Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail
has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
On 1/8/2026 7:20 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Yes, Spalls, yes it is.
Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail
has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the
Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
On 1/8/2026 7:42 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 1/8/2026 7:20 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Yes, Spalls, yes it is.
Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail
has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the
Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
Yes, not just publishers, but computer chip manufacturers, and
everything else under the sun.
Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail
has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
----
* The games of the Wolfenstein franchise
1) Castle Wolfenstein
2) Beyond Castle Wolfenstein
3) Wolfenstein 3D
[various Wolfenstein 3D ports, some of which
were significantly different from the original]
4) Spear of Destiny
[Two semi-official expansions]
5) Return to Castle Wolfenstein
[Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Operation Resurrection
(PS2 port with notable differences from PC version]
[Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (released free)]
6) Wolfenstein RPG
7) Wolfenstein
8) Wolfenstein: The New Order
9) Wolfenstein: The Old Blood
10) Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
[Wolfenstein: Cyberpilot (VR spin-off)]
11) Wolfenstein: Youngblood
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^* The games of the Wolfenstein franchise
1) Castle Wolfenstein
2) Beyond Castle Wolfenstein
3) Wolfenstein 3D
[various Wolfenstein 3D ports, some of which
were significantly different from the original]
4) Spear of Destiny
[Two semi-official expansions]
5) Return to Castle Wolfenstein
[Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Operation Resurrection
(PS2 port with notable differences from PC version]
[Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (released free)]
6) Wolfenstein RPG
7) Wolfenstein
8) Wolfenstein: The New Order
9) Wolfenstein: The Old Blood
10) Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
[Wolfenstein: Cyberpilot (VR spin-off)]
11) Wolfenstein: Youngblood
No Enemy Territory multiplayer?
Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 22:15 this Thursday (GMT):
On 1/8/2026 7:42 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 1/8/2026 7:20 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Yes, Spalls, yes it is.
Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail >>>> has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the
Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
Yes, not just publishers, but computer chip manufacturers, and
everything else under the sun.
Not even sequential numbers are safe now, with the whole trend of
changing the version number counts to being the release year rather than
the actual version number.
On one hand, it does make it easier to map a
version to a year, but on the other hand, its annoying to deal with the >number jump between the older versions, it feels too much like car makes
to me, its impossible to create multiple versions in a year without
ruining the "cleanliness" of the number, etc.
I prefer proper versioning numbers.
Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail
has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the >Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
----
* The games of the Wolfenstein franchise
1) Castle Wolfenstein
2) Beyond Castle Wolfenstein
3) Wolfenstein 3D
[various Wolfenstein 3D ports, some of which
were significantly different from the original]
4) Spear of Destiny
[Two semi-official expansions]
5) Return to Castle Wolfenstein
[Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Operation Resurrection
(PS2 port with notable differences from PC version]
[Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (released free)]
6) Wolfenstein RPG
7) Wolfenstein
8) Wolfenstein: The New Order
9) Wolfenstein: The Old Blood
10) Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
[Wolfenstein: Cyberpilot (VR spin-off)]
11) Wolfenstein: Youngblood
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 07:48:37 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^* The games of the Wolfenstein franchise
1) Castle Wolfenstein
2) Beyond Castle Wolfenstein
3) Wolfenstein 3D
[various Wolfenstein 3D ports, some of which
were significantly different from the original]
4) Spear of Destiny
[Two semi-official expansions]
5) Return to Castle Wolfenstein
[Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Operation Resurrection
(PS2 port with notable differences from PC version]
[Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (released free)]
6) Wolfenstein RPG
7) Wolfenstein
8) Wolfenstein: The New Order
9) Wolfenstein: The Old Blood
10) Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
[Wolfenstein: Cyberpilot (VR spin-off)]
11) Wolfenstein: Youngblood
No Enemy Territory multiplayer?
It's there, between items #5 and #6.
I didn't count it as an 'official' release because it was released for
free on the Internet rather than getting a retail version. It is an
official game rather than a fan-port, just not one that was sold.
Which is why I said I was being 'generous' only counting 'Wolfenstein
3' as only the twelfth game in the franchise. Depending on how you
count things, that number could be much higher.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 07:48:37 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
No Enemy Territory multiplayer?
It's there, between items #5 and #6.
Oh, I am blind. I was so dang tired yesterday from a slammy colony day!
I played it a lot back then.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 05:10:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 22:15 this Thursday (GMT):
On 1/8/2026 7:42 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 1/8/2026 7:20 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Yes, Spalls, yes it is.
Machine Games, the guys who recently released the newest "Indiana
Jones" game and previously developed the "Wolfenstein: New Order"
games, recently announced they were working on a new game,
"Wolfenstein 3".
And while it's too early to comment on the game itself (no real detail >>>>> has been provided anyway), I would like to snark at the title.
