CRPGAddict

[aweigh]

yes he loves the level design in Skyrim! he also appreciates the variety and length:

When you're a CRPG addict, most games help you temper that addiction by having a certain limit to their duration. I could love Pool of Radiance, and want to play it from sunrise to sundown, but if I did the game would be over in about two days, and I could go back to doing other things. The Elder Scrolls games, on the other hand, go on forever. They're like single-player MMORPGs. I could see marriages ending and players losing their jobs because of Skyrim.

Also, this is from one of his (many) posts about Skyrim:

Good Things in Skyrim
1. The world is dynamic and chaotic. More than any other game series I've played, The Elder Scrolls represents something of a simulation rather than a tightly-scripted game. The creators established the rules of the engine, seeded the world with objects and characters, and sat back to watch them interact. Thus, every player encounters situations that no other player does. For instance, while traversing the countryside, I came upon a dragon, who immediately engaged me in combat. I fought him for a while, but my hit points dipped dangerously low, so I decided to duck into a nearby house and see if I could recharge. As soon as I got through the front door, the owner--some mage--took exception and started throwing ice shards at me. I ran back outside, pursued by the mage, and ran headlong into the side of the dragon. The mage and dragon apparently decided that I was the least of the threats and started attacking each other. I watched from a distance, cast "heal" until my hit points were restored, and watched as the mage got stomped to death. I then finished off the dragon, whose hit points had been satisfyingly reduced, with a poison-soaked arrow.

I'll leave you guys with some choice bits:

2. There is a satisfyingly complicated political situation

5. I never get sick of fighting dragons

7. As far as I can tell, they finally got the economy right.

etc, etc. This is the person whose opinion you're all taking seriously.

EDIT:

"Yet in games like Might & Magic and Ultima V, they just casually show up in lists of monsters that you manage to slay with swords and arrows. There are plenty of games that feature dragons, but there are no games that have made me feel like I was truly fighting #&$@#ing dragons!"

 

[aweigh]

you want more

I rescind my earlier reservations: Skyrim is fantastic--perhaps the best CRPG I have ever played. More than any other game, the combats make you feel like you are truly fighting for your life. The game world is impossibly detailed, and exploring the dungeons is the most immersive experience I've ever had playing a game. NPCs have real conversations with each other as you wander through cities. The quests, far from the mostly fetch-and-carry missions of Morrowind and Oblivion, are original and nuanced, and offer real role-playing choices. Unlike previous Elder Scrollsgames, there are real dialogue options

Did I mention the spells? This is literally the first CRPG I've ever played that really made me want to be a mage. Blasting the bandit with fire from one hand and lighting from the other never gets old.

"Anyway: Sorry. I will be back to Wasteland tomorrow, and I can promise this because--after trying every possible way to trick and wheedle my way out of it--I've had to leave my home to go to Rochester, New York for the week. As I couldn't bring my Xbox with me, Skyrim is not an option until I return this weekend. I should have won Wasteland by then; I feel like the end is very close."

Those pesky old timey CRPGs only get in the way of his Skyrim play guys. Why do you monsters have to force him to play them!?

 

[Morkar Left]

Yeah, my best memory and best impression of fighting a dragon was BG2 so far accompanied by Dragons Dogma.

But his Skyrim fetish is really disturbing. You just have to accept that he's weird in some ways. Still, if you know how he ticks you can get great value from his opinions. Just don't think that your preferences will always match together. I missed a couple of good rpgs by believing renown game mags journos back in the time that a game sucked (e.g. Magic Candle series).

 

[aweigh]

I think his documentation of playing through all these games is valuable, but I don't think his game ratings or opinions on the quality of the games have much merit.

I just find it bizarre how someone could play through so many legitimate CRPG classics and still not grasp why modern stuff (like Skyrim) is bad. It's like he doesn't understand the genre or something.

It throws everything he says under a suspicious light because I can never shake the feeling that he's not really understanding whatever CRPG he is playing because he still thinks dragon fights in Skyrim are somehow = best CRPG.

 

[Jasede]

Will never forget the "If you don't vote for Hilary you are actually a monster" post he wrote, even if I do like reading about all the RPGs I missed.

 

[newtmonkey]

His blog is a great thing, he makes some very interesting points on the games he plays (specifically, that a lot of old RPGs have aged extremely well, if you just put 20 minutes into learning how to play them), and I like that he draws attention to a lot of lesser known RPGs... but I think the pace he is forcing himself to go through is detrimental to the enjoyment he gets out of these games (AND the overall value of the blog).

