Still, the article does bring up some amusing points; in particular,
the cost of an EGA card. The most basic model would set you back $500
USD, and you'd need to buy a compatible monitor to go with it. A
high-end EGA card and monitor would cost you the equivalent of more
than $5000 USD in 2024 money.
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agree
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and >hardware.
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agree
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and hardware.
Not that I need much an excuse to do that.
I honestly can't remember if my first PC (IBM/PC compatible for you nitpickers ;-) came with an EGA card. Back then, I didn't know EGA from
VGA from whatever that weird bastardization of color and monochrome mode
the Apple II used. My second PC -which I acquired a year later- was definitely VGA.
Not that I found EGA so troublesome. There were a lot of good games in
EGA. The original "Duke Nukem" was EGA. "Ultima V" was EGA. The first "Mechwarrior" game was EGA. "Pool of Radiance" was EGA. You could do a
lot with just 16 colors.
("Syndicate" -at least its gameplay mode - was only 16-colors; didja
know that? It wasn't EGA, though -it used a higher-resolution VGA mode-
but it just goes to show you that it color depth didn't necessarily
restrict you from creating good-looking visuals. "Lemmings", too, used
only 16 colors.)
So CGA was a definite eyesore, but it wasn't a deal breaker. Besides,
with some tricks, even CGA was bearable. Only a few games used it, but
the CGA composite mode gave the IBM/PC games sixteen (slightly blurry)
colors to work with. (The best example of this was Sierra Online's
"Mickey's Space Adventures", where the difference between the two is dramatically obvious. See it here: https://imgur.com/a/SaesMin . Same
game, same code, just different monitor output.)
So I'm not so sure EGA was really the life-saver the article claims. The
only reason composite CGA didn't take off more than it did, I think, is because EGA replaced it relatively quickly.
Far more important to me was upgrades to the PC sounds. Barely tolerable
(and on the low-end on what was used by its competitors) in 1981, by the
late 80s the PC beeper was extremely behind the times. I could endure
the blue-and-magenta eyesores of CGA visuals, but the squealing of the
PC Beeper was an immediate turn-off. It made games unplayable.
(In fairness, you could do some impressive things with the PC beeper
too, from playing recognizable music to digitized speech. It was always scratchy but not always an ear-bleed. However, it was so computationally intensive that few games used those techniques).
But it was the advent of dedicated sound-processing cards -the Ad Lib,
the Sound Blaster - or if you were rich, the Roland MT32! - that made
games on the PC competitive again. Or at least a hobby I was interested
in playing around with. CGA was bilious, but that beeper made me
embarrassed to game on a PC.
Still, the article does bring up some amusing points; in particular, the
cost of an EGA card. The most basic model would set you back $500 USD,
and you'd need to buy a compatible monitor to go with it. A high-end EGA
card and monitor would cost you the equivalent of more than $5000 USD in
2024 money.
That's about the equivalent of buying three GeForce RTX 4090s! And all
you got out of the deal was 16-colors! High-end PC gaming was _always_
a rich-man's folly!
Anyway, by the late 1980s -definitely by 1991- I had upgraded to VGA,
and all these issues were moot. Actually, by then I may already have had
an SVGA card, although I doubt any program I had took advantage of that capability. Still, 256 colors felt excessively grandiose, and nobody had
a PC that could push more than 640x480 pixels anyway. There were a lot
of great games in EGA, but most of my favorite games were VGA, and I'll always have a soft spot for that mode.
Anyway, I've run out of things to say so I think I'll just trail off
here...
* Congratulations! You knew to look here for the URL to the article! https://www.pcgamesn.com/pc-retro-tech/ega-graphics
But prior to the 90s, gaming on the IBM-PC was hella expensive and weak
sauce to boot. _VGA_ changed that, not EGA. EGA gaming was for people
with too much money and too little common sense, and they kept PC gaming
on life support until it was comparable to an NES**** for 5 times the
price.
On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 14:10:09 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I'm just going to invoke Betteridge's Law here...
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agree
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and
hardware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Any computer game enthusiast was playing on something else. Usually a
C=64. Atari ST. Amiga. Something like that. PCs sucked.
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agree
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and hardware.
Not that I need much an excuse to do that.
When my upgrade time came it was a toss up between the Atari or Amiga,
the thought of getting a PC never even crossed my mind.
On 21/07/2024 21:52, Zaghadka wrote:
Any computer game enthusiast was playing on something else. Usually a
C=64. Atari ST. Amiga. Something like that. PCs sucked.