Because "Wolfenstein 3" will be --generously-- the 12th game in the
Wolfenstein series*, the second game to bear the number '3' in its
title, and the fifth game in Machine Game's own reboot.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but is it really too much to ask
publishers to have some consistency in their titles?!?
<grumble grumble>
Yes, not just publishers, but computer chip manufacturers, and
everything else under the sun.
Not even sequential numbers are safe now, with the whole trend of
changing the version number counts to being the release year rather than >>the actual version number.
On one hand, it does make it easier to map a
version to a year, but on the other hand, its annoying to deal with the >>number jump between the older versions, it feels too much like car makes
to me, its impossible to create multiple versions in a year without
ruining the "cleanliness" of the number, etc.
I prefer proper versioning numbers.
I just want consistency.
Wolf 1, Wolf 2, Wolf 3, Wolf 4.... fine.
Wolf 1999, Wolf 2000, Wolf 2006... fine
Wolf: Kill Hitler, Wolf: Nazis Must Die, Wolf: Guns Go Boom...
fine.
But Wolf 1, Wolf 2, Wolf 1999, Wolf: Kill Hitler, Wolf 2006, Wolf 4...
Fuck no!
And even worse:
Wolf 1, Wolf 2, Wolf 1999, Wolf: Kill Hitler, Wolf 4, Wolf, Wolf 2...
DIAF!
To be fair, I think the new "Wolfenstein 3" label is probably a
placeholder name. It's likely, given the rest of Machine Game's
examples, will be given a more descriptive name (e.g., "Wolfenstein:
The Final Conflict" or whatever).
I just used it as an opportunity to snark at how much I hate the
trend.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 01:35:48 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 07:48:37 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
No Enemy Territory multiplayer?
It's there, between items #5 and #6.
Oh, I am blind. I was so dang tired yesterday from a slammy colony day!
All cool. Get a good night's sleep ;-)
I played it a lot back then.
I tried it a few times, but I put more effort into the semi-sequel,
"Enemy Territory: Quake Wars". Which wasn't really a very good game
(as far as I remember it) but I liked the concept and the setting that
I kept banging my head against it trying to glean what enjoyment I
could from it. It didn't help that the community/player-base was
pretty small; servers were terminally empty.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 01:35:48 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 07:48:37 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
No Enemy Territory multiplayer?
It's there, between items #5 and #6.
Oh, I am blind. I was so dang tired yesterday from a slammy colony day!
All cool. Get a good night's sleep ;-)
Sleep is overrated!
I played it a lot back then.
I tried it a few times, but I put more effort into the semi-sequel,
"Enemy Territory: Quake Wars". Which wasn't really a very good game
(as far as I remember it) but I liked the concept and the setting that
I kept banging my head against it trying to glean what enjoyment I
could from it. It didn't help that the community/player-base was
pretty small; servers were terminally empty.
Same.
All cool. Get a good night's sleep ;-)
Sleep is overrated!
Who is rating sleep?
It sucks how many games can't be played because of the small communities
:(
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Who is rating sleep?
Everyone. I overslept today. Frak me! :-(
It sucks how many games can't be played because of the small communities
My online friend loved it, but he was sad too.
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 02:02:20 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Who is rating sleep?
Everyone. I overslept today. Frak me! :-(
You're looking at it the wrong way. You didn't oversleep. You
under-waked. ;-)
It sucks how many games can't be played because of the small communities
My online friend loved it, but he was sad too.
Small communities aren't the biggest problem. A bigger issue is the
lack of local networking for games (and an ease in using it). Because
what too often happens is that a game without an audience that depends
on third-party networking for its multiplayer gets shutdown.
If you have local networking capability, then even with a small
community anyone can fire up a server and everyone can keep playing.
Even if its been twenty years since there was last an online match.
Small audiences can stifle a game, but its a lack of local multiplayer
that really kills it. With it, there's always hope of a revival.
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 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 02:02:20 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Who is rating sleep?
Everyone. I overslept today. Frak me! :-(
You're looking at it the wrong way. You didn't oversleep. You
under-waked. ;-)
Why did my brain add an extra n in there?
It sucks how many games can't be played because of the small communities
My online friend loved it, but he was sad too.
Small communities aren't the biggest problem. A bigger issue is the
lack of local networking for games (and an ease in using it). Because
what too often happens is that a game without an audience that depends
on third-party networking for its multiplayer gets shutdown.
If you have local networking capability, then even with a small
community anyone can fire up a server and everyone can keep playing.
Even if its been twenty years since there was last an online match.
Small audiences can stifle a game, but its a lack of local multiplayer
that really kills it. With it, there's always hope of a revival.
Fired up Guild Wars yesterday, mostly just to see if it was still up.
One crash, which seems to have been solved by playing in Windowed mode.
