Anime Criticize my CRPG Book

[Metal Hurlant]

In the contents, it would be good to see how the games are separated. At first, it came across as a jumbled mess and was wondering why it wasn't in alphabetical order. I didn't know how the games were organised. After a few minutes jumping to the reviews, I realised it's in year order. Maybe in the contents you could have 'The Reviews by release year' or something like that. It's not clear in the contents that it's in release year and I was a bit confused at first.

Also a space between each era. eg. On page 5, Between 'System Shock 2' and 'From 2000-2004 - The Rise...' it would be good to have a space between them. I know the 2000 is sticking out slightly but a space in between would be better for me. Also it would be good to have a similar heading with the 'From 2000-2004 - The Rise...' with say 'From 1978-1999 - The...' at the start of the reviews.

 

[felipepepe]

And why no NWN review?

The OC is shit but it deserves it for the Aurora Toolkit only. There could be a whole page wth a list consisting of all the great fan modules that put to shame many commercial titles.

There will be a NWN review, done by Ludo Lense , and - only for NWN - a separate 1-page review for the Aurora Toolkit and 1 page just for modules.

In the contents, it would be good to see how the games are separated. At first, it came across as a jumbled mess and was wondering why it wasn't in alphabetical order. I didn't know how the games were organised. After a few minutes jumping to the reviews, I realised it's in year order. Maybe in the contents you could have 'The Reviews by release year' or something like that. It's not clear in the contents that it's in release year and I was a bit confused at first.

Also a space between each era. eg. On page 5, Between 'System Shock 2' and 'From 2000-2004 - The Rise...' it would be good to have a space between them. I know the 2000 is sticking out slightly but a space in between would be better for me. Also it would be good to have a similar heading with the 'From 2000-2004 - The Rise...' with say 'From 1978-1999 - The...' at the start of the reviews.

There will be an intro page, and timeline overview pages like the 2000-2004 every 5 years.

 

[Metal Hurlant]

Good stuff. I liked the intro on Page 154 and the different trends, consoles, timeline, etc on Page 155. More please.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

In the contents, it would be good to see how the games are separated. At first, it came across as a jumbled mess and was wondering why it wasn't in alphabetical order. I didn't know how the games were organised. After a few minutes jumping to the reviews, I realised it's in year order. Maybe in the contents you could have 'The Reviews by release year' or something like that. It's not clear in the contents that it's in release year and I was a bit confused at first.

This brings up a point: Would it be possible to have a tiny-font index of the games in alphabetical order at the back of the book?

 

[Sigourn]

Page 321, Garriott in a space suit. It should read "paid $30 million", not "payed".

If you'd like, I would be more than willing to act as a proof reader for your book. I love proof reading. (And I would love to have my name credited somewhere)

 

[felipepepe]

This brings up a point: Would it be possible to have a tiny-font index of the games in alphabetical order at the back of the book?

Seems like it's important for a lot of people and will take at most 4 pages.... I don't see why not.

If you'd like, I would be more than willing to act as a proof reader for your book. I love proof reading. (And I would love to have my name credited somewhere)

Thanks! other people have volunteered as well, but I want to wait until this next version is released, as I changed a lot of things already... including that "paid" on Garriott's page.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Considering the big impact this game has had on the genre and the Fallout scene

It's Oblivion with guns, where do you see this "big impact"? They did nothing revolutionary for RPG genre other than dumbing down the Fallout franchise and releasing a Fallout mod to Oblivion.

It's meant to be objective. That means including things you may note like. If you want Goral's Personal List of Noteworthy Games then write it yourself.

 

[Goral]

It's meant to be objective.

No it's not objective (otherwise a walking simulator for dumbfucks would not be included in a book about RPGs), it's Felipe Pepe's list and he decides what's in there. And that's fine with me but he specifically asked what we don't like and I answered.

 

[agris]

F3 is important in the context of video game history. Not because it's a good game, or oblivion with guns, but because of the cultural impact it had on gamers as a whole. Like it or not, F3 is a touchstone game for a lot of people. Is it shit? Of course, but that's not the point.

