What old (pre-1995) cRPGs stand the test of time?

[aweigh]

i would never say graphics need to go back to wireframe. that dungeon in elminage gothic is a post-game dungeon and specifically made to be wireframe due to the devs love of Wizardry, and it looks beautiful.

my main point i wanted to get across isn't really about wireframe graphics at all, what i wanted everytone to know is that:

- graphics don't matter. ever. graphics have nothing to do with whether or not an rpg is good or not.

now i understand a lot of people disagree with my opinion on graphics and hey, that's ok! me, personally, i have zero problems playing thru a wireframe dungeon or a monochromatic dungeon even though many people do... it's FINE. to each their own.

i would never begrudge someone being more impressed by processed textures and bump maps and other stuff that has nothing to do with game play.

stuff i take issue with is when clear non-RPGs get praised more than true RPGs.

here's a video of PC's Paper Sorcerer which utilizes monochrome dungeons and look at how beautiful this is:


once again, that video showcases incredibly primitive graphics that manage to convey a better RPG experience than any flash-in-the-pan non-RPG.

 

[Tigranes]

"What was fun 30 years ago may not even be bearable to some nowadays. And when I say they age, it is because we have grown up and we become used to better graphics, sound, music, interface, and so on."

How can our standards rise with time, if newer games are not necessarily better? If Arcanum looks better than Oblivion, and Fallout 1 has better music than Fallout 3, how do we 'grow' to no longer find fun what we used to find fun?

Do you mean that, even if individual titles can be great or shit, in general, we are getting better graphics, sound, interface, over time? Is that a reason for games aging, or is that a consequence of games aging? Isn't there a bit of circular logic here?

Expectations change to be sure - and that is compounded with each generation of gamers going through their own personal history of what they played at age 7 then what they play at age 37. But if you want to argue there's an overall linear rise in expectations and standards, you're going to have to prove it.

To be sure, playing Ultima Underworld for the first time couple years ago, it failed to meet my expectations in certain ways that maybe did not exist at the time, and I found the interface clunky. But the same interface also allowed me to interact with the world in ways that I had hardly seen in nearly all games released after it - such that I found the game innovative, playing it 20 years after release.

There are certainly some games which had great appeal at the time, and most of that appeal was dependent on very period-specific expectations, and the game industry has actually succeeded in surpassing those expectations over the years. But there seems to be no evidence or reasoning here for suggesting this is a general case to be made for gaming as a whole, or that very few classic games are still fun today, or that there is a general increase over time in quality and expectations behind such trends.

 

[mondblut]

You can - you're in a fucking dungeon! If all you wanted was AAA graphics then why are you playing all these old games?

Because the alternative to ENIAC wireframes is "AAA graphics". Riiiight.

 

[Lady_Error]

i would never say graphics need to go back to wireframe. that dungeon in elminage gothic is a post-game dungeon and specifically made to be wireframe due to the devs love of Wizardry, and it looks beautiful.

my main point i wanted to get across isn't really about wireframe graphics at all, what i wanted everytone to know is that:

- graphics don't matter. ever. graphics have nothing to do with whether or not an rpg is good or not.

now i understand a lot of people disagree with my opinion on graphics and hey, that's ok! me, personally, i have zero problems playing thru a wireframe dungeon or a monochromatic dungeon even though many people do... it's FINE. to each their own.

i would never begrudge someone being more impressed by processed textures and bump maps and other stuff that has nothing to do with game play.

stuff i take issue with is when clear non-RPGs get praised more than true RPGs.

here's a video of PC's Paper Sorcerer which utilizes monochrome dungeons and look at how beautiful this is:


once again, that video showcases incredibly primitive graphics that manage to convey a better RPG experience than any flash-in-the-pan non-RPG.

There is a huge difference between wireframe graphics and monochrome graphics like in Paper Sorcerer (or Dark Spire). The right choice of graphics can trigger imagination while a lack of graphics (or the wrong kind graphics like animu style) do not help imagination at all.

