don't mind GoG selling new stuff, as long as they keep releasing old stuff too.
I just love GOG too much.
And Outcast's graphics have gorgeous art design and direction, but technically they're horrible. I know voxels are cool, but the game sears my retinas.
Which would mean Eidos/Enix/GOG doesn't own 'em... so if that's their policy, there's nothing keeping them from releasing games with community-made texture packs and and model swaps like the one somebody made for System Shock 2?
GSM on
We'll get back there someday.
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
They need Osx support if they are going to compete with steam
How exactly would they do that unless the games run in DosBox?
Wine works remarkably well for a great many GOG games. At least, the ones I've tried. I believe I'76 works a bit better for me on my OS X machine than my Win 7 machine (mostly because I can limit CPU usage from the command line with wine, and I don't have to kill explorer). I even manage to get Planescape: Torment running beautifully, with fan mods.
I will admit, though, that some games (Shogo) are a mess on Wine.
TetraNitroCubane on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Which would mean Eidos/Enix/GOG doesn't own 'em... so if that's their policy, there's nothing keeping them from releasing games with community-made texture packs and and model swaps like the one somebody made for System Shock 2?
Nah, if you do work on a game that belongs to a studio or publisher while you work for that studio or publisher, they own the work. It just means that they did it for free and it's unsupported, hence the Unofficial tag.
edit: And what I mean by "they did it for free" is that whoever put that work in did it without pay. The developer/publisher has every right to charge for it though. Which is what is going on with the Anachronox build you get from GoG since it's included with your purchase.
Last week was better. Arcanum is worth it, but I already have that from another sale.
And can I just say I'm usually not bothered by graphics at all, but I seriously hate the way that Return to Zork looks. What's that called? FMV? I hate that.
anoffdayTo be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it.Registered Userregular
Yeah. I hate FMV. It just looks so cheesy. It's the only graphics style that I don't like. If it's even considered a graphics style? I just can't believe that someone back then said, "Hey, so people always want better graphics and it keeps getting better, so let's raise the bar. Let's use real people in our video games!"
Steam: offday
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
FMV was amazing when it first came out.
0
anoffdayTo be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it.Registered Userregular
But why? It's video inside of a video game. It's just always looked awkward to me. It looks like someone put a B rated movie in my video game.
Steam: offday
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
You just have to think of it in relative terms. Even today, games are chasing photo-realism, and that was still a thing back then when the CD-ROM came out. You went from poorly rendered 3D to live people, and it was quite impressive for the time. Then every game became a B Movie and people got tired of it. Some games did it right, though, like the Wing Commander series.
You just have to think of it in relative terms. Even today, games are chasing photo-realism, and that was still a thing back then when the CD-ROM came out. You went from poorly rendered 3D to live people, and it was quite impressive for the time. Then every game became a B Movie and people got tired of it. Some games did it right, though, like the Wing Commander series.
I would also add that while now shrug inducing, playing a "movie" of any kind on your computer/console back then seemed incredibly cool. FMVs were a neat efficient way to convey a lot of emotion in a story and provide context to a player's actions. Trying to do the same with sprites or primitive 3D wasn't possible. As Carcass points out they got tiresome when they stopped being an addition to the game and became the game itself.
And if you think about it FMVs never really went away. Technology just caught up enough to use fully CGI characters instead of bad D-list movie actors. They just got renamed "cut scenes" or "non-interactive scenes." Just look at MGS2 and it's (seemingly endless) cut scenes. Story wise they're not much "better" than anything back then. They just use CGI where before it was live actors on a set.
But why? It's video inside of a video game. It's just always looked awkward to me. It looks like someone put a B rated movie in my video game.
Because, when the alternative is claymation early CG, seeing a person that looks like a person was pretty amazing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YnvPetZ1E#t=2m36s
Think Reboot. That's what most game CG at the time looked like. Maybe some people's nostalgia goggles are thick enough to consider it retro or stylish, but I've always found it lame at best. FMV is guilty of bad games and, more often than not, cheesy acting, but it could be very effective if used right.
[edit] Oh, fuck off forum for trying to be smart. Until you're smart enough to take time codes into account your auto-embed can fuck right off.
You just have to think of it in relative terms. Even today, games are chasing photo-realism, and that was still a thing back then when the CD-ROM came out. You went from poorly rendered 3D to live people, and it was quite impressive for the time. Then every game became a B Movie and people got tired of it. Some games did it right, though, like the Wing Commander series.
I would also add that while now shrug inducing, playing a "movie" of any kind on your computer/console back then seemed incredibly cool. FMVs were a neat efficient way to convey a lot of emotion in a story and provide context to a player's actions. Trying to do the same with sprites or primitive 3D wasn't possible. As Carcass points out they got tiresome when they stopped being an addition to the game and became the game itself.
And if you think about it FMVs never really went away. Technology just caught up enough to use fully CGI characters instead of bad D-list movie actors. They just got renamed "cut scenes" or "non-interactive scenes." Just look at MGS2 and it's (seemingly endless) cut scenes. Story wise they're not much "better" than anything back then. They just use CGI where before it was live actors on a set.