 

[Sigourn]

No it's not objective (otherwise a walking simulator for dumbfucks would not be included in a book about RPGs), it's Felipe Pepe's list and he decides what's in there. And that's fine with me but he specifically asked what we don't like and I answered.

Fallout 3 is one of the best videogames of all time according to many publications.

I'd say that's an objective enough reason to include it in the book. I'm not saying the game is good, I'm saying the game was given enough importance IRL to be mentioned in the book, just like Skyrim.

 

[Goral]

agris Lucas9
Wrong thread: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/112015/unread

 

[Sigourn]

Wrong thread: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/112015/unread

I'm sorry you can't accept the truth.

 

[Sratopotator]

It would be a pity if this book, with so much work done, would excel only at transforming your toilet into way-back-then-machine.
I know reliving some fond memories from rpgs is cool, and i certainly felt the same way as the author of Eye of the Beholder review when first playing the game but, is that really the best you can do with such book?

I dont want to sound overly critical because i like the book very much, and i get that you want to concentrate your efforts on historical point of view.
It's just that, you have a certain level of responsibility when making a book about a dying(?) hobby that we all care so much about.

Even if looking up old RPGs will not be a particularly popular in the future, there still will be some fresh blood, some new players that, with some pushes here and there, could become new fans of the genre. I get that you don't think the book will be popular outside of certain circles but, the way the web works - you could easily be wrong.
And if there is a possibility that some 15 year old player will read your book (i would certainly be very happy to find something like this in my teens), why not make sure that along with great stories and memories, there are some hooks to make the readers play the games. Just some hooks, nothing more.

And my point is, that you CAN introduce some systemic way to present the games to newbies, without changing a single word of the reviews, without alienating hardcore rpg fans. For instance: editorial picks, a lot of ways to implement rating systems. Even some king of "worth" meter. And sure some games would come out of this worse than others, but the games that you picked are not equal in terms of worth - i hope that it's obvious. Some titles are worthy enough to play the shit out of them even today, and some are not. But the question in young reader's head could be "Which is which?".

You could go with - 2 or 3 different ratings all at once. One for overall worth, one for accessibility and one for, i don't know, historical importance? There is a LOT you could do, with minimal layout space taken. Look at some commercially available compendium-like books. Even if they're very specialized, they still usually have some hooks for newbies, or summaries that could play the same role for beginners.
It is important enough to think about it, and i don't think you did, not really (apart from the list you proposed - "best" 80s games for begginers).

You said:

But the truth is, most pre-90's games have shit UI and most modern gamers wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole, even if Churchil were to make speeches on how great they are.

That is true but, are we really talking about chances of a typical modern gamer to play these games? I know i'm not.
To read, and to enjoy your book, the reader has to be a bit grognardian in nature, have a curious mind, or be interested in video games history.
Most modern gamers COULD be interested in video game history, but they are usually too lazy to try the games, shit, too lazy to even read a book.
So fuck them, it's not a book for them. But it certainly should be book for future grognards, in some way.

It may be a bit presumptuous of me but, i think that you just threw the idea of making the reader play the games out of the window, at the beginning.
I may be too idealistic ("Even if one newbie will play these games after reading your book, it's worth it" shit), but then you're obviously too cynical.
And i get it, it's hard to be a RPG fan today, and not be overly cynical.

There IS a certain level of responsibility to your work, apart from historical accuracy (mostly because of lack of similar works).
It's making sure that the reader sees, not only historical validity of said games, but their worth when taken out of historical context. So that he may enjoy them for being currently valid works of our culture - which they are (certainly some of them at least).

Unkillable Cat said:

(...)it is impossible for us to determine what the readers are expecting from the book (or what they will take from it) or whether they'll want to try out a game based on detailed technical jargon, or (...) attempts at conveying emotions(...)