Maybe you're an imagination king who can picture and experience being on a grand adventure while viewing only wireframe graphics. Good for you! I need more than wireframes for that.

 

[Sigourn]

i would never say graphics need to go back to wireframe.

Sorry, that was my bad and said something that out of (my mind) context didn't make any sense at all.

What I mean is, graphics matter, if they didn't we would all still be playing the same wireframe dungeons of Wizardry. If we could live without graphics, then games would still look like they did in the early 80s.

I don't consider graphics important in order to decide if an RPG is good or not, but it definitely impacts how much fun I get out of it. What is a sprite that doesn't move attacking another sprite that doesn't move can transform into a dynamic battle that works just the same under the hood, but it's more aesthetically pleasing and entertaining.

 

[FeelTheRads]

graphics that manage to convey a better RPG experience

You got that wrong somewhere. I really don't see how graphics of any kind can convey any kind of RPG experience. They can be immersive or not, but that's it.
If you meant the game is a better RPG than others, then it's another thing and has nothing to do with the graphics.

 

[aweigh]

lucas, my boy, in my opinion, which does not reflect that of the majority: graphics don't matter. we will never agree on this "angle" you're going on about... about how modern games somehow supersede ones with graphics made by less technically advanced computers.

if "graphics matter" you, i recommend finding another sub-genre of games to obsess over, because, as a rule of thumb: the better the graphics, the worse the RPG.

and we are still playing wireframe dungeons in Wizardry-clones, btw. Elminage Gothic is from 2014, and the wireframe dungeons are the best ones in the game.

paper sorcerer is from 2011, and it looks like an HD game boy game.

why? because true RPGers don't give a shit about that stuff. in this specific context: it is completely irrelevant whether the dungeon walls are textured or made of lines... because the only thing that matters is the dungeon design, and the gameplay mechanics.

nothing else.

just admit that YOU like pretty graphics, and to YOU, pretty graphics hold equal importance to gameplay mechanics or writing or game design.

...admit that, and there is no further need to argue! graphics are important to YOU, and apparently from your posts: they are more important than game play.

EDIT: And we haven't even gotten into talking about rogue-likes!

LOL I'd love to hear your "thesis" on why ASCII-graphics render these games not worth playing.

r00fles.

 

[aweigh]

fuck, we even disagree on animation!!

in the elminage video the sprites "don't move", you are correct. now i'm gonna blow your fucking mind, check this out:

- the sprites actually DO move!!

why don't they in the video? because i fucking turned off battle animations.

Go into a thread about Age of Decadence and one of the biggest sore points is how long the animations take. Vince and team had to cater to the (true) RPGers and rightfully implemented speed-sliders for the animations.

...gee, I wonder why? Hint: because it was a superfluous element that adds little to the game play, which is what the AoD audience cares about.

YOU, i repeat, YOU are a graphics whore, and stuff that does not matter (like animations) is more important to you than gameplay.

EDIT: I will say, in the spirit of "understanding", that the best-case scenario is an RPG that provides the graphics and the animations, but also gives the players who only want to play the game, the ability to speed animations up or disable them.

Unfortunately we have games where the main selling point are the graphics, the animations, etc. NOT the gameplay.

EDIT 2x: btw, we CAN live "without graphics".

LOL what a dumb statement that is, you saying "we can't live without graphics". Like I said, the rule of thumb I use is that the more money, time and effort the dev team spent on graphics = the worse of an RPG it'll be compared to if they had spent that money, time and effort on GAME PLAY.

In a perfect world we could have both... but this ain't a perfect world. money, time, and effort are finite resources that have to be spent wisely. To YOU, that means on making "modern graphics" first, everything else second.

to ME? it means making a good RPG, with non-gameplay related stuff coming dead last.

 

[Lady_Error]

To YOU, that means on making "modern graphics" first, everything else second.

Still trying too hard. Nobody is saying an RPG needs "modern graphics". Something like EGA graphics in Wizardry 6 is inifinitely better than Wiz1-5 though. It gives just enough to spark imagination. Photorealism of "modern graphics" is what stiffles imagination.

