673f4a11a331d
Forgotten Password
Sign up

Post Reply

Your name:
Subject:
Message Icon:
Verification:
This box must be left blank:

Name the default melee weapon in System Shock:

Shortcuts: Alt+s to submit/post; Alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: icemann
« on: Yesterday at 06:52:59 »

Quote by voodoo47:
you probably will need some early DX translator nowadays, like DGVoodoo.

I'll have to do some investigating, to see if that helps.

[edit from 4 hours of troubleshooting later]
Got it to work. Required A LOT of tinkering, and a lot of reading of forum posts to find the solution.

To save anyone who happens across this post who was unable to install the game due to a "Cannot read Game1.cab" error. You need to image mount the games first CD to your 1st available disc drive. If anything else is in it, or mounted to it then that error will result. Fix that, and you'll likely be able to install and run the game.

Quote by sarge945:
Incorrect inform. The D2 remaster is very bad for multiple reasons.

Also, why would you pay money for the WC1 remaster "for the control scheme" if the entire thing is a low-effort cash grab in the first place? This sort of behaviour goes away if we stop rewarding it.

It's more rewarding them for actually paying attention to their older retro classics that could use the attention and getting them to work on modern systems / allowing them to. If they were to do the same with the Lost Vikings, Rock'n'Roll racing, or Blackthorne that be awesome. Though no control scheme changes needed with those games.

Getting older games to work on modern systems be far more difficult than you'd think. Even if you have the source code, requires switching things over to more current libraries, extensive testing to make sure they actually work without crashing, adding in new screen resolutions, allowing for borderless fullscreen mode etc etc.

I have the exact same respect for Night Dive Studios (despite my annoyances over the SS remake) for doing that exact same thing with numerous other games, getting them to work properly on modern systems. Need more companies doing that IMO. Absolute sea of games that could do with that kind of attention + easy money to be made.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: Yesterday at 03:18:12 »

Quote by icemann:
Considering how good D2 Resurrected was

Incorrect inform. The D2 remaster is very bad for multiple reasons.

Also, why would you pay money for the WC1 remaster "for the control scheme" if the entire thing is a low-effort cash grab in the first place? This sort of behaviour goes away if we stop rewarding it.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 19. November 2024, 17:35:52 »

you probably will need some early DX translator nowadays, like DGVoodoo.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 19. November 2024, 17:13:08 »

I do know of it. Tried playing it last year after Dune 2k. Could never get it working unfortunately. Has no good fan remakes or mods that I could find. Sucks as really wanted to play it.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 19. November 2024, 14:05:12 »

iirc OpenRA can play Dune2000 without much trouble. yaay to regenerating infantry.

also, remember Emperor: Battle for Dune? seems like nobody does, even though it was pretty good, maybe the best Dune rts that's out there.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 19. November 2024, 13:53:33 »

Quote by voodoo47:
Dune Legacy hits the spot as far as I'm concerned, they did exactly what needed to be done - fixed not just the control scheme, but also AI bugs and a few other problems (saboteurs and fremen are now normal units, not useless mindless kamikaze drones, for example). this is how it's done - don't be afraid to fix the original devs mistake or bad decision.

Stratagus and Wargus for the first two Warcraft games, last time I've checked they worked ok, but that has been a while. //looks like they are starting to poke into Starcraft too. I don't mind.

Dune 2000 has a few similar remakes out there. Quite the variance. Some more just get the game to work in modern systems, and others change the AI and functionality a bit, and are missing the original missions. Had a long look around, back when I was streaming a play through of the game last year.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 16. November 2024, 14:08:17 »

they are targeting the hurr-durr, me wants the official stuff, me pay extra crowd. they deserve one another.
Posted by: fox
« on: 16. November 2024, 13:17:05 »

Quite sad to me, how much the industry (games and movies alike) is going for rehashes these days - no matter the quality.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 16. November 2024, 09:14:00 »

Dune Legacy hits the spot as far as I'm concerned, they did exactly what needed to be done - fixed not just the control scheme, but also AI bugs and a few other problems (saboteurs and fremen are now normal units, not useless mindless kamikaze drones, for example). this is how it's done - don't be afraid to fix the original devs mistake or bad decision.