And that is exactly my point. We don't know. So why not maximize the chances of BOTH in a smart way?

 

[Trojan_generic]

I hope you have higher-resolution scans for all the images of maps and boxes (and for example the page 15 manual, see also page 331) somewhere available for the print version. Otherwise they will look miserable when printed.

 

[MRY]

In follow-on to Sratopotator's point, it does seem like a separate, but important project, might be some kind of much shorter document designed to introduce players to the classic games by explaining an approach to playing them. I don't mean that you necessarily need to offer a FAQ for the games. In fact, that is almost the opposite of what I mean. I think to be able to play old games requires an explanation of what they are trying to do, what they are asking of you, what you don't need to do, and what you do need to do. Many players (perhaps including myself?) lack the basic know-how to appreciate these games, and it's hard to develop that on your own because if you lack the know-how, the elements of old games that are awful (like interface) or alien (like low resolution art) can be too off-putting.

I'll give a few really basic examples:
- In Gold Box games, the first shop you visit will have a huge number of items and weapon types, none of which matters at all, but which are totally overwhelming unless you know going into the game that this is some bizarre pass-through from P&P AD&D. Likewise, when you win a fight, there are a bazillion trash items, but there's no reason at all to take them all, shuttle them to a shop, and sell them. In fact, in most of these games you wind up with more money than you can carry let alone spend. Does the player need to think about banks? What should you do when level drained or when a party member dies? Ought you to reroll until you get all 18s? Why not just edit the stats, which these games permit? Should you rest spam? What do you need to do to account for XP/level caps? There are all these things that are totally non-obvious to a player who isn't already immersed -- like, it's not clear what constitutes cheating, what is dross "simulation" that you can ignore, what is going to break the game and what is going to ruin your experience?

- In Ultima VII, you can pick up any item in the environment, often without getting charged with stealing. Should you be doing so in order to convert them to money? To solve obscure puzzles down the line?

- In Might & Magic games, there are often fountains that crazily boost your stats, and other ways at the start of the game where you seem to be able to throw things really out of whack. Is that what you're supposed to be doing? Is save-scumming through a hard area to get some major boost the intended mode of play or a cheat?

- In Ultima IV, do you really need to let enemies flee in order to accrue mercy? What is the basic flow of how you should be playing the game? Why is the gear so limited?

I know that a big part of what made old games good is the sense of accomplishment in figuring out their intricacies. But in many instances these aren't tricky mysteries so much as background knowledge a player would've had in the 80s or 90s that he won't have now, and that will operate as a barrier to entry.

I think if you put together an order of games to play in order to ease someone in, coupled with the basic "here's what you need to know not to get frustrated or locked out" instructions for them, along with a reason why each game is rewarding, you could actually get people to go back and play them. I do this a lot when people play Primordia and say that they've always hated adventure games but loved Primordia. This is a position that reveals either horrible taste or profound ignorance, and since I would rather not assume my game's fans have bad taste, I will usually try to give them a personalized path ("If you liked X in Primordia, try A, then B, then C. Here's why, and here's a couple thing you should know."

Obviously such a book (pamphlet, really) would be directed at a different audience than this book, but the two seem complementary. The current book acts as a repository for things that people will probably not experience so that even though their experience is deficient, they won't be ignorant; the pamphlet would be designed to get them able to actually play some portion of the games in the book.

 

[Ludo Lense]

Man it sure would be swell if history books had a little "greatness" meter to tell me which parts were bad and which were good.

 

[agris]

MRY that's a great suggestion. It could also work as inset panels for a given game in felipepepe's book. With the caveat that only games deemed great (Ludo Lense) get said insets.

 

[Trojan_generic]

I thought as well about the playing aspect - to buy this book and give it to my son when he's a bit bigger and tell him that here are some cool games, and the best thing about them is that you can have any of the game(s) you want (except for those few that will not be abandonware or available for 1 buck yet). Probably he won't give a fuck though and will only play VR popamoles or something.