Or even games where they scan the faces of the voice actors and/or the actors provide motion capture as well. It's FMV without the V.
It is funny, though, how much hype was built around FMV at the time and how it was labeled the future of video games.
But why? It's video inside of a video game. It's just always looked awkward to me. It looks like someone put a B rated movie in my video game.
Because, when the alternative is claymation early CG, seeing a person that looks like a person was pretty amazing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YnvPetZ1E#t=2m36s
Think Reboot. That's what most game CG at the time looked like. Maybe some people's nostalgia goggles are thick enough to consider it retro or stylish, but I've always found it lame at best. FMV is guilty of bad games and, more often than not, cheesy acting, but it could be very effective if used right.
[edit] Oh, fuck off forum for trying to be smart. Until you're smart enough to take time codes into account your auto-embed can fuck right off.
it's just as easy to say your nostalgia goggles are thick enough that FMV is retro or stylish
Posts
There are very good unofficial windows patches for fallout (also allowing high resolution support). They should probably look into that.
And I've used the high res patches for Fallout and don't like them much. They break the game slightly by artificially increasing your view range, allowing you to see things that you shouldn't at those distances. I also don't like the way it makes all the assets smaller.
I bought the Ultimate Wizardry Archives off of Ebay many years ago (contains 1 through 7 and the remake of 7), but for some reason haven't gotten around to playing it. I had planned to play through the later trilogy (was it 6, 7, and 8?) but never did, and I don't own a copy of 8, unfortunately.
Edit: Wow, they actually revamped the wishlist too!
Never actually played it but constantly being told how amazing it is.
Managed to get it running on W7 once but it just crashed constantly.
I don't like their priorities.
Blog
Twitter
Was this the announcement? I didn't think we were suppose to know anything until later today?
Take Bioshock. Make it sci-fi. Make gameplay decisions that are a LOT harder when speccing your character. Add in cute little lab monkeys.
"Aww, lookit the cute little monkAAAAGH KILL IT KILL IT WITH FIRE!"
How exactly would they do that unless the games run in DosBox?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Fallout hi-res patches either. They make everything a strain on your eyes to read.
Also, the revamped wishlist is interesting! Heartening to see that the two games I really want on GOG are decently high up there.
I just love GOG too much.
And Outcast's graphics have gorgeous art design and direction, but technically they're horrible. I know voxels are cool, but the game sears my retinas.
Those patches were made by the developers, with help from the community. They just did it in their spare time, for no pay because they gave a damn.
Wine works remarkably well for a great many GOG games. At least, the ones I've tried. I believe I'76 works a bit better for me on my OS X machine than my Win 7 machine (mostly because I can limit CPU usage from the command line with wine, and I don't have to kill explorer). I even manage to get Planescape: Torment running beautifully, with fan mods.
I will admit, though, that some games (Shogo) are a mess on Wine.
Nah, if you do work on a game that belongs to a studio or publisher while you work for that studio or publisher, they own the work. It just means that they did it for free and it's unsupported, hence the Unofficial tag.
edit: And what I mean by "they did it for free" is that whoever put that work in did it without pay. The developer/publisher has every right to charge for it though. Which is what is going on with the Anachronox build you get from GoG since it's included with your purchase.
Blog
Twitter
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/machinarium_collectors_edition
Includes 8 Wallpapers, 8 avatars, the Soundtrack, 22 art pieces, 114 design sketches, and behind the scenes materials.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Last week was better. Arcanum is worth it, but I already have that from another sale.
And can I just say I'm usually not bothered by graphics at all, but I seriously hate the way that Return to Zork looks. What's that called? FMV? I hate that.
http://www.fatebynumbers.com/ (Free)
http://www.casebookthegame.com/
Darkstar: The Interactive Movie
I would also add that while now shrug inducing, playing a "movie" of any kind on your computer/console back then seemed incredibly cool. FMVs were a neat efficient way to convey a lot of emotion in a story and provide context to a player's actions. Trying to do the same with sprites or primitive 3D wasn't possible. As Carcass points out they got tiresome when they stopped being an addition to the game and became the game itself.
And if you think about it FMVs never really went away. Technology just caught up enough to use fully CGI characters instead of bad D-list movie actors. They just got renamed "cut scenes" or "non-interactive scenes." Just look at MGS2 and it's (seemingly endless) cut scenes. Story wise they're not much "better" than anything back then. They just use CGI where before it was live actors on a set.
Guess I'll snag Vampire.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YnvPetZ1E#t=2m36s
Think Reboot. That's what most game CG at the time looked like. Maybe some people's nostalgia goggles are thick enough to consider it retro or stylish, but I've always found it lame at best. FMV is guilty of bad games and, more often than not, cheesy acting, but it could be very effective if used right.
[edit] Oh, fuck off forum for trying to be smart. Until you're smart enough to take time codes into account your auto-embed can fuck right off.
Or even games where they scan the faces of the voice actors and/or the actors provide motion capture as well. It's FMV without the V.
It is funny, though, how much hype was built around FMV at the time and how it was labeled the future of video games.
it's just as easy to say your nostalgia goggles are thick enough that FMV is retro or stylish
Also I've heard Arcanum is pretty excellent. Thoughts?