Don't forget the Specky 48k (no it's not for playing games honest dad)
which was in play in Europe and particularly the UK. Then was was always
the BBC micro but only if you one one of the rich kids!
When my upgrade time came it was a toss up between the Atari or Amiga,
the thought of getting a PC never even crossed my mind.
Am 21.07.24 um 20:10 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agree
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and
hardware.
Not that I need much an excuse to do that.
In fairness, PC gaming followed more or less graphically in the 80s the general trend of what was possible.
Before EGA there was TGA which basically was derived from the PC juniors graphics capabilities. (Tandy Grahics and sound)
CGA was designed at a time when the only computer with decent graphics
were the 8 bit ataris, but after that it basically followed the usual
route and basically surpassed the amiga with VGA. EGA was an
intermediate step VGA in my opinion was the more important step however because it catapulted the PC into the front of graphical capaibilites of buyable systems.
Btw. the CGA eyesore stemmed more from the colors used than from the
limited set of colours on the other hand it was better than the Apple II
and early Tandy and commodore machines but when it came out it almost
was bottom of the barrel of what was possible.
IBM thought very likely not about games at all or thought that if
someone was playing on a PC it they should use the composite mode (home computer thinking that you hook your computer to the TV for playing
games) and the composite mode was rather high end for 1980/82 with its possible 16 colors. Problem was no one hooked their PCs to the tv and
there was only a handful of games using it.
On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:52:36 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
But prior to the 90s, gaming on the IBM-PC was hella expensive and weak >>sauce to boot. _VGA_ changed that, not EGA. EGA gaming was for people
with too much money and too little common sense, and they kept PC gaming
on life support until it was comparable to an NES**** for 5 times the >>price.
The first games I played on the PC were all from Sierra. Police Quest
2, Space Quest 3, CodeName: Iceman, King's Quest 4 and Leisure Suit
Larry 3. All of these games are very late 80's. They were all EGA
games and I played them with a Gameblaster sound card.
Maybe I was just lucky? My father brought home a PC from work with EGA
for me. I had to buy the sound card myself IIRC. My C-64 could not
compete with this setup at all. I have no idea if that first PC I had
was expensive but it most definitely was not 'weak sauce' for gaming.
On 21/07/2024 21:52, Zaghadka wrote:
Any computer game enthusiast was playing on something else. Usually a
C=64. Atari ST. Amiga. Something like that. PCs sucked.
Don't forget the Specky 48k (no it's not for playing games honest dad)
which was in play in Europe and particularly the UK. Then was was always
the BBC micro but only if you one one of the rich kids!
When my upgrade time came it was a toss up between the Atari or Amiga,
the thought of getting a PC never even crossed my mind.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:37:37 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
When my upgrade time came it was a toss up between the Atari or Amiga,
the thought of getting a PC never even crossed my mind.
That's interesting. I was in the exact same boat as you. I had to
decide if I wanted to replace my C-64 with an Amiga or an ST but my
dad decided for me by bringing home a PC. I was not even considering a
PC at the time.
Fair. Here's the argument that made me arrive at that conclusion. I was >giving it more of a long view...
Being an action group, I was thinking of stuff like Wolf3d or anything >side-scrolling. Commander Keen, where Carmack finally figured out how to
hack a PC into smooth sidescrolling is 1990 (EGA). SNES had 256 colors a
year later in the US (2 years later for you). Jazz Jackrabbit (1994),
OTOH, was finally comparable to the SNES at the time. In the 90's we
finally got _parity_, which I was narrowly considering the real standard
for PC gaming. It's the start of the hobby afaic. Compared to those
systems, an EGA PC with a Gameblaster is totally inadequate. It is less
than, and playing catchup with, an NES. Then the same with an SNES in the >early 90's, and literally can't do what those systems can do. A PC can do >Sierra games, which an NES could not. Did those "save" PC gaming? Nope.
The real saving grace for PC gaming was the death of IBM dominance.
I went from an Atari 8 bit to a PC... speaking of a cold shower
graphically and soundwise!
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:37:37 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:
On 21/07/2024 21:52, Zaghadka wrote:I didn't. Well, sort of. I remembered the Speccy after I hit "post."
Any computer game enthusiast was playing on something else. Usually a
C=64. Atari ST. Amiga. Something like that. PCs sucked.
Don't forget the Specky 48k (no it's not for playing games honest dad)
which was in play in Europe and particularly the UK. Then was was always
the BBC micro but only if you one one of the rich kids!
When my upgrade time came it was a toss up between the Atari or Amiga,
the thought of getting a PC never even crossed my mind.
By the time I replied to Mike S., I had remembered the MSX as well.