It was a very hard "reboot the computer" crash since there was no way to
work around the frozen screen to kill the app.
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 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 02:02:20 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >>
Who is rating sleep?
Everyone. I overslept today. Frak me! :-(
You're looking at it the wrong way. You didn't oversleep. You
under-waked. ;-)
Why did my brain add an extra n in there?
It sucks how many games can't be played because of the small communities >>My online friend loved it, but he was sad too.
Small communities aren't the biggest problem. A bigger issue is the
lack of local networking for games (and an ease in using it). Because
what too often happens is that a game without an audience that depends
on third-party networking for its multiplayer gets shutdown.
If you have local networking capability, then even with a small
community anyone can fire up a server and everyone can keep playing.
Even if its been twenty years since there was last an online match.
Small audiences can stifle a game, but its a lack of local multiplayer
that really kills it. With it, there's always hope of a revival.
Fired up Guild Wars yesterday, mostly just to see if it was still up.
One crash, which seems to have been solved by playing in Windowed mode.
It was a very hard "reboot the computer" crash since there was no way to
work around the frozen screen to kill the app.
Xocyll
Fired up Guild Wars yesterday, mostly just to see if it was still up.
One crash, which seems to have been solved by playing in Windowed mode.
It was a very hard "reboot the computer" crash since there was no way to
work around the frozen screen to kill the app.
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 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 02:02:20 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >> >
Who is rating sleep?
Everyone. I overslept today. Frak me! :-(
You're looking at it the wrong way. You didn't oversleep. You
under-waked. ;-)
Why did my brain add an extra n in there?
Because your brain was uder-waked? :P
It sucks how many games can't be played because of the small communities >> >My online friend loved it, but he was sad too.
Small communities aren't the biggest problem. A bigger issue is the
lack of local networking for games (and an ease in using it). Because
what too often happens is that a game without an audience that depends
on third-party networking for its multiplayer gets shutdown.
If you have local networking capability, then even with a small
community anyone can fire up a server and everyone can keep playing.
Even if its been twenty years since there was last an online match.
Small audiences can stifle a game, but its a lack of local multiplayer
that really kills it. With it, there's always hope of a revival.
Fired up Guild Wars yesterday, mostly just to see if it was still up.
One crash, which seems to have been solved by playing in Windowed mode.
It was a very hard "reboot the computer" crash since there was no way to
work around the frozen screen to kill the app.
Not even telnet/SSH method remotely? I usually do that and then use
pslist, pskill, etc. from Systinternals' tools -- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/. Most of the times, this works.
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:40:00 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Fired up Guild Wars yesterday, mostly just to see if it was still up.
One crash, which seems to have been solved by playing in Windowed mode.
It was a very hard "reboot the computer" crash since there was no way to >>work around the frozen screen to kill the app.
Get a second monitor, CTRL-SHIFT-ESC to summon taskmanager,
(optionally) CTRL-WIN-arrowkey to move taskmanager to other monitor,
kill task. ;-)
Of course, that probably requires you to have the second monitor
plugged in /before/ the crash.
"Guild Wars" recently revamped its engine to provide 'improved visuals
and updated mechanics' (whatever that means). I haven't played it
since before that happened; crash aside, was the game significantly >different? Or has it been too long since you last played that you
can't remember enough to spot the difference?
Either way, it's probably why the game suffered such a hard crash. >Programming is hard. Give them another year or six to achieve
stability ;-)
The game is still fun and aggravating in equal measure;
I'd forgotten how often you run into enemy bosses and/or groups that
quickly kill your party, forcing many respawn/run back, kill a
few/die/repeat sessions.
I'd forgotten that Guild Wars "nags" you to take a break if you have
long play sessions; "You have been playing for 5 hours, please take a >break."
Doesn't stop you, just gently nags.
poop-socking era of MMORPGs
On 1/16/2026 7:06 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
poop-socking era of MMORPGs
I had to look that up. I don't think I ever heard of it. I'm sorry I
did.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:43:09 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
The game is still fun and aggravating in equal measure;
I'd forgotten how often you run into enemy bosses and/or groups that >>quickly kill your party, forcing many respawn/run back, kill a >>few/die/repeat sessions.
I recall it being very, very grindy. Lots of 'kill 10 orcs' and
'collect 20 foozles' quests, and just a tediously long time to level
up and get any good gear. And then the whole world levels up around
you making all that effort wasted because you aren't really any more >powerful.
I'd forgotten that Guild Wars "nags" you to take a break if you have
long play sessions; "You have been playing for 5 hours, please take a >>break."
Doesn't stop you, just gently nags.
Unsurprising; Guild War is an old game. It dates back to the (reputed) >poop-socking era of MMORPGs and that code was probably added back then
and has lingered ever since.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:34:45 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 1/16/2026 7:06 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
poop-socking era of MMORPGs
I had to look that up. I don't think I ever heard of it. I'm sorry I >>did.