 

[Jick Magger]

Just a small nitpick, but the Risen summary seems a little confused. We three paragraphs dedicated to talking about the game itself, and the remainder of the page dedicated to talking about how shitty Risen 2 & 3 are. Now it's an interesting read, but as someone who's never actually played a Risen game before, it tells me next-to-nothing about the game beyond the fact that it was made by Piranha Bytes studios and it's a Gothic game in everything but name. Is the gameplay good? What about the exploration? The story? Is there anything it does better or worse than the Gothic games? Does it overall live up to its predecessor?

I mean, don't get rid of the section altogether, because it's a good look in to an example of an older studio trying and failing to adjust to a modern market while trying to placate older fans of the series, but I think it should maybe be made in to its own little mini-section. The period in which Risen was released is full of developers having to streamline or otherwise dumb down the mechanics of their games in order to compromise to the console audience, while remaining financially successful, if not necessarily endearing themselves to their original fanbase (The Witcher 2, Oblivion/Skyrim, Fallout 3, etc). Maybe it could be slightly re-done to be a retrospective on the Risen series and how Piranha Bytes tried to cater to their original audience, the console audience, then compromise to both, with less success on each successive attempt.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Felipe pepe, remove that Master Chief picture from page 154... You should use a RPG image from that era, not Halo. Maybe a Morrowind one, since the game had an Xbox port.

Also, concerning the pictures, are those taken from websites, by you, or by the reviewers, or all of above? Are they definitive?

Considering you were worried by how to get the correct aspect ratio for old games with 320x200 resolution - you even wrote an article using Monkey Island as an example, and the round shield of your character in TES: Arena, which is in the book, by the way. What is your stance regarding pictures of newer games?

For example, The witcher 2 main picture in its review is a production image taken before the game was released, with a previous Geralt model that doesn't correspond to his final appearance in the game. Let's say you're writing an adventure book, and for the main image of The Dig, you use those early screeshots that were nothing like the final game... I've just browsed through the book in a small free time at work and noticed that, maybe there are other instances... I'd rather see unique in-game screenshots, and by unique I mean not taking from steam page or digital magazines...

System Shock 2 main image is a SHODAN promotional shot. While it's an iconic picture, it's the only one that doesn't use an in-game screenshot.

Oh, and just a nitpick: it's cumbersome to find who wrote the reviews by looking at the initials and having to always go back to the first pages to check the index. I know it's to save space, but in the digital version we should be able to che the full name by clicking/taping the initials, or maybe write the full name of the ones who wrote just one review, and use the initial if someone has a second or third review.

PS: Where is wizardry V? I can't see it in the schedule...

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

I think he did that with the Witcher 2 game because it's to poke fun at it. I know several media outlets who've done the same.

Also

The game’s graphics made a huge lead from the first game, and the voice acting also improved significantly

Should be

The game’s graphics made a huge leap from the first game, and the voice acting also improved significantly

 

[Unkillable Cat]

I (think I) see what MRY is getting at (please correct me if I'm wrong): You know those times when a mate is telling you about a game he's played, and he wants you to try playing it as well, and then you decide to play it, and while doing so you can ask your mate a few questions about the game to get a feel for it? "Is this thing going to be important?" "Are axes of any use in this game?" "Is a second wizard in my party any good?" And so on.

Those moments are wonderful, as the mate helps cut down on the uncertitude and highlight the good points about a game... but the problem is that we're talking about a book here, not a flesh-and-blood acquaintance. The book would have to be written with this "mate" in mind from the start in order for this aspect to be included. Seeing as this book is written by contributions from a bunch of strangers and is close to completion, going back to the drawing board now is kind of impossible.

That said, I'm certain that some space could be dedicated in the book to describe this aspect of "marketing" and enjoying a game, especially as in the pre-internet days this was a vital method to "sell" a game to other people. It would at least help people get into the mindset, I reckon.

 

[Mastermind]

So, I'm working on the next release of the CRPG Book (which will be over 420 pages long), and I want the Codex to do what it does best: criticize the shit out of it.