You can't pretend that "graphics do not matter" just because the industry as a whole has been paying too much attention to them. You're just going from one extreme to the other.

 

[aweigh]

Lady Error

I'm simply quoting Lucas. His words, not mine.

"We can't live without graphics".

"If the spirtes had animation it would be more dynamic"

etc. I disagree fundamentally with everything he says.

Also, Wizardry 6 was a HUGE step down from the previous Wizardry games because it features weaker dungeon design, and it completely dumbed down party building and the classes and it completely dumbed down the magic systems as well.

It also featured much more casualized puzzles than earlier entries in the series. The navigational puzzles in 6 are made for like, BABIES, and everything, absolutely EVERYTHING is spelt out for the player, i.e. oh the ram's head dagger goes into the ramhead-shaped keyhole!!!!!1

Did it have much better "graphics" and sound? Yes, indeed it did. It also had more NPCs, and a better story.

Do I care about that stuff? Nope! I care about what you spend 90% of your time doing: playing the game. And the previous Wizardries played better because they were much more complex.

I recognize that I'm in the minority, because, majority of people place a lot of importance on the fact that it had graphics, sound, NPCs who said more shit, etc.

different strokes for different folks! always remember that the minority will always be more discerning than the majority, on any subject. It's inherent in being part of the minority: there is less hive-mind.

 

[Sigourn]

lucas, my boy, in my opinion, which does not reflect that of the majority: graphics don't matter. we will never agree on this "angle" you're going on about... about how modern games somehow supersede ones with graphics made by less technically advanced computers.

I've seen the games of "incline". All of them have pretty graphics. All of them, with the exception of Wasteland because of its shitty budget that translates terribly into a 3D isometric videogame.

Better graphics are better graphics, that's a fact that no one can argue against. I'm not saying graphics are the only thing that matter, but they can make or break a game for me, and this happens with many other people.

What I said about animations was regarding Ultima I, though I didn't specify. That said, Naklahalkalhaklakalhalkahla also fits that bill. The combat is so graphically uninspiring I take no joy from it.

 

[aweigh]

once again, i'd looove for our boy Lucas to discover rogue-likes.

OMG!!! THOSE GRAPHICS!!!

That dragon is the letter 'D'!!! This is unplayable!

hahaha

 

[Lady_Error]

Did it have much better "graphics" and sound? Yes, indeed it did. It also had more NPCs, and a better story.

Do I care about that stuff? Nope! I care about what you spend 90% of your time doing: playing the game.

If you leave out the story and NPC interaction, all you have left is a combat simulator with puzzles. For some people like you that may be enough, but it is hardly the only thing that constitutes an RPG for most people. I'm curious, did you like Planescape Torment with all the story, NPC's and other stuff you don't care about? According to you, that's just fluff that keeps you away from "actual gameplay". You must have hated that game.

 

[Sigourn]

once again, i'd looove for our boy Lucas to discover rogue-likes.

OMG!!! THOSE GRAPHICS!!!

That dragon is the letter 'D'!!! This is unplayable!

hahaha

I don't find roguelikes unplayable because of their aesthetic, I find them unplayable because of how boring they are.

Oh, great, that K just killed me... how exciting, I can't wait to play again. Delete rogue.exe.

How a game looks has a lot to do with how much fun you can have with it.

I'm simply quoting Lucas. His words, not mine.

"We can't live without graphics".

"If the spirtes had animation it would be more dynamic"

etc. I disagree fundamentally with everything he says.

If you could choose between a game that looks worse and a game that looks better, yet is otherwise the exact same game with the exact same gameplay... which one would you choose?

Also, how can you negate that animations don't make a game more dynamic? By the very definition of being animated, a static object ceases to be static, and in turn becomes more dynamic.

My problem with a lot of old cRPGs, and this is something I've seen just by reading through the cRPG Addict's blog, is that all of them are fairly shit. It doesn't surprise me that the classics are either:

- Classics with nice graphics.
- Classics that are classics just because they were important back in the day, but no one every plays them anymore (like Ultima I).