I simply cannot imagine devoting the hours this guy puts into playing games every week. I mention this because I feel like that his pace is reflected in his opinions on the games he plays. Yes, if a game has actually aged well, you can't help but notice it if you put 1-2 hours into it. However, if you are putting 40 hours a week into just going through each game one after another, you don't have the time to really realize what games are doing (or enjoy them imo). I get the feeling from his blog that, outside of the obvious classics, he doesn't really enjoy what he is doing. It might just be they way he writes, but when he talks about a game that is basically timeless [Ultima 4&5, Wiz 1, Quest for Glory, Dungeon Master, Pool of Radiance, etc.] he seems to really be enjoying it, but when he plays something that is flawed (according to his arbitrary rating system) but still awesome (Demon's Winter, Eye of the Beholder, Elvira) he just seems to be going through the motions.

Basically, when you are playing a game to enjoy it, you can look over flaws to see the core of an awesome game. On the other hand, when you are putting a ton of hours into playing games like they are tasks to check off on your list of things to do, these flaws will just become magnified and annoying.

His blog is a valuable resource, perhaps only second IN THE ENTIRE INTERNET to the Sir-Tech/Cleve insane "twist that could only come from Hollywood" thread here, but I would actually prefer that the guy slows down his output and spends more time actually enjoying the games and discussing what does and does not work, versus what he is doing now (basically a diary as he plays, and then a final rating based on his sort of weird personal definition of an RPG).

 

[V_K]

Basically, when you are playing a game to enjoy it, you can look over flaws to see the core of an awesome game.

But him overlooking flaws would actually diminish the value of his blog as a documentation source. Besides, I think you're confusing cause and effect here - it's because these flaws are annoying that one doesn't enjoy playing a game, not the other way around.
Personally, I find the entries where he goes into a fanboy mode (e.g. MM series) much less interesting than critical ones.

 

[newtmonkey]

Will never forget the "If you don't vote for Hilary you are actually a monster" post he wrote, even if I do like reading about all the RPGs I missed.

I LOLed at this post of his, where he said "I won't get up and leave the table if I find out my dinner companion is a Republican. I'd give one a ride if his car was broken down on the highway." How does politics have anything to do with enjoying dinner together or helping someone if they are in trouble? Why do you need to even state this? This sound to me like "Look, I'm not racist, actually, some of my best friends are black... but...."

 

[newtmonkey]

But him overlooking flaws would actually diminish the value of his blog as a documentation source. Besides, I think you're confusing cause and effect here - it's because these flaws are annoying that one doesn't enjoy playing a game, not the other way around.
Personally, I find the entries where he goes into a fanboy mode (e.g. MM series) much less interesting than critical ones.

It's a good point indeed. My problem is his inconsistency. When you are blasting through games at a rate of one game a week (slight exaggeration), you will tend to overrate the best games (like you said, going into fanboy mode) and get annoyed with everything else.

I am not saying that one should overlook flaws. However, some flawed games are otherwise excellent, and playing through them at breakneck speed can magnify the severity of the flaws. Case in point is his coverage of Bard's Tale. He complained about how tedious combat was, but it turned out he spent a huge amount of time grinding random battles when it wasn't even necessary. Obviously, if you don't understand the game and force yourself to do that, you are going to decide the game is bullshit, finish it, and move on. And while he did finish BT1, he completely gave up on the series after that (excepting BT Construction Set, I guess). Another example is his coverage of early Wizardry games where he held himself to rules that LITERALLY NO ONE back in the day would have done (the Apple II version had a built in utility to backup your save disk). It's impressive indeed that he managed to get through Wiz 1 based on his arbitrary rules, but those same rules forced him to give up on playing Wiz II for the longest time.

 

[Deflowerer]

Honestly, it's mind blowing that he hasn't become burnt out yet... some of these games are extremely boring.

And he plays several similar ones in a row... it's kinda scary.

Power of autism.

While I wouldn't go so far to say that he's doing a PhD's work, but I think in that case every historian is autist, and well, if you agree with that...then you yourself are retarded.

Personally don't find his writing style nor personality very interesting, but his documentation is definitely useful.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

As far as I'm concerned, the most damning criticism of the CRPG Addict is that he failed to complete Faery Tale Adventure.

 

[Eggs is eggs]

I never got the impression that he is rushing through games or anything like that. He's been doing the blog for about 5 years and has taken weeks off at a time due to other commitments.

 

[CryptRat]

I just finished Middle Earth: Shadow of War after about 100 hours, and I would like to congratulate the game on having the absolute most pointless final act and worst ending of any commercial RPG that I have experienced. Ever.

 

[Rostere]

As far as I'm concerned, the most damning criticism of the CRPG Addict is that he failed to complete Faery Tale Adventure.

As far as I'm concerned, the most damning criticism of the CRPG Addict is that he is an irredeemable Bethestard.

 

[octavius]

What about his refusing to declared Dungeon Master GOTY 1987?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

As far as I'm concerned, the most damning criticism of the CRPG Addict is that he is an irredeemable Bethestard.