Stratagus and Wargus for the first two Warcraft games, last time I've checked they worked ok, but that has been a while. //looks like they are starting to poke into Starcraft too. I don't mind.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 16. November 2024, 07:27:51 »

On one hand the new gfx look meh. On the other just as with the recent Diablo 2 Remaster (Diablo 2 Resurrected) you can change back to the OG gfx whenever you want, which wasn't even a choice when Warcraft 3 Reforged came out.

Add to that more modern control schemes added to Warcraft 1 (which plays like Dune 2) which gets a hell yeah from me. Replayed that game earlier this year and the controls have not aged well.

Considering how good D2 Resurrected was, and the fact that it's good to be seeing Blizzard actually pay attention to their long forgotten RTS games for a change, and I'm willing to give it a go.

Blizz needs to hurry the fuck up and get started on Warcraft 4 and Starcraft 3 already. The lack of good RTS games nowadays really sucks.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 15. November 2024, 19:13:31 »

so the first two Warcraft games are now remastered too, apparently very much in tune with the mediocrity and low-effortness of the W3 remaster.

but whatever, if this makes it to GOG and is 50% off..
Posted by: fox
« on: 15. November 2024, 19:03:22 »

Your Gear is Poisoning You! (Not Clickbait)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ht7nOaIkpI
Posted by: fox
« on: 11. November 2024, 04:49:00 »

Sophos Pacific Rim
Inside the counter-offensive tactics, techniques, and procedures used to neutralize China-based threats

heise.de: "Analysis and opinion: Sophos and the broken vow"
(...) a manufacturer has collected data from its customers' IT systems that was not used to improve them, but explicitly to detect suspicious activity. The collection of necessary telemetry data to improve the systems only served as a front for mass surveillance without cause. In specific cases of suspicion, the manufacturer then even installed special surveillance software without the knowledge of the customers and against their presumed will, which is also capable of exfiltrating any files. This is normally called malware, the hotfixes were Trojans, the kernel implanted a rootkit and the procedure corresponds to that of cybercrime gangs and state attackers.
Posted by: fox
« on: 06. November 2024, 15:53:25 »

Yeah, we're fucked.
Posted by: fox
« on: 02. November 2024, 22:42:00 »

Red Dead Redemption - Bird People Glitch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYdCvN-ukRY
Posted by: fox
« on: 01. November 2024, 22:36:37 »

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night - Official Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmIQFcPXLXA
Looked it up after someone commented "A Vampire Spaghetti-Western filmed in black and white, set in Iran, filmed in the US, all dialogue being in Farsi, subtitled in English."

A GIRL WALKS HOME ALONE AT NIGHT - Director Ana-Lily Amirpour Interview
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 31. October 2024, 03:04:15 »

I could almost be convinced that they added that slight colour gradient specifically to make us all think our hardware was failing.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 31. October 2024, 00:23:25 »

ooh that's the reason - my brain is thinking this is a hw failure. it is however, youtube failure.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 30. October 2024, 22:35:12 »

It's been doing that for a while, it kept making me think my monitor's colours were breaking.

Spreaking of monitors and colours, I recently bought an Alienware 32" 4k OLED monitor.  I was looking forward to playing Thief and other dark games with the kind of true blacks we haven't seen since CRTs.
Turns out, the one thing is can't display consistently is properly dark scenes.
The brightness of dark colours shifts signifying depending on if the image is moving or still (oddly, it only happens in SDR mode.)
Not a single review of the monitor mentioned this, people I asked on the internet said they'd never seen anything like it.
I contacted Dell technical support and they told me it sounded like it was "working as designed".  I got them to exchange it as faulty, the replacement arrived and had the exact same problem.

The whole thing was overall very disappointing, and now I'm paranoid that any other OLED monitor I buy might just have the same issue, since I clearly can't trust any reviews as they all missed the issue.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 28. October 2024, 19:52:25 »

also the youtube video progress bar that pops up when you hover your mouse arrow above the video now has a slight purple hue on the right end.

this annoys me greatly.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 28. October 2024, 14:15:20 »

A lot of corporate and university computers probably come with Google Chrome and won't let you install another browser, sadly.

