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

On 1/28/2026 1:20 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote at 15:25 this Tuesday (GMT):

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:59:36 -0800, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 1/20/2026 8:43 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

[Their list included, for those of you too lazy to click
the link: Ghosts 'n Goblins; Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's
Revenge; Fable II; Mass Effect 3; and Assassin's Creed
III. There, I saved you some reading. ;-)]

I don't remember ME3's ending which is the only one of those I've played >>> to the end.

In its essence: fight your way to the Crucible, and make a choice for
one of three endings (although you may get fewer options depending on
your 'military readiness' score. These included:

<ROT13>
- Qrfgebl gur Erncref naq nyy NV (raqvat gur 50,000 lrne plpyrf bs
qrfgehpgvba)
- Pbageby gur Erncref (tvivat Furcureq gur novyvgl gb gryy gur erncref
jung gb qb), be
- Zretr jvgu gur Erncref, jurer NV naq betnavp yvsr shfr gbtrgure va n
arj sbez bs yvsr.
- Ershfny Raqvat (ninvynoyr va gur rkgraqrq irefvba cngpu) unf
Furcureq ershfr gb pubbfr, juvpu zrnaf gur Erncref jva naq gur plpyrf
pbagvahr
</ROT13>

In the original game, regardless of your choice, you got a nearly
identical ending cinematic, with the primary difference being whether
the lights were red, blue or green. The patched extended edition added
a few tweaks.

The similarities between the endings were... not well received.
Myself, I didn't mind the endings themselves, but the lack of effort
to diffentiate them was rather a let down.

I sure do love games where your choice of ending is down to a clear signposted choice at the end.

What game do you think of first when it comes to 'bad endings'?

The original ending of Fallout 3 before they fixed it with a DLC is what >>> comes to mind. It didn't ruin the game, but it was definitely
disappointing you died to make safe water.

Mostly because your sacrifice was predicated on your entering a
high-radiation area and you had a party member who could easily
survive that. It was such an obvious oversight that it angered a lot
of people.

Not me, though. I didn't have Fawkes in my party so it was never an
option. What, allow one of those murderous abominations to travel with
me? I think not! I left him in bloody gibbets in Vault 87!!! ;-)

I believe FO3 got a patch to change the patch later. Also, apparently
FO3 wasn't a very good Fallout game anyways (not speaking as a FO fan)

As an FO fan I was initially disappointed, but eventually got into the
game. I still think it's the best of the Bethesda ones. Actually
interesting things and characters in it, and you can actually explore
and find interesting things. FO3 was the only one I've ever completed a replay, and I've done that recently again.

I loved 1 and 2, but they don't hold up so well anymore, and I hated the
time limit in 1 such that I never managed a full replay (I think.)
Actually I don't think I ever got to the end in 2 again either, though I
got to SF many times, I didn't really like the end sequence against the Enclave. I still never got through a replay of NV or 4, I'm not even
sure if you can replay 76.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:44:06 -0800, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

I loved 1 and 2, but they don't hold up so well anymore, and I hated the >time limit in 1 such that I never managed a full replay (I think.)

For what it's worth, there's a patch that removes the time-limit in
the original "Fallout" game. Well, technically it doesn't remove it so
much as set it to a virtually unattainable length.

In fact, according to some random reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/11pm8fz/fallout_1_postwaterchip_time_limit/

"Before you patch the game, there was a time limit of 500
days. It could be reduced* by 100 if you bought water from
Water Merchants.

"Later on, there was a patch that removed that time limit
and changed it to 13 years. The Steam version has the
patch with the 13 years time limit."

Of course, the time limit was only one of the problems with the game,
even if it was perhaps the most egregious. So it's likely this news
won't convince you to replay the game. But should you ever have a
change of heart and decide, "Oh, I'd love to play the game again but
absolutely hate being rushed by artificially induced time-limits",
well, worry not about that! ;-)



* I think the original poster meant 'increased' here, as in meeting
with the water merchants gives you MORE time to finish the quest
before your vault runs out of water.





