Octopus Overlords

Playing Fallout 1. This inventory system is archaic. As I recall it was not that great at the time even. Now ugh. You have to click arrows to scroll up and down through items...no mouse wheel scrolling. And you only see like 3 items at a time even if you are carrying 100.

No key to holster your gun either. You have 2 wep slots and to 'holster' your gun you have to empty one and have that slot as active. Its basically unarmed. So if you are an unarmed skill fighter I guess you never have to go weaponless .

To use a skill book you find cant right click to use it in your inv you have to again put it in a slot then use it.

Finally you cant loot all with a click. You have to grab and drag each item from the dead guy or container to your own inv.

EDIT: I see more problems. I cannot trade with my follower. I mean I can trade trade as in barter but I cant make him carry anything for me and I cant equip him. I can tell him to use his best weapon but whoopdee. Im at my weight limit but theres scorpion tails to pick up. Thats money on the ground man!!!

Also Im not getting the Tandi quest. She doesn't greet me at Shady Sands and I dont find her in town anywhere. No one mentioned her or the raiders. If I got to the raiders they dont attack unless I steal or speak to the boss man.Does Tandi only appear on a return trip to SS? Could have sworn she was there my first visit the first time I played this game.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:25 pmThere was a large ship, that’s all I remember, and getting my stuck.

I don't think I've ever beaten Fallout 2. The longest run I had got me to the cargo ship but I didn't know I needed a fob (from the captain?) to get further and felt hopelessly stuck before I quit. I haven't been back in a very long time because I don't want to tarnish the experience I have in my memory.

At some point Steam decided it was a good idea to ask for your birth date every time you try to look at the store page of any game with some sort of age issue. I was mostly ok with that. But now they've decided that remembering your birth date has some issues so they'll just ask you every. single. time. Even for games that you have provided age verification for before.

I don't know what the deal is, but I don't like it. No sir, I do not.

I've been celebrating my birthday on January 1st, any year prior to 2000.

They may as well just put a button there that says "I understand this page contains adult content" or "I am over 18" instead.

Paingod wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:58 pm I've been celebrating my birthday on January 1st, any year prior to 2000.

They may as well just put a button there that says "I understand this page contains adult content" or "I am over 18" instead.

Huh......we have the same birthday!!

I usually, depending on the site, put something way, way down, preferably in the 19th century, just in case they're keeping track for customer metrics.

I get Steam doing that on the web page, but on my personal, signed-in client? Annoying.

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:44 pm I usually, depending on the site, put something way, way down, preferably in the 19th century, just in case they're keeping track for customer metrics.

Wow, I've never seen a website that offered a birthday year earlier than 1900

January 1st, plus a specific year with no actual meaning to me, except I remember it is my "let me in, doofuses" year.

My point is that I have to pick that year every single time now, through the steam app anyway. Didn't yusta.

jztemple2 wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:12 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:44 pm I usually, depending on the site, put something way, way down, preferably in the 19th century, just in case they're keeping track for customer metrics.

Wow, I've never seen a website that offered a birthday year earlier than 1900

It wasn't a typo. Quite a few do. Most people just don't bother scrolling down.

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:23 pm

jztemple2 wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:12 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:44 pm I usually, depending on the site, put something way, way down, preferably in the 19th century, just in case they're keeping track for customer metrics.

Wow, I've never seen a website that offered a birthday year earlier than 1900

It wasn't a typo. Quite a few do. Most people just don't bother scrolling down.

Challenge accepted!

I tend to feel that the original Fallouts are punishingly difficult in the sense that there are a lot of tiny secrets that you practically have to know in order to have it be a playable experience. I only ever played Fallout 1, and I think I only got as far as the casino, and even then that required a trick to get past that part. Honestly, I don't think they've aged very well. It feels more like constantly fighting the UI to do simple things Some UI issues would be fixed by a UI for higher resolutions, but even then I think it's down to how things were coded in the engine. I just don't know if the end result of trying to play the game to the end would be worth it at this point.

It should tell you something about me that I put in my exact birthday every single time, multiple times a week now.

I just flip the mouse wheel up once or so and hope its enough.

JetFred wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:17 pm It should tell you something about me that I put in my exact birthday every single time, multiple times a week now.

Yeah, I put my real b-day in too and hate myself every time. WHY!?

Rumpy wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:02 pmI tend to feel that the original Fallouts are punishingly difficult in the sense that there are a lot of tiny secrets that you practically have to know in order to have it be a playable experience.

IIRC, the "trick" to Fallout 1 is rushing down to a nuke blast crater to get irradiated, saving, getting exposed, waiting to see a massively beneficial mutation from the radiation (huge stat bonuses), then rushing off to get Power Armor, then rushing off to find the water chip. If you dawdle, you lose. If you tell the wrong people, your time gets shorter. You've got to be on the ball right out of the vault.

