From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


I think you could safely argue that video games are, by and large, far
more accessible today than they were in decades prior. I'm not talking
about how they are easier to acquire and it's become a lot more
socially acceptable to play games (although that's definitely true
too), but that the games themselves are designed in a way that makes
it much less difficult to pick up and learn.

Thanks to standardization in controls, less finicky hardware, better
tutorials and a general improvement in presentation and mechanics, the
average gamer will have much less problems picking up a new game,
regardless of genre. That's not to say they'll necessarily LIKE the
game, or even have skill enough to finish the game... but neither will
they start a game and have no idea what to do. That's a far cry from
games of the 80s, 90s and even early 2000s, which often left you
baffled and helpless until you fiddled around for hours (and read-the-fucking-manual!) before you had a clear idea of what was
going on.

But... that's if you're an average gamer. Because if you've never
played a game in your life, a lot of the tropes and mechanics that us
more experienced gamers take for granted are baffling obstacles that
fly in the face of common sense. You may have experienced this if
you've ever walked a newcomer through the basics of the hobby, as I
recently did. It made me wonder about how many of these hidden 'rules'
in video-games we don't consciously acknowledge anymore because they
are as constant to us as the pull of gravity or the wetness of water
in the real world.

And so many of them are so incredibly basic. Things like not being
able to turn at your waist or neck. Or how we know that a door that
doesn't pop-up a 'use' prompt is probably just set-dressing that we
will never, ever be able to open. Or that six meter tunnel you were
just forced to crawl slowly through is actually just a disguised load
screen, and thus can be safely ignored since there will be no secrets
or monsters. Or how, if the game is suddenly extremely generous with
weapons and healing, you can bet that there is probably a boss
encounter just ahead.

Of course, for everyone of these 'rules', there is an exception... but
these exceptions are often what makes some games true classics. Take,
for instance, "Red Faction Guerrilla", which deconstructed [heh!] the
notion that walls and doors were invulnerable barriers and the only
way around them was to follow the maze-like corridors or locate the
appropriate key. Or in-game crafting, itself an exception that built
itself almost into a genre of its own simply based on the idea that
objects found in game weren't one-use items that had to be provided to
you by the game developer. Games that break these rules are regularly
regarded as genre-shifting masterpieces.

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

I like the smell of Simone Biles' asshole.
That's the rule I follow.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:53:21 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?

First thing that came to mind was the narrator/radio voice/etc yelling at
you to "GET OUT OF THERE! *FAST*!!!" Or "Rescue the hostage before they
execute them!"

Which usually means take all the time you need to. There's no need to
rush the mechanics and screw up 17 times getting there. And if you do,
it's not going to matter.

It's so rare for urgency to actually be timed in video games, with any consequence whatsoever. I can see a newcomer being a nervous wreck, and a seasoned gamer just calmly executing whatever they need to do without a
care in the world. Even going on some side quest in the middle of it.

System Shock 2 starts this way. Hell, the time pressure section is the TUTORIAL, which always boggled my mind. I've never taken a particularly
long time with the SS2 intro section, but I bet I could start it, go make myself an capuccino, and come back and the game world would be as I had
left it.

It's so common that when an urgent section matters, it's frustrating as
hell the first time you fail it if it isn't telegraphed.

The notable exception, in my gaming history, is Descent after you blow up
a reactor (later Overload). You're gonna lose a ship if you don't find
that exit tube! But it was always clear, if there is an actual countdown,
it's gonna get to zero. The urgency of the situation is telegraphed.

I will muse over this and come back to the thread later.

I will part with a freebie:

In some platformers, you are able to control your character's lateral
movement in mid air when you jump, or even the height of the jump by
holding down the button (or, in extreme cases jumping again in mid-air by hitting the button at the apex). It makes no sense but we're all used to
it by now. I can see a newb pounding their head into the wall not
realizing that they have to *hold* the button instead of tapping it, or
not expecting to be able to jump out from equally sized platforms, and
move back onto the next to get up the next level. (see below)

land! o
======= \
/
o jump!
=======

HUH?
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 9/5/2025 1:53 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I think you could safely argue that video games are, by and large, far
more accessible today than they were in decades prior. I'm not talking
about how they are easier to acquire and it's become a lot more
socially acceptable to play games (although that's definitely true
too), but that the games themselves are designed in a way that makes
it much less difficult to pick up and learn.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a post like this from you some time ago....
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 17:36:39 -0500, Zaghadka <[email protected]>
wrote:

System Shock 2 starts this way. Hell, the time pressure section is the >TUTORIAL, which always boggled my mind. I've never taken a particularly
long time with the SS2 intro section, but I bet I could start it, go make >myself an capuccino, and come back and the game world would be as I had
left it.

This is a really good example and I can't top it.

