Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Self Preservation In Video Games?

Author
Message
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 05:10
Second and last topic I'm creating tonight, something has been bothering me about games, and I'd like to make a basic game to study this in more depth, mostly a PHP text-based game.

I noticed in video gaming in general, there is a lack of self preservation. Self preservation is basically the idea that something does whatever is necessary to stay alive, as the results are normally irreversible. For example, in a first person shooter you don't get deeply upset or you don't take rationality into account due to the fact that nothing is at stake. If you shoot someone, they respawn. There is no deep thought process behind it.

My design is to offer a basic mafia-esque game, one where once you die, you're out. This isn't meant to be a popular thing, it's meant as a research project. I honestly feel if more was at stake in a game, you would base your choices differently. There has only been one instance of this, and that was in San Andreas Multiplayer, where you can roleplay. If your character gets killed, everything that you work for is gone, thus people aren't so quick to pull the trigger as they know it could just as well happen to them.

I'd like to see more games based on deep thought processes.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 05:47
I've thought about the same thing, but more on the side of the player being afraid of dying.

There are two games that really get my adrenaline pumping. One was Arma, specifically a police modification I used to play where half the players would play police and half civilians/criminals. I was always police, and getting into shootouts, or even engaging in a high speed chase that could kill you would get my adrenaline higher than any other game I've played. The reason is because of the consequences of death - a 30 second to 60 second respawn time, a massive world (something like 200+ km^2 I think), and losing all your inventory items (which included weapons, repair kits, health kits, roadblocks, food, water, etc.), so that getting back into the game as you were could take up to 5-10 minutes, and you would not have a chance to redo the pursuit/shootout, because once it was done, the scene/events completely changed, especially by the time you got back into it.

The second game is Project Reality - a popular realistic Battlefield 2 mod, and definitely the most realistic shooter I've played. This one got my adrenaline pumping for the same reasons - the severity of the punishment for death. Respawn time is something like a minute or more long, the map is massive with few spawn points, so there's often several minutes of walking involved to get back to the fight, and lastly many of the engagements/firefights are between groups several hundred meters away, so you often couldn't even see who shot you.

I've thought about making a war shooter where there are large matches with large maps, and once you die, you cannot rejoin the match for x amount of time, but instead are moved to another match as a new unit. This way, it's permanent death in the sense that once you die, you don't rejoin the same battle, but it's still fun for the player because they are able to keep playing, albeit on a different match. I haven't really thought through the logistics of it though, just an idea.

But yes, I think it would be nice to have more games that make you think or more aware and scared of death than something like CoD where the only consequence is having to press x and spawning back into the middle of the fight instantly.


Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 05:47
Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, and Amnesia: The Dark Descent, are the first three games that spring to mind when I think of self preservation in video games.
I do notice a lot of the time, video games punish self preservation.

Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 05:50
Quote: "Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, and Amnesia: The Dark Descent, are the first three games that spring to mind when I think of self preservation in video games.
I do notice a lot of the time, video games punish self preservation.
"

Oh yes, Minecraft is also one that I get a bit scared in, again because of the punishment of death, especially when I'm carrying a diamond pickaxe next to a lava flow in a deep cave...


PrimalBeans
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2010
Location: The sewer.... hunting alligatiors.
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 05:53
I understand what your talking about.. but im not so sure what there is to research. If you had a game that was focused on pure total self presevation... ppl wouldnt play... unless it was a life sim were death wasnt lurking around every corner. (Which is pretty boring sounding itself.) For pure research purposes you might have to pay some ppl to play lol. Even a game that didnt take it so literally and made it so that you lost everything and started fresh every time would be really annoying. Ever played Rise of the Robots? For its time the technology visually was awsome. The game play was crap and you had to start all over if you lost once... which made it pretty shirty. I think that what you might have to do is create a life sim type rpg, but knowing the internet community its going to be real hard to keep people civil if there is even the slightest way a player could harm another. Its just how we work for whatever reason. Maybe its because we all go to work and school and listen to our lousy teachers/professors/bosses and when we get home we just like to throw one back and unload into our fellow online game opponents... (I know i do!!) I like the thought but i think things are the way they are for a reason. You can go on a rampage to let off steam w/o actually hurting anyone or having to worry about the consequences of dying. Now if you want ppl to get along and play nice together you could create a date simulator were you create a character and try and hook up with other players...(though you would probably have a game full of horny men all hitting on eachother at that point ) Anyway thats kind of how i feel. Its a great thought but idealistic and not going to happen anytime soon. (Then again there is myspace... lol)