Oops. Sorry. I should have given warning /not/ to google that.
The TL;DR (to save anyone else from the horror Justisaur endured) is
that during the early 2000s there was a fear that some gamers were
playing video games for too long a period without taking /any/ breaks, >resulting in some... inventive methods of handling their biological
needs (I won't go into detail, but the word I used above describes it
pretty well).
As I recall it, there was only a single reported incident where
supposedly somebody (I think it was a Chinese gold-farmer?) had
performed that act, but the usual crowd of "Video Games Are Evil"
naysayers clutched their pearls and went into their usual diatribes
and demands for The Government to do something to Protect The
Children!!!.
MMORPGs responded by adding timers telling people to occasionally stop >playing after a long session. Because it was all a mountain made out
of a mole-hill, that was enough to end the whole thing.
But the timers remain in many video games.
Not even telnet/SSH method remotely? I usually do that and then use pslist, pskill, etc. from Systinternals' tools -- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/. Most of the times, this works.
I tend to leave a SSH server running on my computer thats masked to the
local network for this reason
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:34:45 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 1/16/2026 7:06 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
poop-socking era of MMORPGs
I had to look that up. I don't think I ever heard of it. I'm sorry I
did.
Oops. Sorry. I should have given warning /not/ to google that.
The TL;DR (to save anyone else from the horror Justisaur endured) is
that during the early 2000s there was a fear that some gamers were
playing video games for too long a period without taking /any/ breaks, resulting in some... inventive methods of handling their biological
needs (I won't go into detail, but the word I used above describes it
pretty well).
As I recall it, there was only a single reported incident where
supposedly somebody (I think it was a Chinese gold-farmer?) had
performed that act, but the usual crowd of "Video Games Are Evil"
naysayers clutched their pearls and went into their usual diatribes
and demands for The Government to do something to Protect The
Children!!!.
MMORPGs responded by adding timers telling people to occasionally stop playing after a long session. Because it was all a mountain made out
of a mole-hill, that was enough to end the whole thing.
Methinks you are remembering a different game, since it is very much a
"in this area are critters of level x, regardless of what level you are" >game.
Level 1 critters are always level 1, it's not an Elder Scrolls type
leveling with you kind of world.
Level 1s are level 1s, level 20s are level 20s, both when you are level
10 for instance.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
But the timers remain in many video games.
I only remember it being in Guild Wars, but it could certainly have been >added to various MMOs I never played, or never played long enough to get
a nag from it.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:21:42 -0500, 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:
But the timers remain in many video games.
I only remember it being in Guild Wars, but it could certainly have been >>added to various MMOs I never played, or never played long enough to get
a nag from it.
It showed up in a number of games from that time, including
Civilization. Apparently its in (at least some of the) Anno games as
well (e.g. Anno 1800) Those that included it in their features at that
time tended to keep it there in any sequels, but it doesn't really
seem to show up in any /new/ franchises. Despite the fears of the
Think Of The Children crowd, poopsocking was never a real threat.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:17:02 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Methinks you are remembering a different game, since it is very much a
"in this area are critters of level x, regardless of what level you are" >>game.
Level 1 critters are always level 1, it's not an Elder Scrolls type >>leveling with you kind of world.
Level 1s are level 1s, level 20s are level 20s, both when you are level
10 for instance.
What you are describing is called level scaling. Games that DO level
scale are games where the mobs are always the save level as you. You
can only get stronger then them via your gear and maybe what skills
you choose. I personally prefer games that do not level scale.
Again, not how Guild Wars works at all, Spalls was misremembering.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 13:02:09 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Quite possibly. The bulk of my playing was twenty years ago, when the
Again, not how Guild Wars works at all, Spalls was misremembering.
game was new (I've revisited it since then a few times, but nothing of
those return trips remains in memory except that I did play again).
The details of how things worked precisely aren't something I focused
on too much.
Regardless, my strongest memory is that -however the mechanics worked >exactly- the game did /feel/ grindy and just not something I found
fun. Hours of wandering in the wilderness to face off against
uninteresting monsters, with little rewarding loot or experience. Any >upgrades were incremental and I never felt that I was really making
much progress. That may be why I misremembered the leveling mechanics.
I kept at the game because everybody insisted MMORPGs were great, and
I refused to give up on the idea. Surely if I persisted long enough
I'd fall in love with the game. "Guild Wars" was probably the best of
the genre (in my experience) but even so, it wasn't great. I much
preferred classic single-player CRPG experiences were there actually
was a point to my adventuring.
IMHO and YMMV, as usual.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 19:18:46 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 367 |
| D/L today: |
547 files (254M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,845 |
| Posted today: | 26 |