It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
dtgreene: The thing with genre classification is that it serves an important purpose: a person who likes a game of a specific genre is likely to like others. The way I see it, if someone asks for an RPG (with no qualifiers), I am not going to recommend her a Ys game.
And I agree, which is why I place importance on adhering to definition of genres as understood by majority as opposed to my own biases. The definition I have given earlier is not what I want RPGs to be - it's what I have observed them to be trough years. That's why subgenres such as above mentioned 'Dungeon crawler' are so important, because when you use that, stuff like Might and Magic will immediately spring to mind. On the other hand, when you say RPG and in fact mean what most people consider Dungeon Crawlers, well...

avatar
dtgreene: Turn based cRPGs on PCs have seen a resurgence lately. See Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2, Lords of Xulina, Elminage Gothic (even though that's actually a translated port of a PSP game), and the kickstarted Bard's Tale IV. Also, don't forget Spiderweb Software has been putting out turn-based RPGs over the years.
Classical RPGs in general have seen resurgence, and I'm so incredibly happy about it. Shadowrun: Dragonfall was fantastic, Pillars of Eternity ... Ah, I'm planning on replaying that and that's very rare, and I'm currently in the process of playing Wasteland 2 which I don't dig quite as much, but think it's a very good game regardless. Divinity: Original Sin and its fantastic implementation of coop is another matter entirely. Not to mention Dungeon Crawlers, which seem to be slowly revived in the hands of indie developers, especially now that Legend of Grimrock was such a success.
avatar
ShadowWulfe: My big beef has always been a lack of free time.
Fortunately, GOG's working on that.
I also wish more people played my incredibly specific definition of 'classic cRPGs'.
I mean it's not a real cRPG unless the game is entirely text-based, combat is resolved via PBEM and every NPC is some kind of anthropomorphic common household item.
avatar
dtgreene: As the topic title says, I really wish more people played classic cRPGs like the early Wizardry, Ultima and Might and Magic games. I have posted a couple threads with some interesting information (including things like HP overflow in MM3) and haven't received any responses. ...
avatar
misteryo: The individual game forums are not widely used. My theory is that this is due in part to most people having had played those old games already. So, when they do crack them open again, it's likely not going to be at the same time as a whole bunch of other people who also played the game way back when.

And If I do crack open, say, Arcanum, and after a few hours think, "Hmm, I'll go check the GOG Arcanum forum!" Well, I find some really old posts, and so I don't reply to them.

Cheers.
We should make more of an effort to reply to those old posts and revive some conversation, even if it is just with more current members interested in talking about whatever subject.

Or rather, you wish more people DISCUSSED classic RPGs. You should have made it more like: "A Call to those who play cRPGs! Check the game-specific forum for some tantalizing conversation, please!" And sparked up some threads and better yet, replied to some old ones and see what you could stir up.
Post edited August 16, 2015 by drealmer7
avatar
ShadowWulfe: My big beef has always been a lack of free time.
hear hear!
avatar
misteryo: The individual game forums are not widely used. My theory is that this is due in part to most people having had played those old games already. So, when they do crack them open again, it's likely not going to be at the same time as a whole bunch of other people who also played the game way back when.

And If I do crack open, say, Arcanum, and after a few hours think, "Hmm, I'll go check the GOG Arcanum forum!" Well, I find some really old posts, and so I don't reply to them.

Cheers.
avatar
drealmer7: We should make more of an effort to reply to those old posts and revive some conversation, even if it is just with more current members interested in talking about whatever subject.

Or rather, you wish more people DISCUSSED classic RPGs. You should have made it more like: "A Call to those who play cRPGs! Check the game-specific forum for some tantalizing conversation, please!" And sparked up some threads and better yet, replied to some old ones and see what you could stir up.
I did relatively recently posted a topic on the Dragon Wars subforum, but it got 0 replies. (It's the most recent topic on the subforum.)
avatar
Maighstir:
Hah, I like it. I have faith in their program!
I was advised that the length of the old cRPGs (like wizrdry, might & magic) is artificially inflated with repetitive combat (random encounters), and some of these have scaling enemies too... we came to the conclusion that it'd take me years to finish one game, since I can barely put a few hours into gaming per week. I don't think it would be very rewarding to waste all that time on filler and no real progress.

I'm still curious about these games, oh and I would love to play them. But I just don't have enough time, if the people who advised me are right.

Newer games progress faster and are shorter, and that's a good thing if I actually want to enjoy and get something out of the few hours of gaming I can do...
avatar
clarry: I was advised that the length of the old cRPGs (like wizrdry, might & magic) is artificially inflated with repetitive combat (random encounters), and some of these have scaling enemies too... we came to the conclusion that it'd take me years to finish one game, since I can barely put a few hours into gaming per week. I don't think it would be very rewarding to waste all that time on filler and no real progress.

I'm still curious about these games, oh and I would love to play them. But I just don't have enough time, if the people who advised me are right.

