I don't understand.. Pool of radiance, TOEE

[pippin]

This is depressing...

What are the main reasons games like this are no longer made?

Is there not a market besides me and a few others?

This style of game is, without a doubt, my favorite by a WIDE margin & they are no longer made?

WTF?

Yep, the market is too small, the games are not profitable enough. There are many reasons:

-Isometric RPGs are not good on consoles. It's a thing people like to complain about but it matters. This is a very PC specific style of gameplay that doesn't translate well on consoles.

-World of Warcraft. It's easy to forget about this now but at one point MMOs cannibalized pretty much the entire PC RPG market. There was this crazy gold rush where everyone thought MMOs were the only future of games and everyone was rushing to put out their WoW clones. All the other minor RPG projects were swept aside.

-Bioware. With Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, Bioware ushered the west into the age of the Cinematic RPG. The selling point of these games was not gameplay or depth, but cinematic presentation. They realized they didn't need hard combat, complex character classes and mechanics, or deep stories with meaningful choices. Just fancy graphics and a lot of voice acting with shot/reverse shot camera angles.

Bioware-style RPGs make a lot of money but they're expensive to make right so they essentially pushed a lot of smaller developers out of the business. They couldn't compete with Bioware's model so they gave up, or tried to play second fiddle (Obsidian).

and finally:
-Dungeons and Dragons sucks now. D&D 3rd edition sparked a resurgence of interest in D&D videogames. D&D 4th and 5th edition killed that interest. There were like a dozen games based on 3rd edition, and only one based on 4th edition (a crappy MMO!). D&D games are dead now because D&D is dead, Wizards of the Coast killed it.


Despite all that, we are seeing something of a top-down isometric RPG renaissance with Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, and Divinity Original Sin. These games aren't exactly what you want, but they're closer than a crappy MMO or a cinematic corridor shooter. Support these games and their developers and we'll make the RPG genre great again.

With the isometric thing, I think it depends. I guess the key difference comes in the form of mouse vs controller movement, which is the thing that hurts slower games the most.
The MMO craze had started a long time ago and in my opinion the game got big because of this, WoW just came to cash in on the hype of MMOs in general more than going for the fans of the RTS games.
Bioware always had dumbed down rpgs. They took like a half of DND rules out of Baldur's Gate, for instance.
DND does suck now because they don't want to market it to other people than just guys who already know DND, that is, the niche. When I was a kid DND was everywhere because the marketing targeted everything, all ages. There were cartoons, toys (not miniatures but actual toys), comics, etc., things kids might be interested about. In fact this is how I became aware of DND, and wanted to get my hands on everything DND related because it was all so cool to me. That doesn't happen anymore.

The Bioware point shines a light on what is happening to every entertainment industry right now, it's funnier and easier to do stuff like cosplay and generally just aping something that was already given to you instead of creating new stuff. It's very sad and I hate fan communities because of this now.

 

[dream expert]

When people say 'Pool of Radience' they mean the 1988 title, not the shit one later on.

Its actually called "pool of radiance, ruins of myth drannor"

Anyway, wasn't PoR: Ruins that bugged game that would uninstall windows or wipe your hard drive or something?

 

[pippin]

When people say 'Pool of Radience' they mean the 1988 title, not the shit one later on.

Its actually called "pool of radiance, ruins of myth drannor"

Anyway, wasn't PoR: Ruins that bugged game that would uninstall windows or wipe your hard drive or something?

I think it deleted the folder it was installed on (just like Myth 2 iirc).
So if you installed it on c:/, your entire hard drive would be deleted.

At least I think it worked that way... The thing is they released a patch soon after release, and a couple of others, so instead of a boring game filled with bugs you were left with just a boring game. I've tried to make it run properly on the computers I've had but it always has some problems. I managed to make it work alright in one but my characters were invisible. I might have spent way too much time on a subpar game, but PoR RoMD puzzles me, I feel I have to play it just to say I completed it.