So I guess those people won't be able to avoid ads any more.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 28. October 2024, 07:47:18 »

99% of what I get is gambling commercials. This is largely as the display of those types of ads is completely unregulated in my country. Hate it.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 26. October 2024, 17:32:52 »

and it's not like they don't know I'm mostly interested in food and (real) games. well, at least they did sod off with the infected hooves in the video feed. for now.
Posted by: fox
« on: 26. October 2024, 17:26:58 »

The ad-situation is off the rails without a blocker.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 26. October 2024, 17:22:59 »

..so I was without an adblocker for a couple of days - holy crap, I don't think I have seen so many feminine hygiene products in my entire life. and I was signed in, youtube knows there is absolutely no situation where I would potentially be buying those - of all the products I'm never going to buy in my life, tampons are exactly what I'm never going to buy the most.

the rest about 50% of ads consisted of (fake) mobile games (that's a thing, apparently), an app you can use to sell your junk, and some dishwashing liquid. amazing.

and I'm a guy, who hoards junk, does zero mobile gaming, and never washes dishes by hand. it's like they are living in some anti-reality.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 23. October 2024, 12:01:22 »

Quote by sarge945:
This statistic can be explained completely by the number of mobile devices.

More people than ever before are using ad blockers on desktops/laptops, but the increase is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people getting 2,3,4 mobile devices, Smart TV's, and other locked-down proprietary garbage that doesn't allow ad blockers.

Honestly, Smartphones and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Amen to all of that. It absolutely sucks that we can't install an ad-blocker on our Smart TV + mobile phone. The amount of ads + length of them (many up to 50 seconds unskippable now) is just horrible.

Lots of things adding to the downward spiral of humanity these days. Mobiles, Chat GPT, Uber Eats. List goes on and on.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 21. October 2024, 02:32:09 »

The 2001: A Space Odyssey music video 56 years in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu7pK_9VvLo
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 19. October 2024, 15:47:00 »

Yeah that's fair.
Posted by: fox
« on: 19. October 2024, 15:34:08 »

Quote by sarge945:
And if you think 2024 is a concerted effort against ad blocking and privacy, my response is, where have you been the last decade? Every year is the worst year for privacy, and every year is the worst year for intrusive advertisements.

I'm not disputing that. It comes in waves. It's just that I feel that the push is particularly strong this year.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 19. October 2024, 05:49:34 »

This statistic can be explained completely by the number of mobile devices.

More people than ever before are using ad blockers on desktops/laptops, but the increase is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people getting 2,3,4 mobile devices, Smart TV's, and other locked-down proprietary garbage that doesn't allow ad blockers.

Honestly, Smartphones and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

And if you think 2024 is a concerted effort against ad blocking and privacy, my response is, where have you been the last decade? Every year is the worst year for privacy, and every year is the worst year for intrusive advertisements.

The only winning move is not to play, unfortunately. I don't have any streaming service accounts, I don't use predatory privacy-invading websites or software, and generally I don't miss out on much. The few good things that are worth my time, I pirate.
Posted by: fox
« on: 18. October 2024, 16:16:53 »

I guess the hyper-aggressive ads have actually led ad blockers to become widely known. Yet, statistics* say that things started to go downhill again in 2021 and I bet this development was accelerated significantly in 2024, when they started to go all out with YT and all the big streaming services joined the choir:

https://explodingtopics.com/blog/ad-block-users
Despite an overall increase in the number of people with ad blockers, the proportion of internet users using ad block tools has dipped since 2021.

DataReportal found that approximately 1 in 3 (32.5%) internet users use ad blockers. That figure has fallen 4.5% from Q3 2021’s 37%, although a change in methodology may be a contributing factor.

* Remember never to trust statistics, especially not when they come from a commercial service.

From my point of view 2024 is remarkable in how it feels like a concerted effort against ad-blocking and also against (what little is left of) privacy. Not that those were ever not pushed against.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 18. October 2024, 16:09:29 »

life finds a way..
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 18. October 2024, 16:00:52 »

What will most likely happen, either someone will host an alternative to the Google Extension store, and a lot of browsers will switch to it for their default extensions store, or browsers will pop up a window after installation saying "hey, wanna install uBlock Origin? Y/N"