Newer games progress faster and are shorter, and that's a good thing if I actually want to enjoy and get something out of the few hours of gaming I can do...
Dragon Wars is not inflated in this respect. Wasteland isn't either. Neither game is particularly long, either.

Might and Magic: World of Xeen has almost no respawning enemies, and combat is quick (at the expense of lacking depth). The game is long, however, as it is effectively 2 games combined in 1. (One note: Using a pyramid to go to the Darkside early will break the balance of Clouds, so you might not want to do that before killing Lord Xeen.)
RPGs are indeed being defined through many independant elements (progression, open-ness, character choices, story decisions, etc), and each game offers a different mix of them. Individual players decide not only what is the most fun, but also, independantly, what defines better their own vision of "rpg on a computer".

With that said, I play and appreciate RPGs more now than before. They more often match my own idea of what makes a game an RPG, and what makes it fun. In oldie terms, modern RPGs are more similar to Ultima than to Dungeon Master, and I appreciate this.

My vision of RPGs was always based around the idea of free-roaming in an open world, with an invented character, and having stories there. So, that defines stuff like Ultima, Fallout (both 2d and 3d), Arcanum, Elder Scrolls, Bloodlines, etc... It mostly pushes away to the edge of "my" definition stuff like :

- Dungeon Crawlers, which story and universe is just "you are in a labyrinth, solve the labyrinth". I had adored Eye of the Beholder, but I haven't felt I was roleplaying in it. And I kinda lost interest for the excellent Temple of Elemental Evil when it started being about the temple of elemental evil (as opposed to the surface adventures with towns and villages and stuff).

- Hack and slash aRPGS, that are focused on combat at the expense of story, which is also the case of dungeon crawlers by the way. I do not consider Diablo an RPG. But worse (and more unfairly), this aspect also disappointed me in Baldur's Gate, as I felt I was spending more time cleaning up maps than following the story. I enjoyed Neverwinter Nights a lot, but because I expected a Diablo-like. Many of these games are immense fun, but when I'm in a RPG mood I tend to stay away of that genre (which of course is not a genre, but more of a gameplay focus).

- Games with too strongly pre-defined characters, the more pre-defined the closer to an "adventure game" in my eyes. I do love adventure games, but again, it's something else than what I expect from a RPG. Still, this is my weaker parameter as many pre-defined characters can be played very different ways, and incarnate very different personalities and traits. It still nagged me, in Planescape Torment, to play out a pre-written character story, as opposed to parachuting my own invented character in an open universe. Super unexpected plot twists such as "you were the one reincarnation/amnesiac celebrity expected by the prophecy" do also harm this aspect, as, well, it prevents me to create another character than "the one reincarnation/amnesiac celebrity expected by the prophecy".

It doesn't mean that these elements make a non-RPG, but they make a game (dramatically or slightly) "less of an RPG" to me. Also, note the odd thing : stats and progression does not play a role for me. I could enjoy a RPG where a non-evolving character just roams through a virtual world, dealing with multiple stories in different ways (heck, maybe even without combat). Many would call it a very very open very very branching adventure game, but it would match my core RPG expectation : live, in a different world, a completely invented life with a completely customized character making his own customized choices through his own customized behaviour.

So this as background to explain why very few of the old tile-based dungeon crawlers (or their tile-based labyrinthic pseudo-surface sequels, where forests and towns could just as well be underground mazes to solve) appealed to me. Ultima and Wastelands are perfect. I had a strong roleplaying vibe from Faery Tales Adventures because of the freeroaming (despite limited story elements and limited character choice). I was considering Hero Quest/Quest for Glory as a great RPG(-adventure hybrid), despite its limited (yet sufficient) freedom of approaches. But I was seeing little difference between Dungeon Master and Shadowgate, because stats were not the relevant factor to me.

So, that's it for my own lack of "classic crpg" playing. As technology advances, subplot-driven open worlds get easier to implement, and RPGs more often offer me the Ultima approach that I couldn't find in Bloodwytch, Dark Crypt or Bard's Tale...
avatar
Telika: RPGs are indeed being defined through many independant elements (progression, open-ness, character choices, story decisions, etc), and each game offers a different mix of them. Individual players decide not only what is the most fun, but also, independantly, what defines better their own vision of "rpg on a computer".

With that said, I play and appreciate RPGs more now than before. They more often match my own idea of what makes a game an RPG, and what makes it fun. In oldie terms, modern RPGs are more similar to Ultima than to Dungeon Master, and I appreciate this.

My vision of RPGs was always based around the idea of free-roaming in an open world, with an invented character, and having stories there. So, that defines stuff like Ultima, Fallout (both 2d and 3d), Arcanum, Elder Scrolls, Bloodlines, etc... It mostly pushes away to the edge of "my" definition stuff like :

- Dungeon Crawlers, which story and universe is just "you are in a labyrinth, solve the labyrinth". I had adored Eye of the Beholder, but I haven't felt I was roleplaying in it. And I kinda lost interest for the excellent Temple of Elemental Evil when it started being about the temple of elemental evil (as opposed to the surface adventures with towns and villages and stuff).