Kravenwolf
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2009
Location: Silent Hill
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 05:56
The earlier Resident Evil games captured the self-presevation and planning ahead aspects better than any other games that I've played before (Silent Hill did a pretty good job, as well). In Resident Evil, you were only able to find a limited amount of "ink ribbons" scattered throughout the game as you went along. You needed to use one of these ink ribbons on a typewriter every time you wanted to save your progress. Save too many times too early in the game, and you're screwed when you need a save when the game gets more challenging. But, don't save enough and make a stupid mistake or a wrong turn right into a zombie, and you lose all of your progress.

Anyway, I could keep talking about Resident Evil, but since it appears as though you're referring to online multiplayer games; I personally, wouldn't play a multiplayer game where making one mistake (or if someone is cheating, or if you get teamkilled); that's it--you're done. Throw in players having to spend time ranking up thier avatars for new skills, outfits, and etc, and that would make the actual gameplay even more stressful, IMO.

The only multiplayer games that I've enjoyed (and still do) with this idea used to a certain extent, was SOCOM for the Playstation. You could set the games for one round, and players didn't respawn when they were shot. SOCOM, obviously; also provided (unranked) respawn rooms, and there is a big difference in the way players move, act, and even work together with their teammates, when there is no second chance. Everything is slower.

Kravenwolf

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 09:45 Edited at: 16th Mar 2011 09:46
As mentioned above the Arma and Operation Flashpoint series were good for that. You spent a lot of time crawling along, taking hours to complete missions, because 1 shot and you were dead. It added massively to the tension, but also the frustration factor.

I personally really get off on that kind of "do it right, or game over!" environment, because I like to be challenged and I like realism, but the majority of players do not have enough patience to play anything but pick-up and play arcade games.

Another example btw would be Live For Speed. That's an online, super realistic racing game. Many a time during competition races I would literally be sweating, my heart racing and my eyes destroyed from 30 minutes of staring at the screen without blinking. If you came off the track, the damage was usually terminal. There's no reset, and since its a championship with real people, there are no restarts and there isn't another important race for a whole week. The repercussions are dropping down the rankings.

I think that kind of environment makes a game great, but also inaccessible for 90% of lamers ... I mean gamers.

Edit: Also, you only get one life in Space Squadron. You have to complete the entire game without losing your commander. Mwahaha.

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 10:55
Ghost Recon (GRAW/GRAW2) tends to work like that, you can set the rules to 1 respawn, get into a game with like 8 other people, and if you die, you could well be waiting half and hour before you can play again. No other shooter I've played has the same life preservation, big maps with lots of enemies, but when you do complete a mission there's a real sense of achievement. Along with that sort of amplified challenge, the rewards are amplified as well, not just getting more XP for having only 1 spawn - but also when you save someones skin, you really are saving their skin . It's best played over lan, maybe even just 2 xboxes with 2 players per xbox.

There is the extreme survival mode in Fallout:NV, but I think they messed that up - having real thirst in a game, which isn't quenched by a nice cold bottle of Nuke Cola, well that's just rediculous. Drinking cola in F:NV actually makes you thirsty. They should allow for more extreme gamers, but they should keep it fun as well. That had great potential, to add thirst and hunger, slow healing wounds (limp for a day or so, not the end of the world). Maybe if they had a day cycle, so you start the game first thing in the morning, and it only saves if you can get to a bed - kinda like groundhog day but without the predictability.

Notch did mention an idea to make a super-survival mode in Minecraft - basically, you die, your world is deleted!. Might be fun, would put a whole different spin on the decision whether or not to drop into that chasm, or dig away at those dungeon walls.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Rampage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 11:06
Makes me happy to see so many good topics and discussions in tgc again
I would say that I SUPPOSE pvp like games count. Like LoL, HoN, DotA etc. People generally get really pissed if they die in games like that.
I also agree for the minecraft one. Really gets to me when (like Gil says) I am near lava fully geared up.