I didn't like that I had 90(?) days to beat the game. It's a world worth exploring and poking around in.

Paingod wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:32 am

Rumpy wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:02 pmI tend to feel that the original Fallouts are punishingly difficult in the sense that there are a lot of tiny secrets that you practically have to know in order to have it be a playable experience.

IIRC, the "trick" to Fallout 1 is rushing down to a nuke blast crater to get irradiated, saving, getting exposed, waiting to see a massively beneficial mutation from the radiation (huge stat bonuses), then rushing off to get Power Armor, then rushing off to find the water chip. If you dawdle, you lose. If you tell the wrong people, your time gets shorter. You've got to be on the ball right out of the vault.

I didn't like that I had 90(?) days to beat the game. It's a world worth exploring and poking around in.

Didn't they later patch in a change to the time limit, make it much longer?

Paingod wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:32 am I didn't like that I had 90(?) days to beat the game. It's a world worth exploring and poking around in.

The initial time limit is 150 days to return with the water chip (although that can be extended by at least one in-game action). IIRC, at launch there was a 500 day time limit to complete the game before the supermutant invasion overruns everything, but I've read that as of the 1.2 patch (the base version on GOG) that was extended to something like 13 years.

MonkeyFinger wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:24 am

Paingod wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:32 am

Rumpy wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:02 pmI tend to feel that the original Fallouts are punishingly difficult in the sense that there are a lot of tiny secrets that you practically have to know in order to have it be a playable experience.

IIRC, the "trick" to Fallout 1 is rushing down to a nuke blast crater to get irradiated, saving, getting exposed, waiting to see a massively beneficial mutation from the radiation (huge stat bonuses), then rushing off to get Power Armor, then rushing off to find the water chip. If you dawdle, you lose. If you tell the wrong people, your time gets shorter. You've got to be on the ball right out of the vault.

I didn't like that I had 90(?) days to beat the game. It's a world worth exploring and poking around in.

Didn't they later patch in a change to the time limit, make it much longer?

They did, that's not an issue anymore. It's more of the overall design I'm talking about. It just seems to be designed in such a way that unless you know what you should be doing, you're not going to get much of anywhere.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:40 pm January 1st, plus a specific year with no actual meaning to me, except I remember it is my "let me in, doofuses" year.

My point is that I have to pick that year every single time now, through the steam app anyway. Didn't yusta.

I blame all their new Naughty games with digitized boobies. We never had to do this as much when it was just good ole' blood and guts!

Max Peck wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:11 am

Paingod wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:32 am I didn't like that I had 90(?) days to beat the game. It's a world worth exploring and poking around in.

The initial time limit is 150 days to return with the water chip (although that can be extended by at least one in-game action). IIRC, at launch there was a 500 day time limit to complete the game before the supermutant invasion overruns everything, but I've read that as of the 1.2 patch (the base version on GOG) that was extended to something like 13 years.

See, there's something I don't inherently understand. I suppose the designers did that to make it more exciting? But they developed this big world with many NPCs that should be naturally explored, which is something anyone would do to get the most bang for their buck, but then put in a time-limit which is counter-intuitive to the whole RPG nature as it discourages exploration in favour of a straight line to the finish. But one wouldn't know any of that on a first playthrough. Even with the time-limit removed, the game still has the same tone of rushing you through it.

The industry was still young, and the concept of open world games was still new. Perhaps they felt that without the railroading, people wouldn't know how to proceed. Who knows?

I prefer railroads, although give me a couple of switching stations please.

I'm not so sure that not being able to completely ignore the plot of the story constitutes being railroaded.

Games were replayed more back then, especially RPGs. Im not sure designing around one play through was a factor. That game in particular plays completely differently based on character builds so the artifical end game timer can keep playthroughs somewhat fresh by forcing you to not be able to do it all. Or maybe it was just a lame design decision....shrug

Max Peck wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:43 pm I'm not so sure that not being able to completely ignore the plot of the story constitutes being railroaded.

It's not so much the plot, but how in terms of game mechanics one follows the plot, despite there being a fairly large world to explore. If you take into account that the original release had a time-limit, it must have felt rather discouraging to always have that as a concern. The only other game I know of that has a similar type of time-limit is the retro-designed Avernum 3.

So I noticed that I have Dead Rising 2 (and 4) from humble bundle, and now it's installed.

What are the chances I have fun playing it?

I don't spend much time reviewing or rating games or guides or whatever on Steam. I just recently wanted to rate a guide and there is a thumbs up button with the word "rate" under it, and when I click it nothing happens (maybe it changes to green).