--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On 2/6/2026 7:09 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:44:06 -0800, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

I loved 1 and 2, but they don't hold up so well anymore, and I hated the
time limit in 1 such that I never managed a full replay (I think.)

For what it's worth, there's a patch that removes the time-limit in
the original "Fallout" game. Well, technically it doesn't remove it so
much as set it to a virtually unattainable length.

In fact, according to some random reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/11pm8fz/fallout_1_postwaterchip_time_limit/

"Before you patch the game, there was a time limit of 500
days. It could be reduced* by 100 if you bought water from
Water Merchants.

"Later on, there was a patch that removed that time limit
and changed it to 13 years. The Steam version has the
patch with the 13 years time limit."

Of course, the time limit was only one of the problems with the game,
even if it was perhaps the most egregious. So it's likely this news
won't convince you to replay the game. But should you ever have a
change of heart and decide, "Oh, I'd love to play the game again but absolutely hate being rushed by artificially induced time-limits",
well, worry not about that! ;-)

* I think the original poster meant 'increased' here, as in meeting
with the water merchants gives you MORE time to finish the quest
before your vault runs out of water.

As I recall buying from the Water Merchants would cause your vault to be
found by one of the hostile factions (The Brotherhood?) and captured or destroyed. So "reduced" may be correct, but its been a long time since
I played.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 07:30:21 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 2/6/2026 7:09 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

* I think the original poster meant 'increased' here, as in meeting
with the water merchants gives you MORE time to finish the quest
before your vault runs out of water.

As I recall buying from the Water Merchants would cause your vault to be >found by one of the hostile factions (The Brotherhood?) and captured or >destroyed. So "reduced" may be correct, but its been a long time since
I played.

I will bow to your knowledge. It's been too long since I've played the
game. I seem to remember that the game gave you more time but, like I
said, it's been decades since last I played the game. I suggest it may
actually be both: the water merchants may increase the time-limit with
regards to water (and this is what it reports to the player), but also
starts a new timer for when your vault is discovered by enemies.

But honestly, I've no confidence in any of my recollections regarding
this game, so if you say it is reduced, I'll not argue the case too
strongly. ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 10:09:32 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:

For what it's worth, there's a patch that removes the time-limit in
the original "Fallout" game. Well, technically it doesn't remove it so
much as set it to a virtually unattainable length.

The version with the changed time limit is the only version of Fallout
I ever played. I hate time limits in video games. I likely won't play
a game if I know it has one.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On 2/6/2026 8:00 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 07:30:21 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 2/6/2026 7:09 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

* I think the original poster meant 'increased' here, as in meeting
with the water merchants gives you MORE time to finish the quest
before your vault runs out of water.

As I recall buying from the Water Merchants would cause your vault to be
found by one of the hostile factions (The Brotherhood?) and captured or
destroyed. So "reduced" may be correct, but its been a long time since
I played.

I will bow to your knowledge. It's been too long since I've played the
game. I seem to remember that the game gave you more time but, like I
said, it's been decades since last I played the game. I suggest it may actually be both: the water merchants may increase the time-limit with regards to water (and this is what it reports to the player), but also
starts a new timer for when your vault is discovered by enemies.

But honestly, I've no confidence in any of my recollections regarding
this game, so if you say it is reduced, I'll not argue the case too
strongly. ;-)

I'm not arguing my case strongly either, so we'll just have to sit here
weakly looking at each other.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:05:38 -0500, Mike S. <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 10:09:32 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson ><[email protected]> wrote:

For what it's worth, there's a patch that removes the time-limit in
the original "Fallout" game. Well, technically it doesn't remove it so
much as set it to a virtually unattainable length.

The version with the changed time limit is the only version of Fallout
I ever played. I hate time limits in video games. I likely won't play
a game if I know it has one.

Is it really a time-limit if there's really no chance of that timer
running down, though? ;-)

I'm not against time limits per se. They can be used to add some much
needed tension to a game. I tend not to enjoy games that use them,
though, but that's not because I think they're a bad idea but because
they don't tend to fit my style of gaming.