Regards,

Max
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 13:14
in LoL/DotA aso, the reason u get pissed is because you make the ENEMIES stronger by dying.
Therefore, if you die a lot you may very well be the reason for loosing the game,thus making you think before tower diving.

In minecraft, there is a lot of different factors to be afraid of death,and sometimes its not your life on the stake, but the stuff u created.

Say you have created a huge castle.
and you need some wood?
then, I personally would open the door and run as long as I can,because,if a creeper would to explode ON me, when going out, then the whole front door area would explode and i would have to redo it.
If you are in a cave and has found a lot of diamonds, then you would probably choose your battles carefully, as diamonds are the rarest and best resource.

these are some things witch some RPG games, say oblivion make well.
since it uses a save function, thus say you have played for an hour, and come a long way, and you are the type of player who rely on auto saves, then you would also, choose your battles carefully, not rushing to battle.

CS makes staying alive worth a lot, since if you die,then the whole team might die. (especially while in clans,playing for fun, maybe not so much)

take a game like,.. MW2 makes this less important, as if u die u dont loose anything,except 4 seconds of your life.

As for the main thing, making a game in which you have but one life? I dont know, if you were able to recreate a character, maybe.
I can see it in a team based RPG mmo shooter hybrid, but not in most current games.

Say a game,in where you choose a faction, and you get rewards for how much u contribute aso, but the rewards arent so big that you want to QUIT the game upon dying, but as good as to keep interest up, then yeah maybe.


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 13:29
I hate Search and Destroy on CoD because I can't respawn. I don't play multiplayer games because I want a deep, meaningful experience that will shed light on the frailty of life.

No, I want to stick a knife between the shoulder blades of that annoying twelve year old who is in every game, singing Justin Bieber and firing rockets everywhere.

Multiplayer sin't for deep meaningful experiences, it's for bragging rights and talking points.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 16th Mar 2011 18:01
Quote: "Notch did mention an idea to make a super-survival mode in Minecraft - basically, you die, your world is deleted!"


That's the shizzle right there. I don't play Minecraft, but I really like his thinking. Dying is games just means nothing. That is truly losing something you've worked for. You're truly losing hours of your life.

That might sound sadistic to some, but I think there needs to be more innovation around making games gripping, and I can't think of anything better than that.

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 01:09
I do recall a game that my professor in college made. It was a classic Dungeons 'n Dragons type game, but it was all text based (ASCII art and active play, not text adventure) so the graphics were nonexistent. The thing is, when you die, you get a gravestone in the hall of fame (if you were good), and that's about it... You cannot "continue" a game unless you slept at an inn and quit the game at that specific point. Death meant you went to the hall of fame or went to the nothingness, in either case you were destined to stop playing the game or to restart from the very beginning.

While this was excruciatingly frustrating for dying in a portion of the game that you were ignorant about (I wandered into a very "high level" dungeon, not knowing it was high level, and it was pretty much BOOM headshot the moment I stepped in the front door), but you do take decisions a bit more seriously, and you WILL go into a dungeon fully prepared, knowing dungeons are long twisting mazes with no-doubt a boss at the end of it all.

I think I spent most of that school day playing the game. Afterwards, once I felt I left a sufficiently proud headstone in the hall of fame, I stopped playing, because obviously I died and obviously I was fairly far into it and I didn't want to go through all of that again from the beginning.


So, my experience has taught me that the others are correct to say that things are the way they are for a reason. You would be hardpressed to find players masochistic enough to play these sort of games, and they certainly wouldn't fetch many sales in the market.


The one and only,


Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 01:27
I'd actually say, now that I think about it, Minecraft has quite a bit of self preservation involved due to the scarcity of certain materials, primarily diamond.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 01:40
In LoL, people generally play very passive due to the effects of dying(giving enemies gold, missing last hit, missing exp, etc). Plus, the whole game is centered around winning(what game isn't?) But there's something about League of Legends that makes you criticize every one of your teammates deaths while your deaths are a-ok, so people play passively to avoid getting raged at. The thing is, in games like CoD, them killing you doesn't really mean much unless they've killed 6 other people before you, and in that case, they get some sort of a plane.


Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 02:03
I hate death in games because I don't want to be punished as a player. It's irritating to be brought back to the beginning of a level, and I don't experience "fun" when that happens. On the flipside, games that respawn you exactly where you died (like the Lego games) are silly too, because what's the point of death then?