I went from an Atari 8 bit to a PC... speaking of a cold showerI started on an Apple ][ (aka Apple II) and went from that to a PC (or
at least don't remember having any kind of computer in-between those two).
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:20:49 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
I went from an Atari 8 bit to a PC... speaking of a cold shower
graphically and soundwise!
I think the first game I played on a PC was King's Quest IV. I have a
vivid memory of being both enthralled and confused at the difference
in sound and graphic quality from my C-64.
The graphics were much better on the PC. I never saw a game that
looked as good as KQ IV. But the sound was awful. Just awful compared
to my C-64. I only learned later about 'sound cards' and that my new
PC did not have one! The internal speaker is worse then CGA to me.
To "PC" game, because these were also contemporary "personal computers,"
you had a C=64, Atari ST, Amiga, or Speccy (thanks JAB!). An MSX in
Japan. That's what kept enthusiasm going. I never accepted IBM ownership
of the term. To call them the source of PC gaming in the 80's is, IMHO, silly. I regard the Z-80, the 6502, and the Motorolla 68000 as primary contributors to continuity of computer gaming. IBM was for work. The
80286 was simply not a gaming chip. The 8086 was a footnote.
So I'm not so sure EGA was really the life-saver the article claims.
The only reason composite CGA didn't take off more than it did, I
think, is because EGA replaced it relatively quickly.
On 22/07/2024 16:09, Zaghadka wrote:
To "PC" game, because these were also contemporary "personal computers,"
you had a C=64, Atari ST, Amiga, or Speccy (thanks JAB!). An MSX in
Japan. That's what kept enthusiasm going. I never accepted IBM ownership
of the term. To call them the source of PC gaming in the 80's is, IMHO,
silly. I regard the Z-80, the 6502, and the Motorolla 68000 as primary
contributors to continuity of computer gaming. IBM was for work. The
80286 was simply not a gaming chip. The 8086 was a footnote.
I can't say it's something that's ever bothered me as in the 80's the
term personal computer wasn't really used here but instead home
computer. Also when I hear the term PC I actually don't think of
'personal computer' as such but instead an IBM compatible which isn't a >laptop even that that's also a PC, or is it. I think I've confused
myself now!
Until "Doom", as far as outsiders were concerned, there was nothing
exciting about the PC platform, even if it actually did have a vibrant
gaming scene. Did "Doom" save PC gaming? No; I think the platform
would have been going strong for years afterwards. But it gave it an >exclusive it never had before that made it less of a laughing stock
wannabe reputation amongst console gamers.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:20:49 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
I went from an Atari 8 bit to a PC... speaking of a cold shower
graphically and soundwise!
I think the first game I played on a PC was King's Quest IV. I have a
vivid memory of being both enthralled and confused at the difference
in sound and graphic quality from my C-64.
The graphics were much better on the PC. I never saw a game that
looked as good as KQ IV. But the sound was awful. Just awful compared
to my C-64. I only learned later about 'sound cards' and that my new
PC did not have one! The internal speaker is worse then CGA to me.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:33:51 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Mike
S. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:20:49 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
I went from an Atari 8 bit to a PC... speaking of a cold shower
graphically and soundwise!
I think the first game I played on a PC was King's Quest IV. I have a
vivid memory of being both enthralled and confused at the difference
in sound and graphic quality from my C-64.
The graphics were much better on the PC. I never saw a game that
looked as good as KQ IV. But the sound was awful. Just awful compared
to my C-64. I only learned later about 'sound cards' and that my new
PC did not have one! The internal speaker is worse then CGA to me.
Monkey Island did a pretty good job with it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a324ykKV-7Y
But truly, the ear bleeding stops in 1987.
Am 22.07.24 um 16:29 schrieb Dimensional Traveler:
I went from an Atari 8 bit to a PC... speaking of a cold showerI started on an Apple ][ (aka Apple II) and went from that to a PC (or
at least don't remember having any kind of computer in-between those
two).
graphically and soundwise!
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:27:56 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:09:42 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Fair. Here's the argument that made me arrive at that conclusion. I was
giving it more of a long view...
Being an action group, I was thinking of stuff like Wolf3d or anything
side-scrolling. Commander Keen, where Carmack finally figured out how to >>> hack a PC into smooth sidescrolling is 1990 (EGA). SNES had 256 colors a >>> year later in the US (2 years later for you). Jazz Jackrabbit (1994),
OTOH, was finally comparable to the SNES at the time. In the 90's we
finally got _parity_, which I was narrowly considering the real standard >>> for PC gaming. It's the start of the hobby afaic. Compared to those
systems, an EGA PC with a Gameblaster is totally inadequate. It is less
than, and playing catchup with, an NES. Then the same with an SNES in the >>> early 90's, and literally can't do what those systems can do. A PC can do >>> Sierra games, which an NES could not. Did those "save" PC gaming? Nope.