- Hack and slash aRPGS, that are focused on combat at the expense of story, which is also the case of dungeon crawlers by the way. I do not consider Diablo an RPG. But worse (and more unfairly), this aspect also disappointed me in Baldur's Gate, as I felt I was spending more time cleaning up maps than following the story. I enjoyed Neverwinter Nights a lot, but because I expected a Diablo-like. Many of these games are immense fun, but when I'm in a RPG mood I tend to stay away of that genre (which of course is not a genre, but more of a gameplay focus).

- Games with too strongly pre-defined characters, the more pre-defined the closer to an "adventure game" in my eyes. I do love adventure games, but again, it's something else than what I expect from a RPG. Still, this is my weaker parameter as many pre-defined characters can be played very different ways, and incarnate very different personalities and traits. It still nagged me, in Planescape Torment, to play out a pre-written character story, as opposed to parachuting my own invented character in an open universe. Super unexpected plot twists such as "you were the one reincarnation/amnesiac celebrity expected by the prophecy" do also harm this aspect, as, well, it prevents me to create another character than "the one reincarnation/amnesiac celebrity expected by the prophecy".

It doesn't mean that these elements make a non-RPG, but they make a game (dramatically or slightly) "less of an RPG" to me. Also, note the odd thing : stats and progression does not play a role for me. I could enjoy a RPG where a non-evolving character just roams through a virtual world, dealing with multiple stories in different ways (heck, maybe even without combat). Many would call it a very very open very very branching adventure game, but it would match my core RPG expectation : live, in a different world, a completely invented life with a completely customized character making his own customized choices through his own customized behaviour.

So this as background to explain why very few of the old tile-based dungeon crawlers (or their tile-based labyrinthic pseudo-surface sequels, where forests and towns could just as well be underground mazes to solve) appealed to me. Ultima and Wastelands are perfect. I had a strong roleplaying vibe from Faery Tales Adventures because of the freeroaming (despite limited story elements and limited character choice). I was considering Hero Quest/Quest for Glory as a great RPG(-adventure hybrid), despite its limited (yet sufficient) freedom of approaches. But I was seeing little difference between Dungeon Master and Shadowgate, because stats were not the relevant factor to me.

So, that's it for my own lack of "classic crpg" playing. As technology advances, subplot-driven open worlds get easier to implement, and RPGs more often offer me the Ultima approach that I couldn't find in Bloodwytch, Dark Crypt or Bard's Tale...
Personally, I take a different approach to how I define an RPG: I define it based on the way combat and other challenges are resolved.

In an action game, challenges are generally resolved in terms of collisions. If Mario's fireball collides with an enemy, that enemy gets burnt. If an enemy collides with Mario, Mario gets hurt; there is no random or stat based chance of dodging the attack.

In an adventure game, challenges are generally resolved deterministically based on the player's actions. Try to climb a tree and the you climb it (provided the tree is climbable and you have the right equipment). Fight a dragon with your bare hands; one dead dragon, slain by your bare hands. (Can you catch what I am referring to here?) Gap in the way? Jumping is deterministic; either you can jump over it or you can't (or you need a specific item).

In an RPG, challenges are generally resolved based on character stats and dice rolls. Attacking an enemy? Time to roll dice, both to see whether the attack hits and how much damage it does. Enemy casts a sleep spell? Oh dear, you got unlucky and are now asleep. (38 rounds later) enemy just hit you for 1 damage, you're dead. For an alternative explanation, in this sort of game, you tell your characters what to do, and then watch as your characters perform the actions.

Note that some games that are commonly labeled as RPGs are really action games by my definition: the Ys games being a prominent example. Also, some RPGs (like much of the Ultima series) have what are properly termed adventure game elements.
i did. then after playing FFVI(AKA FF3 US version) and Chrono Trigger sometime in the 2000s, i realised i prefer jrpgs... and roguelikes and diablo clones. never get tried of roguelikes. though some purists don't consider them to be "RPG".
avatar
dick1982: i did. then after playing FFVI(AKA FF3 US version) and Chrono Trigger sometime in the 2000s, i realised i prefer jrpgs... and roguelikes and diablo clones. never get tried of roguelikes. though some purists don't consider them to be "RPG".
The "roguelikes" really remind me of games like "Nethack", which, for a dumb terminal and not so pretty graphics, was a pretty fun to play on terminals and was happy I could play it on my own PC.

Take something like Nethack, give it a lot of spit and shine and you have a really good dungeon hack and slash.
Well according to RPS: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/10/best-rpg/ - then Dark Souls is the best RPG of all time for PC. I'm still fucking baffled by this but it might explain why people don't play older RPGs if Dark Souls is considered to be the best of all time. For the record I like Dark Souls but it isn't an RPG.
I think only old gamers are interested in classic crpgs. It's not easy to attract younger gamers to those classic or old school titles.
For example, compare modern fps gamers with old school ones. How many of those Call of Duty kids want to play something like BLOOD?