It's also worth mentioning that the "complexity" of many old cRPGs is nothing but a huge bluff, perpetuated by the idea that "old" equals "better", which is ironically the (wrong) accusation you make towards the idea that "better graphics" equals "bad RPG".

Legend of Grimrock has much better graphics than Wilderness Campaign. And guess what: it is a much better game and RPG.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Graphics, animations and overall visuals matter the least to me. I'd play a text RPG if it's good, or wireframe graphics, ASCII graphics, etc. etc. I mean, if the game has RPG elements I like and most importantly GAMEPLAY in the sense that there are intriguing things to do in the game and reasons to play the game, I don't care much for what it looks like.

That said, beautiful graphics are great, too. But like the famous saying goes: "A man should be able to play a story RPG, a gameplay RPG, a turn-based RPG, an action RPG, a grid-based blobber RPG, an RPG from the '80s, an RPG from the '90s, a modern RPG, a visual novel RPG, a JRPG, a graphically impressive for its time RPG..etc." Err, maybe it's just me that says that.

 

[aweigh]

Lady Error

Torment is one of my all-time favorite RPGs because it made the dialog part of the gameplay. 90% of text-heavy "RPGs" with tons of text and NPCs do not.

I've played every single RPG under the sun and for so many years I've played so many RPGs that I feel like I've played every possible kind of RPG.

People assume I only care about "combat" because I always hold up Wizardry as examples of good RPG gameplay; but you know what?

Torment is also another amazing example of an RPG with good gameplay! Why? Because of what I just mentioned: they managed to make dialog and NPCs actually part of the game-playing experience.

A more recent example of an RPG I love to death is Shadowrun: DRAGONFALL. That one also did the same thing that Torment did: interacting with NPCs is meaningful and dialogs are form a large part of the gameplaying thrust and energy of the experience.

SR: Returns and Hong Kong, however, failed on that front. Hong Kong features like twice the amount of NPCs and text that Dragonfall does and absolutely none of these NPCs are worth reading.

...meanwhile, every single NPC in Torment and in Dragonfall contribute to the gameplaying experience. It's not just "words to be read"; each NPC shapes the world in a meaningful way.

I dislike NPC-heavy RPGs where every NPC is completely disposable. (such as PoE, and the recent Tyranny).

Also, Wizardry 4 and 5 actually have twice the amount of NPCs than 6. They just speak less text.

 

[pippin]

Graphics matter, but from a design point of view, not an aesthetical one for me. I still think the UIs of games likeGold Box series, Wasteland and Bard's Tale are perfect for crpgs. Neat, succinct, serviceable. You shouldn't really need anything more.

 

[Fowyr]

I've seen the games of "incline". All of them have pretty graphics. All of them, with the exception of Wasteland because of its shitty budget that translates terribly into a 3D isometric videogame.

Incline, lol.
This's the best cRPG of 2009:

Better graphics are better graphics, that's a fact that no one can argue against. I'm not saying graphics are the only thing that matter, but they can make or break a game for me, and this happens with other sheeple.

Fixxored.

That said, Naklahalkalhaklakalhalkahla also fits that bill. The combat is so graphically uninspiring I take no joy from it.

You played Nahlakh for few minutes, your opinions about it are invalid. I still remember killing defenceless, because of my magic, kobolds with chu-ko-nu. It was perfect synergy of sound and visual effect. Crunch! and big red splash.

I don't find roguelikes unplayable because of their aesthetic, I find them unplayable because of how boring they are.

Play ADOM, dunderhead. Roguelikes are notorious for making situations that you still remember years later.
Fuck, one of my party stories, when company is right and I'm sufficiently drunk, is how I killed and ate some random Vaarna in the Unreal World. I could not even stand, but surely I could swing my axe into his back. It was winter and with my wounds and lack of warm clothing perspectives were very dire.