The real saving grace for PC gaming was the death of IBM dominance.
Ok, thank you for the second post. I *think* I understand your point
of view now. Maybe.
If someone were to ask me what game saved pc gaming...I think I would
say it was Doom.
I don't know if "Doom" /saved/ PC gaming, but it definitely gave it a
huge boost. It almost certainly was the nail in the coffin for gaming
on any other non-IBM/PC compatible computer. After "Doom", Commodore
(Amiga) and Apple (Macintosh/Apple II) were pretty much dead in the
water, as far as games were concerned.
While it didn't quite compare to consoles, PC gaming was quite strong
in the early to mid 90s. There were a lot of excellent titles, many of
which were ported to consoles. But a lot of those games were also
fairly similar to games /already/ on console. And those that weren't
tended to be fairly niche (strategy, high-end flight sims) that lacked
mass appeal. I love me some "Falcon 3.0" but I totally understand why
it didn't have the same attraction as Sega's "Afterburner".
But "Doom" was different. Not only was it immediately accessible
(everyone gets the idea of a first-person shooter right away), it was bombastic and exciting... and most of all, it was the sort of game you
really could only do on PC. It elevated the PC from what most people
thought of as a stodgy business machine with beeps and boops for sound
and ugly four-color graphics into a viable gaming platform. Until
"Doom" (or maybe "Wolfenstein 3D") I think a lot of people would have
just as likely bet on the Amiga as being the computer being the PC of
the future. Less because of either platform's actualy capabilities and
more because of the PERCEIVED capabilities of the platforms.
Until "Doom", as far as outsiders were concerned, there was nothing
exciting about the PC platform, even if it actually did have a vibrant
gaming scene. Did "Doom" save PC gaming? No; I think the platform
would have been going strong for years afterwards. But it gave it an exclusive it never had before that made it less of a laughing stock
wannabe reputation amongst console gamers.
That said, it still took the PC almost two decades before it really
started to be seen as a primary gaming platform by gamers and
publishers. It took a long time before the PC platform was no longer
playing second fiddle to its console cousins. Arguably it still hasn't
shed that reputation.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:33:30 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/2024 10:17 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:27:56 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:09:42 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Fair. Here's the argument that made me arrive at that conclusion. I was >>>>> giving it more of a long view...
Being an action group, I was thinking of stuff like Wolf3d or anything >>>>> side-scrolling. Commander Keen, where Carmack finally figured out how to >>>>> hack a PC into smooth sidescrolling is 1990 (EGA). SNES had 256 colors a >>>>> year later in the US (2 years later for you). Jazz Jackrabbit (1994), >>>>> OTOH, was finally comparable to the SNES at the time. In the 90's we >>>>> finally got _parity_, which I was narrowly considering the real standard >>>>> for PC gaming. It's the start of the hobby afaic. Compared to those
systems, an EGA PC with a Gameblaster is totally inadequate. It is less >>>>> than, and playing catchup with, an NES. Then the same with an SNES in the >>>>> early 90's, and literally can't do what those systems can do. A PC can do >>>>> Sierra games, which an NES could not. Did those "save" PC gaming? Nope. >>>>> The real saving grace for PC gaming was the death of IBM dominance.
Ok, thank you for the second post. I *think* I understand your point
of view now. Maybe.
If someone were to ask me what game saved pc gaming...I think I would
say it was Doom.
I don't know if "Doom" /saved/ PC gaming, but it definitely gave it a
huge boost. It almost certainly was the nail in the coffin for gaming
on any other non-IBM/PC compatible computer. After "Doom", Commodore
(Amiga) and Apple (Macintosh/Apple II) were pretty much dead in the
water, as far as games were concerned.
While it didn't quite compare to consoles, PC gaming was quite strong
in the early to mid 90s. There were a lot of excellent titles, many of
which were ported to consoles. But a lot of those games were also
fairly similar to games /already/ on console. And those that weren't
tended to be fairly niche (strategy, high-end flight sims) that lacked
mass appeal. I love me some "Falcon 3.0" but I totally understand why
it didn't have the same attraction as Sega's "Afterburner".