I never even considered how silly it is a to tie a tutorial to a
timed section. This is likely because I never even considered this
first section of System Shock 2 to be timed. Despite the blaring siren
and Polito shouting at me to get a move on, I definitely went through
this first section at my own pace without a care in the world.

But I agree with you, a first time gamer might be a nervous wreck
trying to get through this quickly!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 18:12:15 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 1:53 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I'm pretty sure I've seen a post like this from you some time ago....

It could be. I've been on Usenet for literal decades. I can't
guarantee EVERYTHING I write will be completely original.

[Or anything I write, for that matter. I mean, have you
SEEN the "what have you been playing" posts? Every month,
the same damn thing! "Hey guys, what have you been playing.
I've been playing EuroTruck Simulator." I tell ya, there's
not an original idea in my head! ;-)]

But back to the subject at hand:

Several other 'rules' that occured to me:

1) Colored markings indicating traversable walls
(usually white paint or something), so that you know
which bits of terrain you can clamber over, and which
are impassable set dressing

2) The weirdness of invisible walls (or otherwise easily
traversable barriers) blocking your progress. No, that
meter-high fence is completely impassable; you'll never
be able to get into that meadow beyond.

3) The hidden rule that says that the gate isn't opening
until you kill EVERYONE in the room with you. Don't
even bother trying to get past until then,

4) The big one we all take for granted: flimsy wooden doors
are invulnerable to swords, missile launchers and even
world-destroying magical spells. You're not getting
past it until the game says you can.








--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 18:12:15 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 9/5/2025 1:53 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I think you could safely argue that video games are, by and large, far
more accessible today than they were in decades prior. I'm not talking
about how they are easier to acquire and it's become a lot more
socially acceptable to play games (although that's definitely true
too), but that the games themselves are designed in a way that makes
it much less difficult to pick up and learn.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a post like this from you some time ago....

Simpsons did it first!
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 10:44:20 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The big one we all take for granted: flimsy wooden doors
are invulnerable to swords, missile launchers and even
world-destroying magical spells. You're not getting
past it until the game says you can.

Ah, yes. Plot doors. Plot doors are totally a thing a newb wouldn't
understand.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Zaghadka <[email protected]> writes:

First thing that came to mind was the narrator/radio voice/etc yelling at
you to "GET OUT OF THERE! *FAST*!!!" Or "Rescue the hostage before they execute them!"

Which usually means take all the time you need to. There's no need to
rush the mechanics and screw up 17 times getting there. And if you do,
it's not going to matter.

Yes. And then you play a game where it does matter. I've been playing
Outer Worlds and, well, twice now some NPCs died because I didn't bother rushing to them. No real impact, maybe a bit more XP if you save
them. I'll have to try and keep alert for this.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:53:21 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?

Ok I think I have one. Maybe.

I can imagine someone who has never played a video game before playing
a popular game like World of Warcraft for the first time. At some
point, real life is going to get in the way and this non-gamer person
is going to ask himself... "How do I pause this?"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sun, 07 Sep 2025 08:55:12 -0400, Mike S. <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:53:21 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><[email protected]> wrote:

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?

Ok I think I have one. Maybe.

I can imagine someone who has never played a video game before playing
a popular game like World of Warcraft for the first time. At some
point, real life is going to get in the way and this non-gamer person
is going to ask himself... "How do I pause this?"

That's when you ask, in your best Samuel L Jackson imitation, "What do
you think the 'real-time' in 'real-time strategy' means, mothafucka?"
;-)

But it's a good example of an unspoken rule. Alternately, I can
imagine a non-gamer might wonder in a turn-based game why things
aren't progressing after they makes their move, not understanding that
they need press the 'end turn' button. After all, in real life time
just keeps moving on.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

...which often left you baffled and helpless until you fiddled around for hours (and read-the-fucking-manual!) before you had a clear idea of
what was going on.

I remember trying the original Wasteland. Yup, didn't know how to play,
before or after reading the manual. I mean, sure, the manual covered
many things but not nearly all things, especially about the actual
mundanes of game play. It's kinda like chess for me, I roughly know
which moves are legal and which aren't but that doesn't mean I can play
chess.

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?

After some consideration I came up with a few:

- Random loot drops. "Damn that guy with the sniper rifle was
annoying. Next sniper gets a sniper bullet in his head for sure. Oops,
no, he was only carrying a toaster".

Sometimes there's even a gun on the ground but if the game decides you
shouldn't pick it up you can't.

- Explosions. Too weak, grenade launcher or whatever useless. Or too
strong, grenade launcher more dangerous to the user than anyone else.

And related, armor or let alone a personal shield generator doesn't
protect you from explosions but does from any other kind of damage.

And often it seems explosions hurt you more than your enemies. As in
"wow, that rocket launcher is dangerous, I died 17 times already
trying to kill that guy. The next guy is going to feel it." But when
you finally get that launcher or whatever, it's not that effective.