I've always wanted to make a platformer game where you try to kill yourself to "win". It would kind of turn conventional gaming upside down. The Burnout series did this with their crash modes, where you try to create the most damage and carnage, which was ahead of its time in the racing genre.


Senior Web Developer - Nokia
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 02:14 Edited at: 17th Mar 2011 02:15
Quote: "I've always wanted to make a platformer game where you try to kill yourself to "win". It would kind of turn conventional gaming upside down. The Burnout series did this with their crash modes, where you try to create the most damage and carnage, which was ahead of its time in the racing genre."


http://armorgames.com/play/674/stickicide-3

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Bizar Guy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 02:15 Edited at: 17th Mar 2011 02:18
I think Oblivion is a pretty poor example, as I and everyone I have seen play it, saves before doing anything dangerous.

Runescape used to really inspire a fear of death for me, as when you died, everything you were carrying but 3 items was dropped, and it used to be pointless to try and get those items back. As an early player, losing your inventory and equipment was many hours of effort...

It shocked me when I tried the WOW trial, and found you lost nothing but your equipment degraded, and you had to run a bit. Death was just annoying.

I have not played mincraft, afraid of how addicted I would be to it.

I think Mount and Blade, with the hardcore saving mode on, does this well. You see, in Mount and Blade you can opt to can the game auto save when you leave, so you cannot undo actions. You can't die, but it you are "knocked out" in a battle, you are taken prisoner, which means you loses days in the game, I think every party member but the heroes, and all your horses and equipment, if I recall. Now, maybe you didn't lose quite everything, I can't recall, but I know I would not take dying as an option pretty much. there was too much at stake, including my reputation and relationships in the game. To one hero, even retreating from a fight was reason enough for him to leave your party.

So, I think really the bast way to make a player care about self preservation, is not to give massive penalties for death merely, but rather not let them actually die. Instead, they have to live with whatever happens, game saves instantly.
What if the player fails a quest? Don't RESTART the quest! Rather, they failed the quest, and the game saved, so they are stuck having failed. Maybe they care redeem themselves, maybe not, but they cannot restart amd pretend they did not fail.
The player has to live with their actions, and if they fall off a cliff, well, maybe they wake up days later with broken legs and there is a game itself to get help and escape.
Or, perhaps you want you player to plan events out, well say they are going someplace without food, and do not bring food. Say they are starving, perhaps they eat a body limb, or become delirious, and essentially lost all that is on them, many stat losses, perhaps they are found, but people who knew them in the game thought they were dead, etc.
In combat, say they lose a fight, and lose an arm. Even if they got a fake arm in the game, that's permentant visually, as well as possibly gameplay wise.

The point is, the player WILL make mistakes, and if they care about the world, they will try to avoid making them.

Another idea, is if your character dies, you would take over another character. In a complex enough game, this could potentially be an offspring, which would give incentive to become married and have a child in a game, and possibly give reason to interact with them, if you wanted your next character to have various skills. With no relations in the game, you may be forced to take over a random character with no relation to the story, a huge penatly. It would make it worth having your character start a normal life before going off to adventure, and communicate with many other characters, so that upon death, there are others to "continue the good fight"


So yeah. I don't think telling the play the game is over because they died is a good idea. Making them live with the failure I feel is much more effective. Then your game matters, as does not making mistakes. Though in this case, mistakes should not be as easy as walking off a cliff, or some other mistake that could be made very easily. The game needs to be smart enough to prevent "stupid deaths". No one wants to have a huge penalty for having bad depth perception, or not timing their jump properly.

In multiplayer? In multiplayer, in a game about killing other players, there IS no good way to punish death, without frustrating the player. At least no way that will make them FEAR death. You need to make death something that the player is not dodging at every turn, no matter what game it is, so that the player does not die constantly, and then they can be invested in NOT dying.
Give the player a chance, otherwise it's just frustrating.

Quote: "That is truly losing something you've worked for. You're truly losing hours of your life."
Yeah.


A Web Comic Graphic Novel!
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 02:24
Prey had a great take on dying. When you died, you got sent to the spirit realm. There you could see your body floating down towards a gaping hole of light. Evil spirit swarm around your body and you have to pick them off to get close to it, every spirit killed added to the amount of health you returned to life with.

It made dying actually fun, and flow with the game, rather than being a juddering reset.