Is rating on Steam just an up/down option? That seems simplistic.

Upon further inspection, the answer appears to be yes.

Well, ok then.

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:22 pm So I noticed that I have Dead Rising 2 (and 4) from humble bundle, and now it's installed.

What are the chances I have fun playing it?

I finished DR2 not that long ago after getting stuck on a specific fight when it first came out. It's a fun game, though DR3 was much better. DR4, like the later Saints Row games, went a little too far and lost my interest.

I have 19 games installed. Surprisingly its on a small 500g ssd too. Still have 165g free. But thats not the reason for the post. Im bored. Im burnt out. Im barely touching any of them and then only 10-15 min at a time. Hoping it passes soon.

That Steam has to do the same thing is no comfort, although it does redirect my ire (which was less real than rhetorical).

Thanks for the info Izzy.

So what they're saying is that it's a deliberate strategy to discourage their customers from ever exiting the Steam client.

Max Peck wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:56 am So what they're saying is that it's a deliberate strategy to discourage their customers from ever exiting the Steam client.

Heh. My kids have their own accounts now. The App gets exited and loaded multiple times a day.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:04 pm

Max Peck wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:56 am So what they're saying is that it's a deliberate strategy to discourage their customers from ever exiting the Steam client.

Heh. My kids have their own accounts now. The App gets exited and loaded multiple times a day.

The kids need to have their own computers to go with their own accounts. I am close to creating a third steam account.

coopasonic wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:05 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:04 pm

Max Peck wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:56 am So what they're saying is that it's a deliberate strategy to discourage their customers from ever exiting the Steam client.

Heh. My kids have their own accounts now. The App gets exited and loaded multiple times a day.

The kids need to have their own computers to go with their own accounts. I am close to creating a third steam account.

me + 3 kids, 2 computers thus far. Until the GG financial thread, I was seriously contemplating a 3rd ultra mega computer for myself and handing down my current one.

Good plan. Not happening for awhile.

Fair enough. Our second computer was $450, basically laptop guts in a tiny case. The third was for my wife and probably cheaper. That ~2 year old $450 machine is playing Monster Hunter World. The third plays minecraft and roblox and not much else.

Hell, I have two Steam accounts just for myself due to the horrible way Steam does wishlists.

coopasonic wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:15 pm Fair enough. Our second computer was $450, basically laptop guts in a tiny case. The third was for my wife and probably cheaper. That ~2 year old $450 machine is playing Monster Hunter World. The third plays minecraft and roblox and not much else.

My eldest won't use the second computer, which was a winning race horse in its prime but now it has been put out to pasture. It's still good, great even, for many, many games. I don't use it because I paid for everything and I want the best of the best. My eldest also wants the best of the best because he's going to play twentyfive different games before dinner and some of them might need more horsepower. Maybe.

That leaves 2 kids for one computer. That works very well, most of the time. There are conflicts, but they tend to get resolved pretty fast.

My biggest issue is that I have to share my main gaming computer (which is also my "do work around the house" computer) with my eldest. That has caused some weird issues, some of which are psychological that I'm too lazy to get into here.

So it's really me plus 1 kid on my computer, and 2 kids on the other. it's ok.

I lost my train of thought, sorry.

Here's what I meant to say. Any new computer is going to be awesome. My eldest has already shown that he will only play on the awesome computer. A new awesome computer will then become the awesome computer, and the old awesome computer will become an anathema to him. The other two kids don't care and spend as much time on their 3ds', switch, chrome books or tablets as they do in the 2nd computer.

Like letting the kids into your bed at night, your mistake was ever letting him use the awesome computer in the first place. MY kids never get to use my PC. They don't have any access to it, at least until they hack my password which has kept them out for 12 years now (well they didn't try very hard the first couple years when they couldn't reach the keyboard).

coopasonic wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:38 pm Like letting the kids into your bed at night, your mistake was ever letting him use the awesome computer in the first place.

Absolutely true. The starting rule was that it was Dad's computer, no one was allowed on it.

In my defense, there was something to be gained by giving him additional responsibility of using my computer, like giving a pet to a kid to see if he learns to take care of it. Mostly, he's done great in this regard.

That's of little consolation now that someone else gets the lion's share of time on my computer.

I realize I'm the Dad. I can make new rules. So far I haven't, although he was getting pretty territorial and passively aggressive, so there has been pushback from both me and my wife on that.

He absolutely thinks of the computer as *our* computer. On bad days he feels it's *his* computer. Then for a period after the bad days he's of the opinion that's Dad's computer again. But not for too long. I don't have strong objections to *our* computer, if he's happy believing that (and if time on it implies anything, then it's true) then I'm willing to let him keep on believing it.