My problem with a lot of old cRPGs, and this is something I've seen just by reading through the cRPG Addict's blog, is that all of them are fairly shit.

So, you are transforming from Paul to Saul again?

Legend of Grimrock has much better graphics than Wilderness Campaign. And guess what: it is a much better game and RPG.

Now compare it with Dungeon Master or even Eye of the Beholder. Checkmate, bieeeeeetch.

Also, Wizardry 6 was a HUGE step down from the previous Wizardry games because it features weaker dungeon design, and it completely dumbed down party building and the classes and it completely dumbed down the magic systems as well.

Magic system in Wiz6 was better. Four schools of magic instead of only two, several types of mana, a lot of interesting spells that caused various types of damage and status effects. When in previous Wizardries it was DIOS - DIAL - MADI (three spells that become one in Wiz6, just Heal Wounds with different strength). For fuck's sake, I could not find even Stone to Flesh (and DIALKO do not works like this) in Wiz5. They even preserved all good utility spells, Divine Trap, Knock, Levitation and so on.

 

[Sigourn]

Incline, lol.
This's the best cRPG of 2009:

Those are very pretty graphics, though. The font is slightly jarring, though. It should be more pixelated.

Fixxored.

le hardcore rpgamer

You played Nahlakh for few minutes, your opinions about it are invalid.

I don't need to watch paint dry for 8 hours to know it's shit. Nahlakh looks like unispiring garbage, and just like food, cRPGs enter through the eyes first. If my brain isn't estimulated visually, the game just won't work. It may be a great cRPG, but there will be a good chance I will not be having fun with it.

Play ADOM, dunderhead. Roguelikes are notorious for making situations that you still remember years later.

If you find them fun to begin with. I can't have fun with a roguelike, because I want to believe I'm in there when playing a game, and I find it impossible to believe I'm the little @ moving around.

So, you are transforming from Paul to Saul again?

what did he mean by this

Now compare it with Dungeon Master or even Eye of the Beholder. Checkmate, bieeeeeetch.

Where's the checkmate, though? You are saying what I'm saying: graphics are independent of the quality of a game's gameplay. That Legend of Grimrock is better than Wilderness Campaign is definitive and irrefutable proof that "better graphics" don't mean "worse game". That someone would argue against this is the worst case of nostalgia glasses I've ever seen, though, and the classic diagnosis of "playing ugly games makes me feel more hardcore".

 

[Fowyr]

If you find them fun to begin with. I can't have fun with a roguelike, because I want to believe I'm in there when playing a game, and I find it impossible to believe I'm the little @ moving around.

But you perfectly believe that bunch of pixels with a sword is you. Right.

what did he mean by this

It's sad that basic education sunk so low that I need to explain Bible allusions. See The Acts of the Apostles, chapter 9, for example.

Where's the checkmate, though? You are saying what I'm saying: graphics are independent of the quality of a game's gameplay. That Legend of Grimrock is better than Wilderness Campaign is definitive and irrefutable proof that "better graphics" don't mean "worse game". That someone would argue against this is the worst case of nostalgia glasses I've ever seen, though, and the classic diagnosis of "playing ugly games makes me feel more hardcore".

Fuck, I specifically mentioned two certain games, FFS. Comparing Grimrock and Wilderness Campaign is like comparing apples to oranges. Grimrock, Dungeon Master and Eye of the Beholder are from one subgenre, though, and could and should be compared. And guess that? DM, though game from 1987 is still better than Grimrock.

 

[aweigh]

Fowyr

they changed to mana system. Completely changes the entire blueprint of Wizardry; not necessarily worse... but Wizardry is primarily about resource management and being able to rest anywhere combined with extremely generous shared mana pool(s) made for decidedly less strategic usage of spells.

example: deus ex's universal ammo versus the original's ammo implementation.

we'll agree to disagree on this, however, as there's no point in arguing with me about this. i have argued this in so many threads and don't have the energy to keep arguing about it.