One more: any explosion is a good explosion. Frag grenades should work
fairly poorly against heavy armor but does it?

- Mines and traps. Plainly visible to you so you can maybe disarm or
shoot them to trigger but enemies and your buddies blindly walk into
them. Better and worse variant is mines that won't blow up if you try
to shoot them, which is realistic considering modern explosives. But
the sensor and detonator on those is indestructible so your own
carelessly placed mine kills or maims you.

Then again, I remember running into random mines in Fallout games and
getting blown up. Wasn't that much fun either. At least those beep but
I was invariably too slow to escape.

- Invisible walls of course but also invisible walls that are rendered
so that you should be able to get through, like a knee high railing.

Let alone miles of impenetrable hedge in a post-apoc world where hardly
anything grows.

- RPGs where someone in your party has a skill you need but they can't
help you because the game only considers the PC's skill.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:38:04 +0300, Anssi Saari <[email protected]> wrote:

I remember trying the original Wasteland. Yup, didn't know how to play, >before or after reading the manual. I mean, sure, the manual covered
many things but not nearly all things, especially about the actual
mundanes of game play. It's kinda like chess for me, I roughly know
which moves are legal and which aren't but that doesn't mean I can play >chess.

Heh. If you don't read (or own) the manual in Wasteland, you can't
finish the game. It was one of those games that had off-disk journal
entries that were absolutely vital to getting through the quest. ;-)

One more: any explosion is a good explosion. Frag grenades should work
fairly poorly against heavy armor but does it?

- Mines and traps. Plainly visible to you so you can maybe disarm or
shoot them to trigger but enemies and your buddies blindly walk into
them. Better and worse variant is mines that won't blow up if you try
to shoot them, which is realistic considering modern explosives. But
the sensor and detonator on those is indestructible so your own
carelessly placed mine kills or maims you.

On a related note: EXPLOSIVE BARRELS.

We're all trained that those red barrels over there will explode in a
most satisfying way if shot, that it's actually disappointing when
games don't do that. But it's such an unrealistic and unexpected thing
if you aren't familiar with the trope. Not just the improbablility of
the explosion, but the fact that the barrels are just everywhere in
games.

It's a lesson even a person entirely unfamiliar with games learns
pretty quickly though. It just takes one bullet and then you know. ;-)




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 9/9/2025 2:38 AM, Anssi Saari wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

- Explosions. Too weak, grenade launcher or whatever useless. Or too
strong, grenade launcher more dangerous to the user than anyone else.

And related, armor or let alone a personal shield generator doesn't
protect you from explosions but does from any other kind of damage.

This reminds me of boss weapon/party npc issues.

Giant guy with a giant sword that deletes you in one or two hits, you
get it after but it hits like a wet noodle, and looks like a short-sword.

You defeat insanely difficult NPC, who then joins you and he dies like a
chump to the next mook.

- Justisaur
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:35:05 -0700, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

This reminds me of boss weapon/party npc issues.
Giant guy with a giant sword that deletes you in one or two hits, you
get it after but it hits like a wet noodle, and looks like a short-sword.
You defeat insanely difficult NPC, who then joins you and he dies like a >chump to the next mook.

And, related, the whole idea of scaling enemies to begin with. Why
does it take three shots to kill a security guard at the start of the
game, but they can absorb a whole magazine of bullets at the end?
Especially since that gun you have at the end is reputed to be ten
times more powerful than the pea-shooter you started with.

Or just that the boss monster is always super-powerful? I mean, look
at King Charles III; how many hit points do you think that geezer
has?*


















* Six. King Charles III canonically has six hit-points. I checked the
Earth rule-book (v3.0) and that's what it said. Trust me; would I make
up something like that?. ;-)







--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Justisaur <[email protected]> writes:

This reminds me of boss weapon/party npc issues.

Giant guy with a giant sword that deletes you in one or two hits, you
get it after but it hits like a wet noodle, and looks like a
short-sword.

I've suspected that sometimes even with ordinary enemy loot drops. I
wonder if it's common to just nerf them? You get the weapon/thing they
dropped, except...

You defeat insanely difficult NPC, who then joins you and he dies like
a chump to the next mook.

Or the same thing, you recruit someone who's presented as a badass who
just turned a battalion of mooks inside out to your party. But suddenly
he's level 1 with no XP.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Anssi Saari <[email protected]> wrote at 21:10 this Saturday (GMT):

Zaghadka <[email protected]> writes:

First thing that came to mind was the narrator/radio voice/etc yelling at
you to "GET OUT OF THERE! *FAST*!!!" Or "Rescue the hostage before they
execute them!"

Which usually means take all the time you need to. There's no need to
rush the mechanics and screw up 17 times getting there. And if you do,
it's not going to matter.

