Tuned in to Retro Vidya & Tech!

>>139
sounds like boxing

>>140
You know, that's a surprisingly good candidate. The biggest sticking point is that part of the memory was there being multiple screens and that I fled from an enemy back to the start screen, which would be more like Adventure, but it's entirely possible I made some sort of amalgamated memory.

After all, for the longest time I thought that Contra on the NES had a stage at the end where you control the helicopter after escaping the island, just because I saw my brother and his friend beat it once and then swap in Tiger-Heli right after.

>>138
I never spent much time with 7800 games (although I had one of those Flashback consoles at one point with 7800 games on it), but I remember seeing Mario Bros. for sale in a store once as a kid and thinking how weird it was that it existed or an Atari console.
>>139
I don't know enough to identify it. That's got me a bit curious now.
>>141
>Tiger-Heli
I bought that game on accident a while ago when I was in a game store because I confused it with Twin Cobra due to getting a CD of NES ROMs as a kid that had both of those on it. I don't have anything against Tiger-Heli necessarily, but it wasn't what I was after.

Would anyone here possibly be interested in one of those mechanical keyboard doodads that superficially looks like the 2600 as a homage to it? I ask because it is a very low production run.

>>41
I play Atari 2600 often, there's many interesting gems. My favorites with no particular order:

>Adventure
>Berserk
>Defender
>River Raid
>Demon Attack
>Joust
>Pitfall 1 and 2
>Battlezone
>Star Raiders
>Star Wars
>Megamania
>Friday 13th

>>544
Here's some gameplay I did of Lum's Wedding Bell. Seemingly the best way to get points is to jump around a ton and hope some item appears. Also you can jump backwards like the original super mario bros which is neat.

>>514
every time irc in current times is discussed it's full of people declaring it dead and then someone saying it's active. i think the problem is we don't really know where to start looking for servers (not to mention setting up bouncers and stuff feels like unnecessarily complexity compared to every single other chat protocol now)
>>415
>click on zerochan and scroll a bit
>actual cp
yeah imageboards are in a crisis

>>515
Nah, the real point is:
Some IRC servers with a purpose will always be active with that purpose, and will not be dangerous to expose your IP because there's an active moderation: OFTC and Libera
Then you forget everything I said up there and add rizon, where what you said is true. I wouldn't enter rizon without a proper bouncer, mind other even more obscure IRC servers.

>>517
Oh also there's IRCnet and Undernet that are still very active, but I'm not sure about them.

Aside from wapchan the only other imageboards I use are lainchan (for tech only) and [s4s] and occasionally lurk other 4chan boards for wallpapers or animal pics and other specifics. I got my start on 4-ch and still prefer textboards and traditional forums tbh. Shame there aren't many left and the ones that are usually as low traffic as this place.

>>520
I was exploring gopher, some people maintain there's some hidden gems worth exploring.

>>480
>Wish I could buy the IP
I think this about so many different things. Is it just me, or do most game studios and hollywood people seem determined to destroy everything they touch?

>battles separated from the main gameplay map
for me, its autistically elaborate and poorly documented mechanics. If I spend 8 hours every turn configuring everything exactly the way I want, I'm happy.

>>482
>Is it just me, or do most game studios and hollywood people seem determined to destroy everything they touch?

Oh, it's not because I think 1C destroyed it, their attempts to do so sold so poorly that they cancelled any further ideas with the IP. The devs they gave Space Rangers to for the HD update were modders that did a really good job with the mod and a decent job with HD. It's just one of those "this IP is dead" situations, I think I could probably buy it from Fulqrum for $250K USD.

except I don't have $250K USD

>>483
Well in that case, it's just a matter of fundraising. I guess you could win the lottery?

>>482
>for me, its autistically elaborate and poorly documented mechanics. If I spend 8 hours every turn configuring everything exactly the way I want, I'm happy.
I'm more of the opposite. While I don't want to feel like I'm playing Candy Land, I prefer games I can just pick up and play relatively quickly and don't need to do any hardcore micromanagement. That's one of the things I like about Castles II. It's got fun but simple gameplay, and as simplistic as the battles are they're soon over. I've played games like Rome: Total War but couldn't get into them due to how much time is spent away from the main map. As much as I love RTS games, I don't like real-time tactics games. That I think is part of the problem, since something like Heroes of Might and Magic I enjoy.

>>487
>I prefer games I can just pick up and play relatively quickly
For me, the fun part is the learning and the set up. Sometimes I wont even play the game, just arrange the numbers to try and figure out how to do something.

bump

>>120
Never heard of it before, what's it about?

>>122
its the very first text based game, it was released in 1976 by one of the fathers of the internet, Will Crowther, he relesed it for the PDP-10 mainframe computer. In the game, the player explores a cave system rumored to be filled with treasure and gold. The game is composed of dozens of areas, and the player moves between these areas and interacts with objects in them by typing one- or two-word commands which are interpreted by the game's natural language input system. The program acts as a narrator, describing the player's location and the results of the player's attempted actions. It is the first well-known example of interactive fiction, as well as the first well-known adventure game, for which it was also the namesake.