I think it comes down to which Wiz the person first played. I played Wiz 5 first, then went backwards, and then afterwards I eventually played Wiz 6 and was *shocked* at how they had completely thrown away everything that made Wizardry good in favor of what I consider less complex gameplay mechanics.

MOST people started with either Wiz 6 or 7, and thus those are the ones they prefer.

EDIT: Oh, and they also threw away the Hebrew-inspired spell language that added a lot to the series. Wizardry's spells (well, REAL Wizardry's spells) are not "gibberish".

Each spell is comprised of phrases, words and syllables taken from yiddish/hebrew.

Google "Wizardry spells words of true power" for a breakdown of what each spell name's syllables come from. They created a consistent internal lexicon that is incredibly intelligent.

HA, for example, means to invoke.

LI, is a suffix that means to consume.

TO, means energy.

DI means life.

MA, means "from outside", roughly translated.

DU means "to know".

Now DU-MA-PIC = to know the macro of the world.

Gives the entire spell names so much life. Changing the names from 6 onwards was a smack in the face to everything real wizardry stands for. (i.e. intelligent game design).

etc. Seriously, google it, it's incredibly interesting and adds a lot to the series.

the Wiz-brothers (green and wood) put a LOT of tender-loving-care and sophistication in everything they put into Wizardry, down to the spell names...

sure makes BOILERPLATE sound dumb, don't it?

 

[Siobhan]

Hmm, I didn't figure aweigh for a Jezebel reader and Gilmore Girls fan....

 

[Sigourn]

But you perfectly believe that bunch of pixels with a sword is you. Right.

It really helps. Just like how robots tend to become more human-like as technology progresses.

It's sad that basic education sunk so low that I need to explain Bible allusions. See The Acts of the Apostles, chapter 9, for example.

Not sure what country are you from that forces the Bible onto its students.

Fuck, I specifically mentioned two certain games, FFS.

And I specifically don't give a shit.

I feel like I'm going crazy, how in the hell can someone agree with the following statement: "better graphics means you will get a worse RPG"? Read into the fucking sentence.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I feel like I'm going crazy, how in the hell can someone agree with the following statement: "better graphics means you will get a worse RPG"? Read into the fucking sentence.

Not saying I agree, but in an abstract sense you can also say that "focusing too much on creating better graphics for the RPG can hurt the other areas of the RPG". Also, better is subjective, so one man's better is actually another man's worse in this case. Thirdly, graphics aren't simply just the visuals, they also set the tone for the entire game. If Jeff Vogel created a game that looked like a souped up, modded version of Skyrim, or Witcher 3, etc., his focus would be different. It would be a different RPG. Thus, there is potential that the RPG would not be as good for certain players as the games we play of his now.

Bottom line, just enjoy all RPGs for what they are. You shouldn't need a game to look a certain way if it has other worthwhile elements. Example - ADOM, or for a more modern example, Sanctuary RPG: Black Edition. Both games use ASCII graphics and are great games. If they ported the games to CryEngine, what would the end result be? IMO, there is a good chance they wouldn't look anything like they do now (by look I mean the type of experience they are). Graphics and design can change the fundamental idea, feel and experience of the game, IMO.

 

[aweigh]

fowyr, fluent, don't waste your time trying to talk sense into our dear boy Lucas9.

...I don't find roguelikes unplayable because of their aesthetic, I find them unplayable because of how boring they are.

Oh, great, that K just killed me... how exciting, I can't wait to play again. Delete rogue.exe...

...Also, how can you negate that animations don't make a game more dynamic? By the very definition of being animated, a static object ceases to be static, and in turn becomes more dynamic...

...My problem with a lot of old cRPGs, and this is something I've seen just by reading through the cRPG Addict's blog, is that all of them are fairly shit...

...It's also worth mentioning that the "complexity" of many old cRPGs is nothing but a huge bluff, perpetuated by the idea that "old" equals "better"...

...Legend of Grimrock has much better graphics than Wilderness Campaign. And guess what: it is a much better game and RPG...

our dear, dear Lucas is not here to learn. he is here to troll.