Yes. And then you play a game where it does matter. I've been playing
Outer Worlds and, well, twice now some NPCs died because I didn't bother rushing to them. No real impact, maybe a bit more XP if you save
them. I'll have to try and keep alert for this.

Or the vast majority of games that do the whole "evil villan is on the brink of destroying the world" but still let you go off and do a million side quests instead of facing the issue :D
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:53:21 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?

Walking into people's houses. When I pick up a game, I assume it is okay
to walk into someone's house and start tossing the place until the game establishes there are rules against this. Some games, in fact, expect it.

This extends to pot smashing/lawn mowing in Zelda. I'm sure there are
videos showing what that would actually look like IRL. I always got a
kick out of imagining it.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 9/16/2025 9:58 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:53:21 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

What other 'rules' in video games can you think of that are so common
and regular that you don't even see them anymore? Do you think a games
are, in general, better because of it? And what would a game be like
if it broke that rule?

Walking into people's houses. When I pick up a game, I assume it is okay
to walk into someone's house and start tossing the place until the game establishes there are rules against this. Some games, in fact, expect it.

This extends to pot smashing/lawn mowing in Zelda. I'm sure there are
videos showing what that would actually look like IRL. I always got a
kick out of imagining it.

If its just pot smashing/lawn mowing usually IRL it ends up with an
arrest, a psych eval and either charges or a treatment program (mental
health and/or drug).
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:58:07 -0500, Zaghadka <[email protected]>
wrote:

This extends to pot smashing/lawn mowing in Zelda. I'm sure there are
videos showing what that would actually look like IRL. I always got a
kick out of imagining it.

Oh, come on. We all know that Link is working with Big Pottery; not
only does he get any contents of the pots he smashes, he gets a cut
from the sale of the replacements the owners need to buy to repair
Link's vandalism.

Follow the rupees, sheeple! ;-)




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

candycanearter07 <[email protected]>
writes:

Or the vast majority of games that do the whole "evil villan is on the brink of
destroying the world" but still let you go off and do a million side quests instead of facing the issue :D

This brought to mind the variant where the civvies or whoever need
saving are all "please Obi-Wan, you're our only hope." And then, "Oh
BTW, a small healing potion costs 10 gold pieces. We're NOT having an
end of the world sale here. Why don't you go kill a few rats or
something?"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 09:58:27 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:58:07 -0500, Zaghadka <[email protected]>
wrote:

This extends to pot smashing/lawn mowing in Zelda. I'm sure there are >>videos showing what that would actually look like IRL. I always got a
kick out of imagining it.

Oh, come on. We all know that Link is working with Big Pottery; not
only does he get any contents of the pots he smashes, he gets a cut
from the sale of the replacements the owners need to buy to repair
Link's vandalism.

Follow the rupees, sheeple! ;-)

Well, I did find this, and I think you're forgetting about the Frobozz
Magic Pot Conjuring company (for which this is a commercial. It's a free service). So it all sorts itself in the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXmMQJMFL_I
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote at 13:58 this Wednesday (GMT):

On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:58:07 -0500, Zaghadka <[email protected]>
wrote:

This extends to pot smashing/lawn mowing in Zelda. I'm sure there are >>videos showing what that would actually look like IRL. I always got a
kick out of imagining it.

Oh, come on. We all know that Link is working with Big Pottery; not
only does he get any contents of the pots he smashes, he gets a cut
from the sale of the replacements the owners need to buy to repair
Link's vandalism.

Follow the rupees, sheeple! ;-)

Man, a game where the MC is working with a bad guy secretly would be
awesome




deltaru-
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:40:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 <[email protected]> wrote:

Man, a game where the MC is working with a bad guy secretly would be
awesome

It's not quite working with the bad guy, but "Prototype" (2009) was
sort of like that. The game presented itself as a sort of
macho-superhero power-fantasy where you had weird comic-book 'viral'
powers that let you grow blades for arms, or climb up walls, or change
shape into another person. You were dumped in a zombie-infested
Manhattan that was simultaneously being invaded by a brutal mercenary
army that was connected to the company that released the virus that
created the zombies (and gave you your superpowers). You ran around
doing superhero'y things throughout most of the game... but in the end
you learn

<ROT13 for spoilers>
gung va snpg lbh jrer gur crefba jub eryrnfrq gur ivehf naq gur nezl
naq gur pbecbengvba jnf gelvat gb pbagnva gur fcernq bs gur qvfrnfr
(yvgrenyyl rzobqvrq va lbhef gehyl) sebz rathysvat gur erfg bs gur
jbeyq.
<ROT13>

In the sequel, you take on the role of another person, and the
character from the first game becomes your nemesis, having taken a
distinct and overt turn towards the darkness.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2