That's actually a lot more viable than in most other cases. If Steam stops selling a game, if you want to play it outside Steam, you might have to find a cracked version, and even if your game is on alternative storefronts, it's going to be much harder for people to find and buy, because Steam is a closed platform that Valve themselves maintain. Meanwhile, with the open-source browser ecosystem, keeping Manifest V2 support means anyone can just download the addon elsewhere (maybe the official uBlock website?) and auto-install it, and because most of these browsers are maintained by communities that have a vested interest in keeping uBlock origin alive, developers will go out of their way to make uBlock as easy to install as possible in their browsers - many of them will probably even bundle it with their browser once the listing disappears. The only thing google is able to do is remove the Web Store listing, as long as Manifest V2 works they can't stop the addon being included with browsers or auto-installed at the press of a button, and developers will ensure users of their browsers can continue to easily find/install what they need with as little hassle as possible because it's something their users value. Since the Chrome Web Store is 99% garbage anyway (seriously, just look at the extensions list, most of them are just toolbar links to existing websites, which is completely pointless), and since people are going to want good Adblockers because it's already been established as the norm now, it's going to be virtually impossible for Google to get rid of them in any meaningful capacity.

The only 3 Chrome addons worth using are uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and Floccus, and all of them require Manifest V2.
Posted by: fox
« on: 18. October 2024, 15:36:37 »

I hope you are right about the continued MV2-support. I came away from my (very superficial) quick research that some of these browsers are not promising any long-term support and instead say stuff like "as long as possible, probably ends in June 25". A couple of months more or less won't help much.

In the case of Brave:

https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
Will MV2 extensions still work in Brave?

Yes, for now. We recognize the importance of supporting existing Manifest V2 extensions. We have force-enabled Manifest V2 support in the Brave browser, ensuring that you can continue to use your favorite extensions without interruption. In June 2025, Google plans to remove all remaining Manifest V2 items from the Chrome Web Store. While Brave has no extension store, we have a robust process for customizing (or “patching”) atop the open-source Chromium engine. This will allow us to offer limited MV2 support even after it’s fully removed from the upstream Chromium codebase.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 18. October 2024, 15:23:53 »

Okay, I should clarify.

Almost all of the big chromium-based browsers have committed to maintaining Manifest V2. Brave supports it, ungoogled chromium too, even Edge is sticking to Manifest V2 for now.

The only people this really affects are users of Google Chrome™, the web browser provided by Google Inc™, not all chromium browsers.

Nobody should be using Chrome anymore anyway. I was under the impression that almost everyone had switched already to some other browser, even if most people still use some flavour of Chromium, because the official version of Google Chrome is a horrible privacy-invading and tracking nightmare, and offers the worst user experience of any Chromium based browser. Using actual Google Chrome in 2024 is extremely cringe and you should change now - it's by far the worst Chromium browser on the market (okay, I lie, Edge is worse, but not by much. And at least you can still use your adblocker in Edge), and you don't have to switch to Firefox. Just use literally any other browser that exists. Even if you want to keep using Chromium, there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of other choices that are better than Google Chrome.

Chromium updates will eventually make their way upstream, and over time as more and more changes happen to the core Chromium project, many other Chromium based browsers will likely start running into issues eventually that make maintaining Manifest v2 support impossible, but this is likely a long way off. Eventually Firefox will be the only usable browser if you don't want to see advertisements everywhere, so prepare for that, and I would recommend getting used to FF now so that the transition is a lot easier later, even if you only use it for a few websites. People say Firefox totally sucks at rendering websites, but I find the only websites it struggles to render properly are propaganda-filled bloated masses of Javascript that I have no intention of ever actually viewing anyway, like the NY Times website.

Also, as someone who uses Brave (with uBlock origin, as well, although it's technically not needed), brave does not, and has not ever, inserted advertisements into page content. Nor does it show ads by default. Brave allows users to opt-in to an ads system which displays ads occasionally as OS notifications, in exchange for "Basic Attention Token", which is Brave's cryptocurrency. Personally, I have turned off all the Crypto garbage in Brave (and I consider it the browsers worst feature), but outside of that crap, it's an extremely solid browser that works very well and respects your privacy.

Opera sucks because it's closed-source, which is a terrible idea for one of the most privacy-sensitive applications on your computer. Being owned by a Chinese company is doubly bad, because the Chinese government has a very long history of spying, not just on it's own citizens but on everyone. It's the same reason I don't recommend using any Microsoft product ever for anything privacy related for any reason, because they have a very long history of giving the NSA and other three-letter-agencies access to user data (and, even worse, third-party companies. Which is why you keep seeing creepy ads). The open source alternatives are better anyway, so why not just do yourself a favour and switch to something else. Opera might be slick, but the risk isn't worth it. Not to mention that, being closed source, Opera could also switch to Manifest V3 tomorrow and there's nothing anyone would be able to do about it.
Posted by: fox
« on: 18. October 2024, 15:15:21 »

Oh. It's been a while since I last looked into it and I didn't know that Brave doesn't support Win7 anymore. Also not aware of controversies since I lost interest early on when I learned about it being Chromium-based.