Even worse, he's a fan of Baldur's Gate.

 

[abnaxus]

It's that game Prosper's dad worked on.

 

[CryptRat]

What about his refusing to declared Dungeon Master GOTY 1987?

He changed his mind :

I originally gave Game of the Year for 1987 to NetHack, but with several years of hindsight, there's no question that I have to switch it to Dungeon Master, both for the quality of the game and for its influence on the genre. NetHack deserves to be recognized, but it's always tough to nail roguelikes, which undergo continuous development, to a specific year. Even if we can, my own rating says I didn't enjoy it as much as Dungeon Master, and I can't honestly claim it was more influential.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

irredeemable

Irredeemable is a harsh judgement of a guy who plays through literally every other RPG in history.

 

[abnaxus]

He took three years to finish 1991. 1992 will be fun.

1992 Preview

While we let those percolate, let's look ahead to 1992. If 1991 was a disappointing year, 1992 promises to be the absolute opposite. I'm practically giddy at the list before me. Every franchise had a release this year. We get the final D&D Gold Box title (aside from the Unlimited Adventures construction set) with The Dark Queen of Krynn. The Ishar series begins. The Realms of Arkania series begins. We get the second Interplay Lord of the Rings title. We get the third Magic Candle title. We get a Might and Magic, a Wizardry, a Quest for Glory, and two Ultimas! And in between these surefire hits are a ton of titles that I feel like I've heard good things about, among them Amberstar, Black Crypt, Darklands, Four Crystals of Trazere, and Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace. Surely, one of these games is destined to unseat Ultima V at the top of the list.

Here's the bad news: there are 65 games. This is, in fact, the peak year for RPGs.



The following year, 1993, has one game fewer, and after that the number drops back to the 30s and 40s for most years, averaging 43 between 1994 and 2009. But 1992 is a definite hump, and I can only be glad that so many of the titles look promising. Given the sheer number, you'll need to understand when I'm relentless with my definitions. I'm tempted to start right now by axing B.A.T. II; the first one was hardly an RPG at all.

Despite the sheer number, there's not a lot of new geographic diversity with the 1992 titles. The USA and Germany remain strong. Canada and the U.K. contribute a few. A few more leak to the west from Japan. Hungary contributes its first RPG with Abandoned Places: A Time for Heroes, and Finland offers its first RPG since SpurguX (UnReal World). In terms of platforms, I'm going to be able to abandon most of my emulators. There are four Amiga-only games (Antepenult, Black Crypt, Dungeons of Avalon 2, and Warriors of Releyne), two Macintosh-only games (Darkwood and Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete), and a lone C64 game (Telnyr II). The other 58 have a DOS port.

We're going to be entering 1992 slowly, because I've decided to double up on 1988 and 1989 games until I clear the "old" list and can work off of 1992 exclusively. There are 38 games remaining on that "old" list, although I can tell a lot of them are destined to be cut.

 

[Fowyr]

Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace

He is doomed. i never could make past the bug in the end.

 

[Deflowerer]

I just finished Middle Earth: Shadow of War after about 100 hours, and I would like to congratulate the game on having the absolute most pointless final act and worst ending of any commercial RPG that I have experienced. Ever.

I tried to make a case that he's not an autist before, but I take it back.

Autism confirmed.

 

[Grauken]

His whole 1991 retrospective reminds me while I really don't like him. Yes, I think he's doing a great service to the community overall in terms of historical research, but damn is he dense and just plain wrong on some games

 

[V_K]

Like which ones?

 

[Grauken]

Even the highlights had asterisks. There were four Gold Box games this year--Pools of Darkness, Death Knights of Krynn, Gateway to the Savage Frontier, and Neverwinter Nights--but still none of them managed to exceed Pool of Radiance, and for the first time I began to wish SSI had better balanced quality with quantity.

Both PoD and GttSF are excellent high quality games, and on par with PoR. Especially PoD is still my favorite high level campaign goto CRPG and unmatched to this day. There's no imbalance between quality and quantity.

Might and Magic III. I don't think it's the best of the Mights and Magics even among the first three, but it demonstrates New World's commitment to pushing the envelope and updating its interface with new technologies. The mechanics often feel unbalanced, and the game world is sometimes a little goofy, but it's still loads of fun.

It doesn't make much sense to compare M&M 1-2 and M&M 3 as they feel so different, both are excellent on their own, but what M&M 3 managed was to carve out their own unique blobber niche, and in that regard to me it was an achievement. Also the world design was just superb.

1991 was, on balance, a depressing year. It took me nearly 3 years and 1,201 hours to get through its 37 games, nearly a quarter of that spent on Fate: Gates of Dawn.

This is his problem, its not the year, his approach to play every fucking RPG one after another makes him hate it. And you know what, the percentage of shit will only going up in the coming years, despite the great RPGs ahead.