Ok, I'll do what the codex does best:

It's shit (didn't read it).

 

[MRY]

Well, I'm not sure that it would need to be part of the book -- in large part because I think it is overwhelmingly clear that 95% of the games in the book aren't going to be "entry points" for players. My guess is that there are a relatively small number of old school RPGs that are (1) hard for players to get into these days but (2) so good that if a player could get into them, he would find it really rewarding and (3) would develop skills that would make it considerably easier to get into other RPGs of the same vintage. The first step would be identifying some such games. The second step would be figuring out what the core things you need to know are.

For example, I think Darklands is a really important and very good game, but I am extremely skeptical that you could get most people to play for more than five minutes today because of the weirdness and opacity of character creation, followed by the uncertainty about what you have to do. Darklands may be a bad example, though, because that's really a game that might call for a quasi-tutorial, while what I'm talking about more generally are a list of things like, "Here's what you need to know in order to not get very frustrated with this game." For example, when I tell people to consider playing Legend of Kyrandia, I always tell them not to eat both apples (a throwaway point, but a way you can give rise to a walking-dead scenario) and to persevere through the maze sequence.

It would require some degree of creative empathy to understand why a non-moronic but inexperienced contemporary player would hate a classic game you love, but I don't think it's that hard. In fact, the book already has hints of this with the cartography section.

 

[felipepepe]

Felipe pepe, remove that Master Chief picture from page 154... You should use a RPG image from that era, not Halo. Maybe a Morrowind one, since the game had an Xbox port.

The book is already full of RPGs, those sections are to show what's going on "Meanwhile, at Le Chuck's Fortress", so I think using iconic games from the era is better:

(old version, but you get the idea)

Also, concerning the pictures, are those taken from websites, by you, or by the reviewers, or all of above? Are they definitive?

95% of them are .png screenshots taken by me or the reviewer. The rest either comes from MobyGames, DJ Old Games or the CRPG Addict, all who kindly gave me permission to do so.

But there are a few, like The Twitcher 1 & 2, the SS2 header, Ultima IV, Bard's Tale, Baldur's Gate II, Wizardry IV, Space Rangers, Ultima Underworld, etc that are more of a "placeholder", since I still need to play the game for better screenshots. I'm slowing doing this whenever I feel like it... the other day I replayed Mount & Blade, and changed all the review's screenshots for something more exciting:

But it's a slow work, especially since I'm A TITANIUM BONE NEANDERTHAL incredibly autistic about those and want them to fit with the page's flow.

BTW, if anyone wants to contribute with cool .png screenshots for those games (or any really if you think you have a better one), that would be a great help.

It would be a pity if this book, with so much work done, would excel only at transforming your toilet into way-back-then-machine.
I know reliving some fond memories from rpgs is cool, and i certainly felt the same way as the author of Eye of the Beholder review when first playing the game but, is that really the best you can do with such book?

I dont want to sound overly critical because i like the book very much, and i get that you want to concentrate your efforts on historical point of view.
It's just that, you have a certain level of responsibility when making a book about a dying(?) hobby that we all care so much about.

Even if looking up old RPGs will not be a particularly popular in the future, there still will be some fresh blood, some new players that, with some pushes here and there, could become new fans of the genre. I get that you don't think the book will be popular outside of certain circles but, the way the web works - you could easily be wrong.
And if there is a possibility that some 15 year old player will read your book (i would certainly be very happy to find something like this in my teens), why not make sure that along with great stories and memories, there are some hooks to make the readers play the games. Just some hooks, nothing more.

And my point is, that you CAN introduce some systemic way to present the games to newbies, without changing a single word of the reviews, without alienating hardcore rpg fans. For instance: editorial picks, a lot of ways to implement rating systems. Even some king of "worth" meter. And sure some games would come out of this worse than others, but the games that you picked are not equal in terms of worth - i hope that it's obvious. Some titles are worthy enough to play the shit out of them even today, and some are not. But the question in young reader's head could be "Which is which?".