My reasoning against Chinese-owned privacy sensitive stuff is not racist. Has nothing to do with race at all.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 18. October 2024, 15:15:16 »

Didn't Brave have a couple of controversial things?  I seem to recall they were offering to let advertisers sell advertising space on Brave itself, which would then go and remove ads from web pages and replace it with Brave advertisers, so not only do you not get ad-free browsing, the website people presumably don't even get money for it.
The main developer is also apparently an unpleasant person, but it's not like Google aren't evil too.

Leaving aside the blatant racism for a moment, Opera is just another Chromium-based browser these days, it's not really interesting since they dropped their Presto rendering engine way back in 2013.

Firefox is really the only viable option.  There are a couple of other variants built off the Gecko engine (tor, LibreWolf, Waterfox, Pale Moon, etc.), but as far as I know none of them are really as well-maintained as Firefox is.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 18. October 2024, 15:09:01 »

ooo-kaay yeah, that is not a good combo. Brave doesn't seem to support win7 anymore. Firefox it is, I guess.
Posted by: fox
« on: 18. October 2024, 15:03:50 »

Opera is Chinese-owned. In combination with being closed source, that's a dealbreaker for me. I don't know much about extension support of Chromium but I presume that it will be affected by the same support shenanigans as Chrome itself.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 18. October 2024, 14:40:25 »

that is not a dealbreaker - how's extension support on chromium based browsers? also, is Opera still a thing?
Posted by: fox
« on: 18. October 2024, 14:37:23 »

The interesting part is, how this phase out plays into Alphabets recent war on adblockers - or rather the industry-wide ad-attack on consumers.

I'm on Firefox myself (since forever) but looking for alternatives. It's very far from ideal these days but viable alterantive options are scarce. I probably would go for Brave Browser if it weren't based on Chromium.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 18. October 2024, 08:19:38 »

well, umm.. sometimes it's such a pain to migrate.. so what are the recommended alternatives? asking for, uhh, a friend.

legacy os support preferred.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 18. October 2024, 06:02:13 »

people still use Chrome?
Posted by: fox
« on: 17. October 2024, 17:26:33 »

heverge.com: "Google Chrome’s uBlock Origin phaseout has begun"
Posted by: icemann
« on: 14. October 2024, 08:30:37 »

Words of wisdom right there.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 13. October 2024, 14:06:11 »

yeah that's the one, thanks.

//aand fb totally not being a creep less than one hour later.
[fb_just_stop.JPG expired]
Posted by: Toaste
« on: 13. October 2024, 14:00:40 »

voodoo47
If buying is not owning then piracy is not stealing.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 13. October 2024, 10:59:23 »

yes, and that's why I like GOG, not steam (I did experience the situation where some steam guy suddenly decided he didn't like something, flipped a switch and a game was gone from my account first hand). it actually gets even better if you live where I live - local laws allow me to legally acquire any kind of installer and use it to install the software as long as I own the licence, so I don't even have to make backups of the GOG installers, it's "I have bought SS2 on GOG and now I can legally play it forever, as long as there is a computer that boots and a drive that has the data".

also how did the meme go? if it cannot be owned, then it cannot be pirated?
Posted by: fox
« on: 13. October 2024, 09:19:04 »

Just a little reminder...

PCGamer.com: "Steam's new disclaimer reminds everyone that you don't actually own your games, GOG moves in for the killshot: Its offline installers 'cannot be taken away from you'"
Posted by: fox
« on: 06. October 2024, 17:02:32 »

reddit.com/r/Cyberpunk/: "I-XRAY: The AI Glasses That Reveal Anyone’s Personal Details just from looking at them"

arstechnica.com: "Meta smart glasses can be used to dox anyone in seconds, study finds"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrSXe1cElI

Technically almost banal (facial recognition via CCTV is an old hat already), yet the implications of this being available as a wearable and used by anyone are wild and scary.
Contact SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
FEEP
673f4a11a4713