Non Sequitur M
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Oct 2008
Location: Where am I!? Where are YOU?
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 03:17
When it comes to multiplayer FPS gamepley, Gears of War had a good take. The round system had players dying off one by one, so when you died, the penalty was that you had to wait anywhere for a minute to five minutes, plus your team was down a man. If you were good, dying could mean that your team loses a round.


But, for RPG style gameplay, I think that a mix of penalties and rewards is the best mix.

Let's say you're on a quest. You come to a chasm with a rare item on the other side. Sure, there may be a rare [Special Item A] on the other side of that ravine, but is missing the jump and losing your life/items worth it? Obvious answer? No! So, don't jump! And, you could reward the player for completing the quest without dying. Maybe extra experience, maybe a nice shout to the players on your friends list that you beat Quest X without dying.

If life were like a box of chocolates, I'd know what I would get... The one that got dropped on the floor and put back in the box.

Iye nehvur yoose spehl chehk, ahn mie tippyng izz fiyne.
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 11:03
Quote: "I think Oblivion is a pretty poor example, as I and everyone I have seen play it, saves before doing anything dangerous."


yes I do agree that oblivion was a poor example, I,,,, dont know what i thought xD and yes, M&B has a very nice penalty for loosing a battle.


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 12:15
I started out playing Oblivion in that mindset, well the assassin missions at least. I enjoyed sneaking around, killing whomever, then sneaking back out again - with the knowledge that being spotted means the whole mission will be ruined if I'm spotted. I tried not to quicksave, instead using the auto-save when entering a building.
There should always be a bonus available I think, like remain totally undetected and earn more money, or consequences related to that - which by the sounds of the tech info on Skyrim, we'll be getting that as standard. For example, if you kill someone, then a member of their family might learn this and come looking for you - if you get spotted killing someone, they might inform the authorities, come after you (if they are brave), or if they are a friend then they might jump in. I think Skyrim is shaping up to be the next best RPG, just going by the character interaction stuff, cause and effect, and more individual personalities with NPCs. You know how Bethesda are, there will be some sicko NPC's out there... maybe more serial killers, cults etc - atrocities are always fun to deal with in videogames.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 17th Mar 2011 20:12
I think Bethesda always innovate their RPGs and make them the best of that time, Skyrim should pose some interesting consequences for killing people.

tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 19th Mar 2011 04:17
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/15/the-cult-of-minecraft-chain-world/

Business guy and developer at [url]www.vlambeer.com[/url] - bringing back arcade since 1956.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 19th Mar 2011 04:44
That Chain World thing would have worked much better as a server. Mod the server to only allow access from a specific IP at a time, and once the player died, they would no longer be granted access to the world (from their Minecraft account). After death, the old player would then be able to enter the name (account) of the next person in line.

Of course, SMP being as buggy as it is, I bet that had something to do with their decision in the end.


The one and only,


Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 19th Mar 2011 04:51
I couldn't disagree more. The physical element of 'holding the world in your hands' and then 'passing on the torch' is perfectly fitting to the experience the concept is meant to convey.

Even if you ignore the physical aspect I'd argue that it would not have been 'better' as a server. From a pure design point of view, it doesn't matter where the 'world' is stored at all, as long as access is limited to one person.

Business guy and developer at [url]www.vlambeer.com[/url] - bringing back arcade since 1956.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 19th Mar 2011 04:54
From a design POV, it would be better to have it as a server. Think for just a little bit about the knack people have for breaking rules, or just read the very first comment on the page you linked and it makes sense.

At some point along the line, some doofus is going to mess it up for everyone else.


The one and only,


Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 19th Mar 2011 04:58 Edited at: 19th Mar 2011 05:02
Again, I disagree. You could say people trying to break the rules is actually part of the idea. Chain World will exist only and only up until the moment the first person breaks the rules. Thus, the person passing on the Chain World will have to trust the receiver with this collective effort - it's ephemeral, certainly, which, I would say, enforces, instead of devaluates the design.

A server is different. A server is something far away, something you can't 'pass on'. A physical object is close, personal and most importantly, something you can pass on.

Business guy and developer at [url]www.vlambeer.com[/url] - bringing back arcade since 1956.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-23 06:23:28
Your offset time is: 2025-05-23 06:23:28