You could go with - 2 or 3 different ratings all at once. One for overall worth, one for accessibility and one for, i don't know, historical importance? There is a LOT you could do, with minimal layout space taken. Look at some commercially available compendium-like books. Even if they're very specialized, they still usually have some hooks for newbies, or summaries that could play the same role for beginners.
It is important enough to think about it, and i don't think you did, not really (apart from the list you proposed - "best" 80s games for begginers).

You said:

But the truth is, most pre-90's games have shit UI and most modern gamers wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole, even if Churchil were to make speeches on how great they are.

That is true but, are we really talking about chances of a typical modern gamer to play these games? I know i'm not.
To read, and to enjoy your book, the reader has to be a bit grognardian in nature, have a curious mind, or be interested in video games history.
Most modern gamers COULD be interested in video game history, but they are usually too lazy to try the games, shit, too lazy to even read a book.
So fuck them, it's not a book for them. But it certainly should be book for future grognards, in some way.

It may be a bit presumptuous of me but, i think that you just threw the idea of making the reader play the games out of the window, at the beginning.
I may be too idealistic ("Even if one newbie will play these games after reading your book, it's worth it" shit), but then you're obviously too cynical.
And i get it, it's hard to be a RPG fan today, and not be overly cynical.

There IS a certain level of responsibility to your work, apart from historical accuracy (mostly because of lack of similar works).
It's making sure that the reader sees, not only historical validity of said games, but their worth when taken out of historical context. So that he may enjoy them for being currently valid works of our culture - which they are (certainly some of them at least).?

I get what you're saying, but no, I always planned this as something to push readers into playing the games.

Roughly speaking, I think this book will have three main kind of readers:

- Veterans looking for hidden gems & some nostalgia;
- Modern gamers curious about the history of the genre;
- Modern gamers curious about the post-2000 games;

Or, in other words:

Players who know 80's RPGs (Ultima, Dungeon Master, Wizardry),
those who know 90's RPGs (Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Daggerfall),
and those only into post-2000 RPGs (Oblivion, Dragon Age, Kotor).

There might also be a grade of post-2010 only people, but that's scary and makes me feel old. This is based on the emails & comments I get, but also on the reactions to a printed version of the book I made a year ago and showed around.

The way I see it, the job of the book is to offer them hidden gems and useful tip to the "Tier" they are in, and try to persuade them to try something from the lower tiers. There will be those who'll just play whatever they think looks fun, but if someone wants guidance from the book, I think ratings are the worst possible way of providing that.

Not only it's hard to say "is XCOM harder than Darklands?", but it varies greatly from person to person. I know AD&D, so creating a character in the Gold Box series or KotC for the first time was way more natural to me than in Wizardry 8 or PoE, for example. Lands of Lore doesn't have the character creation of Legend of Grimrock, but it's A LOT harder... is that more or less accessible? Does difficulty frustrates people more than having to read a manual to create a decent character? I don't know.

Not to mention some very accessible games, like Rings of Zilfin, Hillsfar or Zeliard, are obscure titles that are really just curiosities.

Most importantly, I think it's all about the mindset - and that's what I think we should really focus on. Even going in to play something like Tyranny, you cannot just "boot and play" - you have to get into it, read the dumb rules, care about the dull lore, think abut your pointless decisions, etc...

This is where I agree with MRY on a kind of guide, but I think it should be a "FAQ & mindset guide", that opens the book before the reviews. General stuff like "Do I NEED to draw my maps by hand?", "Should I save-scum / save-state?", "Are the manuals really mandatory?" etc...

Like, "Should I keep re-rolling my stats?" "In most games that would be power-gaming, but the Wizardry series requires you to do so if you wish to get certain classes..."

I think something like that, coupled with tips "SAVE OFTEN AND TAKE NOTES" and an entry guide with key games that are still very accessible to play would work well. Better than ratings.