When I play a video game, I want several things out of it. The
mechanics --the actual gameplay-- are important, but they aren't what
I focus on the most. I like a good story, I like entertaining
characters; those rank slightly higher. But what I most want is a
sense of immersion; of being dropped into a realistic world, one so
detailed and complete that I can poke my nose into every nook and
cranny and feel like I am somewhere else. Because that's exactly what
I am going to do. I like EXPLORING these strange digital realms, and I
want to look at every bit of it.

Which is sort of hard to do if there's a time pushing me to get to a
certain point before the game irrevocably ends. It's like taking a
vacation to another country and only having a single weekend to see
all the sights! Who wants that?

Which, again, isn't to dismiss timers entirely. Some players don't
really care about tediously-thorough exploration. Some games have
extremely simple worlds where a single glance can tell you everything
you need to know about it. Sometimes the narrative demands a timer.
Timers aren't, in and of themselves, bad. I won't avoid games with
timers entirely.

The problem with "Fallout" was it presented players with a vast world
with endless nooks to explore, told them to take their time and having
fun in this world, then yanked the rug out from beneath them for
actually following the game's advice. The problem with "Fallout"
wasn't the timer so much as how it was utilized in a genre that didn't
really support it.

You know one game I think actually would have _benefitted_ from a
timer? "Ultima VII: The Black Gate". Maybe not one that ran right from
the start, but after a certain point, I think the game would have
benefitted from a certain urgency. Put it late enough in the game that
the player has already had opportunity to do all the necessary
exploration, keep the timer lenient enough that it's not a REAL threat
to the gameplay... but have a clock ticking down in the background so
you do feel some pressure. The complete lack of all that really
weakened Ultima 7's end-game, where you could literally fight your way
to the end of the final dungeon, then wander off and sleep away months
and the Big Bad would never appear until you finally went back and
triggered him.











--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

I always had mixed feelings about the drone battle mechanics. On the
one hand: neat! I liked the conceit behind the battle (although I
always wondered why your ship only used /half/ its drone complement in
the introductory battle before the captain surrendered). It was also a
fun little battle simulator (the secret, I found, was to spam the time-compression mechanic and constantly send your drones back to the mothership for repair and switching to new weapon-types). I could see
that little segment of the game expanded into a completely separate
game.

Sure, it's like a mini-RTS in space and all without the tedious
complication of too many different unit types like some RTS games liked
to do.

I've reached this point now but there seems to be some problem with the
DosBox emulation: the game runs at reasonable speed but mouse clicks on
some UI buttons seem to get interpreted in a rather different time
scale. The shortest tap on a mouse button I can manage still seems to
get interpreted as holding it down for 2-3 seconds. Especially the
"rotate" control in the drone battle is pretty hard to use.

So do you, as the resident emulation and retro guru, have any ideas? I
tried slowing down the emulation speed of the game but it doesn't make a
lot of difference. Messes up sound if going too low though.

Still, it isn't so bad, I managed half of the training missions so far
without losses. I didn't remember the graphics were so crude though.
--- Synchronet 3.21c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 12:45:37 +0200, Anssi Saari <[email protected]> said this thing:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

I always had mixed feelings about the drone battle mechanics. On the
one hand: neat! I liked the conceit behind the battle (although I
always wondered why your ship only used /half/ its drone complement in
the introductory battle before the captain surrendered). It was also a
fun little battle simulator (the secret, I found, was to spam the
time-compression mechanic and constantly send your drones back to the
mothership for repair and switching to new weapon-types). I could see
that little segment of the game expanded into a completely separate
game.

Sure, it's like a mini-RTS in space and all without the tedious
complication of too many different unit types like some RTS games liked
to do.

I've reached this point now but there seems to be some problem with the >DosBox emulation: the game runs at reasonable speed but mouse clicks on
some UI buttons seem to get interpreted in a rather different time
scale. The shortest tap on a mouse button I can manage still seems to
get interpreted as holding it down for 2-3 seconds. Especially the
"rotate" control in the drone battle is pretty hard to use.

So do you, as the resident emulation and retro guru, have any ideas? I
tried slowing down the emulation speed of the game but it doesn't make a
lot of difference. Messes up sound if going too low though.