But "Doom" was different. Not only was it immediately accessible
(everyone gets the idea of a first-person shooter right away), it was
bombastic and exciting... and most of all, it was the sort of game you
really could only do on PC. It elevated the PC from what most people
thought of as a stodgy business machine with beeps and boops for sound
and ugly four-color graphics into a viable gaming platform. Until
"Doom" (or maybe "Wolfenstein 3D") I think a lot of people would have
just as likely bet on the Amiga as being the computer being the PC of
the future. Less because of either platform's actualy capabilities and
more because of the PERCEIVED capabilities of the platforms.
Until "Doom", as far as outsiders were concerned, there was nothing
exciting about the PC platform, even if it actually did have a vibrant
gaming scene. Did "Doom" save PC gaming? No; I think the platform
would have been going strong for years afterwards. But it gave it an
exclusive it never had before that made it less of a laughing stock
wannabe reputation amongst console gamers.
That said, it still took the PC almost two decades before it really
started to be seen as a primary gaming platform by gamers and
publishers. It took a long time before the PC platform was no longer
playing second fiddle to its console cousins. Arguably it still hasn't
shed that reputation.
Maybe the mouse saved PC gaming. Doom was kb only. FPS are far better
with a mouse, and that's a huge difference between PC and console.
Funny enough it was a Mac game a year after Doom that had the first
mouse support - Marathon, which has also been discussed here recently.
Doom supported mouse right from the start (so, apparently, did
Wolf3D). But almost nobody I knew used it. In fact, "Terminator:
Skynet" for the longest time was popularly acclaimed for introducing mouse/keyboard use to the masses. But you could do it in Doom first.
(The default settings were awful though. You had to press the middle
mouse button to move forward... and even with mouse/keyboard, you were
still using the arrow keys. It wasn't until Quake that WASD+mouse
started taking off.)
I can't seem to find what the first IBM PC game was that used FPS
though. I'm sure you'll either know or find it though :)
Who, me? ;-)
It depends on how you define "FPS".
Firebird's "Tracker" (1987*) had you moving through the
untextured/wireframe hallways of a sci-fi labyrinth shooting at
things. The movement was much more floaty -more akin to "Descent" than "Doom", with almost no sense of gravity- and you also at times jumped
out to a 2D map for a lot activities... but its core feels very
similar to an FPS.
Incentive Software's "Freescape" engine (used in "Space Station
Oblivion", "Dark Side" and "Total Eclipse" released in 1988 and 1989) featured a 3D-rendered (non-textured) world with multiple rooms that
you moved through with a smooth scrolling first-person viewpoint,
shooting at things).
Bethesda's "The Terminator" (1991) even offered a fully open,
3D-rendered world that very much resembles the modern take on the
genre; walk around, shoot NPCs, enter stores, buy things, hijack cars,
etc.
And even further back, you have stuff like "Battlezone" (arriving on
PC in 1983), which arguably fits the definition of an FPS. Or, really,
any tank- or combat flight simulator for that matter.
But the first game that /really/ feels like an FPS as we recognize it
today is probably "Corporation" (a.k.a. "Cyber-Cop" in some regions). Released in 1990 on the Amiga (1991 on PC), it predated both Id's
"Catacomb 3D" and "Hovetank ONE". Like all those games, it featured a
360 degree smooth-scrolling first-person viewpoint; it had a visible
ceiling and floor, you were a (mostly human) soldier running through a labyrinth collecting keys to unlock doors, and dealt with your
opponents mostly by shooting them.
That said, Id's creations were seminal; they didn't INVENT the idea of
the first-person shooter, but -even from the start- they perfected it.
All the games I mentioned above feel VERY rough when played by a
modern game; in movement, in control, in gameplay. But you can pick up "Catacomb 3D" ("Hovertank ONE", not so much) today and get right into
it without much difficulty. It /feels/ like an FPS as we define it
today. It set the model for all future games in the genre.
(And no, we aren't forgetting about "Ultima Underworld". But while it predated "Wolfenstein 3D" by 45 days, it came out long after "Catacomb
3D" and all the other games I've mentioned. (Also, it's generally not considered an FPS anyway but I had to pre-empt the people who
inevitably would bring it up ;-)
And that's just on PC. I'm sure there are other games that deserve recognition in the creation of the FPS genre on other platforms.
However, I've less familiarity with games on other platforms, so I'll
leave it to others to bring them to our attention.