>>123
loot building

>>120
Huh, is it multiplayer? How do you play it.

Ahhh, Colossal Cave, I've played a couple DOS ports before. I think the one that I actually beat (the AGT adaptation maybe?) might've made the mazes easier because they seemed more obnoxious when I tried playing through again later with a different version.

Kind of feel like this is a game that's 50/50 on if someone suggesting you play it wants you to experience a piece of history for yourself or if they just want to watch and laugh while you suffer. Some of the stuff is very obtuse if you don't already know the solutions (I remember telling friends about the dragon fight, and them being like "lmao, that's horrible and amazing, is that for real or are you pulling my leg?")

For all of you who never heard of it, if you've ever seen a game reference "xyzzy" or "maze of twisty little passages" it's a tribute to this game.

Definitely a historic game, but when it comes to ancient text adventures, I have to put in a recommendation for Eamon. For a program that was made on the Apple II in BASIC, it had a lot going for it; an RPG system that was simple but effective, the opportunity to author your own dungeons, etc. Kind of wish text games had developed more in that direction instead of the artfag's paradise they are nowadays, but I guess graphical RPGs increasingly filled that niche.

>>397
SEA art schizo? Draw a loli space marine pls

>>384
Don't complain about lack of traffic when you act like an asshole and people with different interests start coming in here then.
I knew making this thread was a mistake

I did some crackmes many years ago and they are very labour intensive, I can only imagine how much effort needs to go into reverse engineering a whole game!

>>384
What do you mean by "Modernist portshit = Not" exactly?
>>385
>I knew making this thread was a mistake
This thread is fine. Don't let that get to you.

>>385
>>387
Heh, looks like this (admittedly laconic) post touched a nerve or two.

To put it in long form:

I'm all for reverse engineering that respects vintage games as vintage. Reconstructing source code (that can be recompiled to the original machine), ROM hacks, format specs, trainers/cheats, bugfixes, general advancement of knowledge on how it was optimized for a certain machine, all that good stuff.

What I'm NOT for (the "modernist portshit") is when it's a case of one of those morons who's always clamoring to game companies that "game X 'needs' an HD remake" decides to do it themself. Pushing bloated system requirements, pushing "upgrades" to CancerOS 10, shoehorning engines that were never meant for GL rendering into GL (or Vulkan or whatever the fuck it is these days), shoehorning everything into Unity (bet we'll see less of that one coming, at least), breaking compatibility with old files, making "fixes" that are actually just "the dev arbitrarily thought this should be changed and made the default if there even is a toggle for it", not releasing file specs they discover, and just generally raping over the game while acting like God's gift for "modernizing" it.

Obviously there's shades between the endpoints, and sometimes there're projects that are sorta good and sorta bad on this scale (i.e. if a project that's otherwise bad at least results in a release of detailed file specs that's a leg up for someone to do something better with them.)

Example of how this sort of shit does real damage for the people who want to dismiss as a pointless rave: I saw an LP of Dark Forces once (this was years before the official re-release, so unrelated to that) where the guy was using some shitty GL port because it "looked fantastic"; all good for the first few missions until he gets to places where some of the later weapons should be and it turns out that whatever moron made the port halfassed it and didn't bother to implement those properly. Nimrod playing the game just blithely assumes that the game was always broken like that, without ever seeming to stop to think that maybe his "looks fantastic" GL crap was to blame, or that maybe tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>388
I actually agree with you overall. I think remakes should generally keep the same look and feel as the originals or at least have the option to keep them similar. OpenRA is a project I've followed for a long time, but there have been deviations from the original games I really don't like (and there have been a lot of complaints about its balance being screwed up and the overall attitudes of the developers). Conversely, Wargus, the Stratagus Engine remake of WarCraft II seems to be trying to maintain the overall feeling of the original game and allows the player to toggle certain graphical deviations of the original on and off. You can even switch between new and old units stats. It's a small project that hasn't developed the following that OpenRA has had, but I think it finally might be starting to come along. Recently someone even started the Stargus project back up again, which aimed to give a similar treatment to StarCraft but had been abandoned for years. It's still in the pre-alpha phase though. I like the prospect of being able to play games like these on modern hardware or deal with companies like Blizzard and with the addition of added features people have come to expect nowadays. I dislike remakes that are focused on providing "better" graphics or forcing big changes on the player to "improve" the gameplay instead of ones that aim for authenticity while still extending the options available to the player.

Speaking of remakes, I might as well post this Doom image I found a long time ago. I've always found it interesting, although I don't know how well Doom would actually translate to 3D even if it actually looked that nice.