Not really (I'm hardly an emulation expert; I just play a lot of old
DOS games ;-). I don't recall any such difficulties... which isn't to
say they weren't there for me, just that I don't remember them. Alas,
I don't have a save-game for the combat sequences so I can't test
directly.

[I just fired up the game --it has a permanent spot on the hdd--
and while I found the mouse a bit sluggish in movement, its
clickiness wasn't a problem for me. For what it's worth, I'm
running on DOSBox v0.74-3 with 100% (max) CPU. I have set the
game to use the GUSMax (which requires tweaking of the DOSBox
config file and installation of the GUS drivers in DOSBox)
and sometimes DOS games reacted poorly to some soundcard
setups. Other than that, I dunno. Sorry.]

Still, it isn't so bad, I managed half of the training missions so far >without losses. I didn't remember the graphics were so crude though.

The training missions aren't really that hard; it's really only the
last two or three story missions where you start to struggle a bit
(and, of course, there's always the difficulty slider). I think at the
very easiest you can even skip the battles? I forget.

But yeah, the tactical combat sequences do use very simplistic
visuals, although I think that's intentional. It reflected what a lot
of sci-fi shows at the time were using, and --in fact-- military
systems also usually use simpler visuals in order to de-clutter the
interface so you can focus on what's actually going on (at the
strategic level, you don't need photo-real visuals). Plus, of course,
Legend was mostly making an adventure game, so who knows how much
effort they actually wanted to put into the RTS mini-game.

By itself, I had no problem with the combat. As I said, expanded a bit
it might have worked as a stand-alone title. But I can understand why
a lot of people hated it included in the adventure.


--- Synchronet 3.21c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

[I just fired up the game --it has a permanent spot on the hdd--
and while I found the mouse a bit sluggish in movement, its
clickiness wasn't a problem for me. For what it's worth, I'm
running on DOSBox v0.74-3 with 100% (max) CPU. I have set the
game to use the GUSMax (which requires tweaking of the DOSBox
config file and installation of the GUS drivers in DOSBox)
and sometimes DOS games reacted poorly to some soundcard
setups. Other than that, I dunno. Sorry.]

Thanks for the effort. I realized you can also rotate the view by
holding the right mouse button down and moving the mouse around on the mini-map. The only other place where I had this issue was the early pipe
puzzle in engineering. I thought there was a bug in the game as the up
and down arrows in the GUI just moved the display of the pipe structure
right to the top or bottom, so acting like home and end keys. So I
couldn't see the middle part of the pipes. But of course, it was this
same emulation bug instead. Arrow keys on the keyboard saved my day
there.

Still, it isn't so bad, I managed half of the training missions so far >>without losses. I didn't remember the graphics were so crude though.

The training missions aren't really that hard; it's really only the
last two or three story missions where you start to struggle a bit
(and, of course, there's always the difficulty slider). I think at the
very easiest you can even skip the battles? I forget.

Yes, I think I did just that back when, let the computer win the real
battles for me. Now that I beat the real battles, I wonder why. Default difficulty and there were only two of them. I hope. Basically my tactics
were simple since the computer doesn't really present a challenge. It
attacks piecemeal with groups of five and that's either five assault
drones or four assault drones and one fighter. So all I needed to do was
send more attack drones (six or five) than the computer had in each
group. The fighters are so weak they don't matter and the computer never
sends bombers. The attack drones are really the all-rounder craft.

Maybe higher difficulty changes something but like this it was basically
a turkey shoot.

I did worry, I lost two drones in the first battle and one more in the
second but it seems that was fine. A third battle with six drones left
would likely be hard to win. Clearly I wasn't fast enough on the
controls to pull out damaged drones out of the engagements to get them
back and repaired before they were destroyed. But good enough.
--- Synchronet 3.21c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 14:21:13 +0200, Anssi Saari <[email protected]> said this thing:

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

[I just fired up the game --it has a permanent spot on the hdd--
and while I found the mouse a bit sluggish in movement, its
clickiness wasn't a problem for me. For what it's worth, I'm
running on DOSBox v0.74-3 with 100% (max) CPU. I have set the
game to use the GUSMax (which requires tweaking of the DOSBox
config file and installation of the GUS drivers in DOSBox)
and sometimes DOS games reacted poorly to some soundcard
setups. Other than that, I dunno. Sorry.]