Other potential "first FPS" games on PC ---------------------------------------
- Alien Fires 2199 (Paragon Software, 1988)
- The Colony (Mindscape, 1988)
- Mayday Squad (Tynesoft, 1989)
- The Sentinel (Firebird, 1989)
- Tunnels of Armageddon (California Dreams, 1989)**
- Castle Master / The Crypt (Domark, 1990)
- Infestation (Psygnosis, 1990)
- Stellar 7 (Dynamix, 1990)
- ThunderStrike (Millenium, 1990)
- Hoverforce (Accolade, 1991)
- Sleeping Gods Lie (Empire, 1991)
- Vaxine (US Gold, 1991)
... and probably dozens more. But these -and the ones I
mentioned above- are a good place to start with, if
you're interested in seeing the 'prehistory' of FPS games
on the PC platform.
* all these dates are somewhat ambiguous. Figuring out exactly when
games released on PC -especially for less known titles like the ones
I've mentioned- is weirdly difficult. At best, you can figure out the
YEAR (and sometimes even that's not entirely certain). "Tracker", for instance, has a copyright of 1987 but that's just when the copyright
was granted. It's quite possible that the game itself wasn't sold
until early 1988. Or just as likely it was in stores on Jan 1 1987.
I've almost no way to figure it out. Other games are similar.
** although this one is more of a rail-shooter
But truly, the ear bleeding stops in 1987.Tandy had improved sound already ca 84 with the tandy sound
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:40:58 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:
On 22/07/2024 16:09, Zaghadka wrote:
To "PC" game, because these were also contemporary "personal computers," >>> you had a C=64, Atari ST, Amiga, or Speccy (thanks JAB!). An MSX in
Japan. That's what kept enthusiasm going. I never accepted IBM ownership >>> of the term. To call them the source of PC gaming in the 80's is, IMHO,
silly. I regard the Z-80, the 6502, and the Motorolla 68000 as primary
contributors to continuity of computer gaming. IBM was for work. The
80286 was simply not a gaming chip. The 8086 was a footnote.
I can't say it's something that's ever bothered me as in the 80's the
term personal computer wasn't really used here but instead home
computer. Also when I hear the term PC I actually don't think of
'personal computer' as such but instead an IBM compatible which isn't a
laptop even that that's also a PC, or is it. I think I've confused
myself now!
To each his own. I wore a Che Guevara shirt with "The C=64 is also a PC, idiots!" emblazoned over his face. All you could see was the beret.
I lived a stone's throw from Armonk at the time, though.
Getting peeved for no particular reason is part of the human condition!
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone use acronym
interchangeable with abbreviation. I do now have to accept that meaning
has basically entered common usage but still.
On 24/07/2024 16:10, Zaghadka wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:40:58 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:
On 22/07/2024 16:09, Zaghadka wrote:
To "PC" game, because these were also contemporary "personal
computers,"
you had a C=64, Atari ST, Amiga, or Speccy (thanks JAB!). An MSX in
Japan. That's what kept enthusiasm going. I never accepted IBM
ownership
of the term. To call them the source of PC gaming in the 80's is, IMHO, >>>> silly. I regard the Z-80, the 6502, and the Motorolla 68000 as primary >>>> contributors to continuity of computer gaming. IBM was for work. The
80286 was simply not a gaming chip. The 8086 was a footnote.
I can't say it's something that's ever bothered me as in the 80's the
term personal computer wasn't really used here but instead home
computer. Also when I hear the term PC I actually don't think of
'personal computer' as such but instead an IBM compatible which isn't a
laptop even that that's also a PC, or is it. I think I've confused
myself now!
To each his own. I wore a Che Guevara shirt with "The C=64 is also a PC,
idiots!" emblazoned over his face. All you could see was the beret.
I lived a stone's throw from Armonk at the time, though.
Getting peeved for no particular reason is part of the human condition!
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone use acronym
interchangeable with abbreviation. I do now have to accept that meaning
has basically entered common usage but still.
Another one is begs for question for raises the question instead of its
more formal meaning.
On 7/26/2024 3:22 AM, JAB wrote:
On 24/07/2024 16:10, Zaghadka wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:40:58 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB >>> wrote:
On 22/07/2024 16:09, Zaghadka wrote:
To "PC" game, because these were also contemporary "personal
computers,"
you had a C=64, Atari ST, Amiga, or Speccy (thanks JAB!). An MSX in
Japan. That's what kept enthusiasm going. I never accepted IBM
ownership
of the term. To call them the source of PC gaming in the 80's is,
IMHO,
silly. I regard the Z-80, the 6502, and the Motorolla 68000 as primary >>>>> contributors to continuity of computer gaming. IBM was for work. The >>>>> 80286 was simply not a gaming chip. The 8086 was a footnote.