Thanks for the effort. I realized you can also rotate the view by
holding the right mouse button down and moving the mouse around on the >mini-map. The only other place where I had this issue was the early pipe >puzzle in engineering. I thought there was a bug in the game as the up
and down arrows in the GUI just moved the display of the pipe structure
right to the top or bottom, so acting like home and end keys. So I
couldn't see the middle part of the pipes. But of course, it was this
same emulation bug instead. Arrow keys on the keyboard saved my day
there.

Still, it isn't so bad, I managed half of the training missions so far >>>without losses. I didn't remember the graphics were so crude though.

The training missions aren't really that hard; it's really only the
last two or three story missions where you start to struggle a bit
(and, of course, there's always the difficulty slider). I think at the
very easiest you can even skip the battles? I forget.

Yes, I think I did just that back when, let the computer win the real
battles for me. Now that I beat the real battles, I wonder why. Default >difficulty and there were only two of them. I hope. Basically my tactics
were simple since the computer doesn't really present a challenge. It
attacks piecemeal with groups of five and that's either five assault
drones or four assault drones and one fighter. So all I needed to do was
send more attack drones (six or five) than the computer had in each
group. The fighters are so weak they don't matter and the computer never >sends bombers. The attack drones are really the all-rounder craft.

Maybe higher difficulty changes something but like this it was basically
a turkey shoot.

IIRC, it's only the last two or three 'real' battles that ever present
any real challenge... and even then its because the AI has multiple
carriers, so you have to use your limited resources to defend from
multiple directions at once. Basically, send out fighters to wipe out
one wave, then quickly re-arm and send them off to intercept the
second wave. It's really only difficult the first time you fight the
battle (because that second wave takes you by surprise) but once you
know they are coming it's just a matter of timing.

As I've said, I liked the combat sequences. I'm not sure I felt that
way the first time I played the game --I think my initial reaction was something along the lines of, "what the fuck is this arcade shit in my adventure game?"-- but with time I've come to appreciate it more. It
really plays into the fantasy of being onboard a (relatively) hard
sci-fi battle-cruiser, and it's short enough that it doesn't
interfere too much with the main quest.

Maybe it could have done with a few less missions. I think you do 9
training missions and 9 real missions, and --narratively-- that's
probably a bit much. But they none of them last that long. I really
got the impression that the developers had put all that effort into
creating the combat engine that they tried to get some value for their
dollars from it by extending how long you used it. ;-)


Still, its mostly the ending bits (that chat with the 'aliens' later
on, and the post-game cinematic ending) that I found most memorable
about the game.


--- Synchronet 3.21c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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

Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> writes:

As I've said, I liked the combat sequences. I'm not sure I felt that
way the first time I played the game --I think my initial reaction was something along the lines of, "what the fuck is this arcade shit in my adventure game?"-- but with time I've come to appreciate it more. It
really plays into the fantasy of being onboard a (relatively) hard
sci-fi battle-cruiser, and it's short enough that it doesn't
interfere too much with the main quest.

In a way the fights divide the story, let's say they're act 2. Act 1 is
all that running around on the ship, solving puzzles to fix, avoid
disasters, find out things and get ready for the fights. Act 3 is a kind
of mixed bag, landing on the planet, few puzzles but lots of
story. Then, last act, time jump and one final fight, or considering
what happens, it's the first fight redone. And an epilogue to round
things out.

Still, its mostly the ending bits (that chat with the 'aliens' later
on, and the post-game cinematic ending) that I found most memorable
about the game.

Yes, I've finished the game again. BTW, Wikipedia mentions there's a
novel, Mission Critical: Death of the Phoenix by Paul Chafe. It's not
really sequel but a related story in the same universe. Have you read
that? Seems a bit hard to find now but archive.org seems to have a
viewable copy.
--- Synchronet 3.21c-Linux NewsLink 1.2