I can't say it's something that's ever bothered me as in the 80's the
term personal computer wasn't really used here but instead home
computer. Also when I hear the term PC I actually don't think of
'personal computer' as such but instead an IBM compatible which isn't a >>>> laptop even that that's also a PC, or is it. I think I've confused
myself now!
To each his own. I wore a Che Guevara shirt with "The C=64 is also a PC, >>> idiots!" emblazoned over his face. All you could see was the beret.
I lived a stone's throw from Armonk at the time, though.
Getting peeved for no particular reason is part of the human condition!
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone use acronym
interchangeable with abbreviation. I do now have to accept that
meaning has basically entered common usage but still.
Hmm. I haven't seen that. Or do I just not know the difference and
think I do?
Another one is begs for question for raises the question instead of
its more formal meaning.
I never used "begs the question" and I still don't fully understand what
it's supposed to mean even after watching multiple videos and reading
numbers of rants on it.
English has a lot of meaning drift, and numerous instances of words and phrases changing to mean the opposite of what they once did. Bad used
to mean the opposite of good, but for awhile it changed to mean cool and
good but that wasn't even permanent. Nice meant nasty a long time ago etc.
English is also the worst Hodge-podge language in existence especially
the written version which realistically is a different language than the spoken. I don't get upset at others making such mistakes.
I know it's not English exactly but I can't even use thumbs up or
periods at work anymore as that's now considered a rude indication that you're done with the conversation. Much like saying "Good day!" ... "I
said GOOD DAY, sir!
I used to have a pet peeve of people using the wrong one of "too" and
"to" and it still bothers me, but I always let it slide, I even catch
myself making the typo myself from time to time even though I know which
is which. Effect and affect is another. I also used to mess up rogue
and rouge all the time but had it flamed out of me, though that's only
really in common usage in 3.5+ D&D referring what should properly be the Thief class.
Bone-apple-tea!
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:22:10 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
Getting peeved for no particular reason is part of the human condition!
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone use acronym
interchangeable with abbreviation. I do now have to accept that meaning
has basically entered common usage but still.
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone spell dying as dieing.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:06:08 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 7/24/2024 7:28 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:33:30 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
I can't seem to find what the first IBM PC game was that used FPS
though. I'm sure you'll either know or find it though :)
It depends on how you define "FPS".
I was thinking more very popular mainstream FPSs with true mouse aim*.
I'm not really sure what was big first on the ibm after Doom (no mouse
aim at the time at least.)
Well, as said, both "Doom" and (I checked) "Wolfenstein 3D" let you
play with the keyboard and mouse, although it wasn't quite the same as
modern WASD+mouselook (you used the mouse to turn/aim, but no up/down >because, well, there really wasn't any need).
And you still used the
arrow keys rather than WASD. Most of the Doom clones offered similar >controls. Very few people used the mouse, however, because it was >uncomfortably cramped for most (right-handed) people, and it didn't
really offer any benefit.
There were a number of games that made more use of the mouse (not
least of which was, of course, "Ultima Underworld" and "System Shock")
but these weren't really seen as 'first-person shooters' (not that
term existed yet; they were still 'Doom clones' and they /still/
relied on the directional arrow keys.
The first FPS I encountered where mouse-look was recommended (and
arguably the game was designed for) was Bethesda's "Terminator: Future
Shock" (August 1995). The default controls were still keyboard only
but you could remap to WASD and use the mouse. The idea trended here
on c.s.i.p.g.action for a while and was, if I recall correctly, the
first time I ever HEARD of anyone not using arrow keys.
[I was adamantly opposed to the idea at the time. If
arrow keys were good enough for me to get through "
Doom", they were damned good enough for Bethesda's half-
baked doom clone, gaddurnit! Obviously, I changed my
mind... eventually]
By the time "Quake" (Jun 1996) and "Duke Nukem 3D" (Nov 1996) came
out... well, WASD still wasn't the most popular format to use, but it
had a growing number of admirers. Even games like "Descent" (Mar 1995)
or "Forsaken" (Apr 1998) still either expected you to a joystick or a >keyboard, with the mouse+keyboard being the 'weird' option.
But it was almost certainly the Quake deathmatch scene that forced >WASD+mouselook onto the masses, though. The competitive advantage of
using a mouse to aim was just so great that, if you wanted to play,
you almost had to make the transition. It still wasn't the default for
a lot of games; even "Quake II" (Dec 1997) still defaulted to keyboard
only. Regardless, almost every game from that era also included config
files that -when loaded- would set up your controls to match the >keyboard+mouse layout of popular deathmatchers.
[Like "exec thresh.cfg". If you know, you know.]
"Half Life" (Nov 1998) pushed WASD forward, but it wasn't the first to
use it as default; "Shogo" and "Heretic II" (released a month earlier)
also used it as their defaults (but "Spec Ops", released in April, I
think defaulted to keyboard only). I think "STar Wars: Dark Forces II:
Jedi Knight" (Oct 1997 defaulted to mouse-keyboard, but I recall a lot
of people were still using keyboard only.
[Myself included. If the keyboard was good enough for the
original "Dark Forces" game, it was damn good enough for
it's sequel! ;-]
And while it's not quite an FPS, the early "Tomb Raider" games
(including "Tomb Raider II", released to PC in Nov 1997) still used
keyboard controls almost exclusively.
But by the time "Quake III" rolled around (Dec 1999) WASD+mouselook
was the standard. Sure, you /could/ play keyboard only... but sort of
in the way you /could/ play "Wolfenstein 3D" with a mouse in 1992. It
was an option that nobody really used.
So it's hard to point to the 'first', because it was an evolving
situation. Mouselook was an option almost from the start; it's just
nobody used it and even the developers didn't include it except as an
option they knew would only be taken up by a few. But I think the
first 'big-name' game where people started using it was "Terminator:
Future Shock", the first big-name where it was the expected default
that everybody used would probably be "Quake III", with most games >transitioning in 1998.
Another one is begs for question for raises the question instead of its
more formal meaning.
Am 24.07.24 um 17:16 schrieb Zaghadka:
But truly, the ear bleeding stops in 1987.Tandy had improved sound already ca 84 with the tandy sound
in the tandy 1000 also they had the best graphics which basically just
was a clone of the PCJR until EGA came along!
On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 08:10:39 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:06:08 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> >>>wrote:
On 7/24/2024 7:28 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:33:30 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
I can't seem to find what the first IBM PC game was that used FPS
though. I'm sure you'll either know or find it though :)
It depends on how you define "FPS".
I was thinking more very popular mainstream FPSs with true mouse aim*. >>>>I'm not really sure what was big first on the ibm after Doom (no mouse >>>>aim at the time at least.)
Well, as said, both "Doom" and (I checked) "Wolfenstein 3D" let you
play with the keyboard and mouse, although it wasn't quite the same as >>>modern WASD+mouselook (you used the mouse to turn/aim, but no up/down >>>because, well, there really wasn't any need).
I think you mean, because there wasn't actually any 3d, just the
illusion, so there was no up and dawn even possible.
Looking up and down was possible, and a number of games of that era
used it (amongst them, "Heretic" and "Dark Forces"). You'd end up with >unrealistic warping when you did it. "Doom", however, used a variety
of tricks that made looking up and down unnecessary.
Whether or not "Doom" was 3D really falls into a question of
semantics. It didn't use 3D polygons to generate its worlds, and
lacked room-over-room capability. But it did have a Z-axis component
to the game. It allowed you to jump and fly, projectiles could zip
above you, monsters could move below (well, in some versions of the
engine like "Hexen"). It's techniques (2d raycasting) are less
sophisticated than creating a map out of polygons, but in the end it's
still a form of 3D. It's why those sorts of games are commonly
referred to as "2.5D", because saying it's not 3D is as inaccurate as >insisting it is.
One other point, although not a FPS per se, X-Wing and Tie Fighter both
had joystick or mouse controls, around 1993-ish.
True, but those games owed a lot to flight-simulators and were
considered a subset of that genre. Flight simulators were commonly
played with joysticks.
Also the mechwarrior games, similar time period.
Mechwarrior falls in-between flight-sims and FPS games.
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:22:10 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
Getting peeved for no particular reason is part of the human condition!
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone use acronym
interchangeable with abbreviation. I do now have to accept that meaning
has basically entered common usage but still.
Part of me dies inside every time I see someone spell dying as dieing.
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agreeThats not the question, the real question is, did the PC speaker sound
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and hardware.
Am 21.07.24 um 20:10 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agreeThats not the question, the real question is, did the PC speaker sound
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and
hardware.
did save PC gaming...
Am 21.07.24 um 20:10 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agreeThats not the question, the real question is, did the PC speaker sound
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and hardware.
did save PC gaming...
Werner P. <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
Am 21.07.24 um 20:10 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
That's the thesis of a recent article*, anyway. I'm not sure I agreeThats not the question, the real question is, did the PC speaker sound
with it but it's a good excuse for a ramble about old-timey games and
hardware.
did save PC gaming...
BEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 167:10:49 |
| Calls: | 9,594 |
| Files: | 13,676 |
| Messages: | 6,149,714 |