 

[ikarinokami]

even though it's using the bane of all RPG game existence, unity, torment might fit the bill. I also remain convinced that Tim Cain is working on a TB pathfinder follow up to TOEE.

 

[chaddiek]

PoR:RoMD Had many bugs & could delete your hard drive if uninstalled without the patch. ToEE had bugs too, but they are the most recent forms of RPG I am referencing.

I have been enjoying Pillars of Eternity, Grim Dawn, Divinity: Original Sin., Might and Magic X

Looking over all the suggestions I am feeling like Torment, Dragonfall DC, Age of Decadence, Underrail, Blackguards, Wasteland 2, Knights of the Chalice 2, Shadows: Heretic kingdom are the most fitting of all the criteria I mentioned. Without going back and re-playing old games anyway.

But it is still sad that, what I feel is a REAL RPG hasn't been made in some time.

If you are going to make a game like Pillars of Eternity, why not make a 'Hardcore RPG mode' where you can change it to full party creation & turn based (as the April fools joke suggested lol)

 

[BlackGoat]

Games such as this no longer exist and the likes of Fargo and Feargus have forsaken you. You gotta build it yourself, bros. All these minds, all this manpower. Build it goddammit.

That's what I'm gonna do.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I am guessing the AoD party based crawler will probably be gooood.

 

[Roqua]

When people say 'Pool of Radience' they mean the 1988 title, not the shit one later on.

POR was released in 1988, which predates 3rd edition by 12 years and 2nd edition D&D by a year.

I assume since he mentioned it with ToEE, and those were the last two full party creation TB crpgs made by big companies besides recently, he meant the last one. I always have wondered why people have made such a fuss over the AD&D goldbox games when there are clear superior examples of AD&D games such as the Dark Suns, and the Buck Rogers games blew them out of the water and no one mentions them or has even played them hardly ever.

 

[Roqua]

I am guessing the AoD party based crawler will probably be gooood.

I agree with one caveat - there isn't full party creation. You have to rent your party members which means no vested interest in them

 

[octavius]

I always have wondered why people have made such a fuss over the AD&D goldbox games when there are clear superior examples of AD&D games such as the Dark Suns, and the Buck Rogers games blew them out of the water and no one mentions them or has even played them hardly ever.

How are they superior?

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I am guessing the AoD party based crawler will probably be gooood.

I agree with one caveat - there isn't full party creation. You have to rent your party members which means no vested interest in them

Party creation is not a prerequisite for attachment to party members. If it is for you that's your hang-up. Perhaps creating a party is better than the alternative in cases where the game does not do enough to establish the characters of your part members, but that is correlation not causation.

Battle Bros. Is quite impressive in how attached you can get to party members you do not create. The game does an exemplary job of building their characters. That is one example. There are others.

 

[Drew]

There are others.

heyo minsc fans, post here

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Not BG games. I think Morte qualifies though.

 

[Valky]

I am guessing the AoD party based crawler will probably be gooood.

I agree with one caveat - there isn't full party creation. You have to rent your party members which means no vested interest in them

Party creation is not a prerequisite for attachment to party members. If it is for you that's your hang-up. Perhaps creating a party is better than the alternative in cases where the game does not do enough to establish the characters of your part members, but that is correlation not causation.

Battle Bros. Is quite impressive in how attached you can get to party members you do not create. The game does an exemplary job of building their characters. That is one example. There are others.

No party creation is a problem if there aren't enough varied NPC's in the game and as such disallows you to have the character class builds you want.

 

[Roqua]

I am guessing the AoD party based crawler will probably be gooood.

I agree with one caveat - there isn't full party creation. You have to rent your party members which means no vested interest in them

Party creation is not a prerequisite for attachment to party members. If it is for you that's your hang-up. Perhaps creating a party is better than the alternative in cases where the game does not do enough to establish the characters of your part members, but that is correlation not causation.

Battle Bros. Is quite impressive in how attached you can get to party members you do not create. The game does an exemplary job of building their characters. That is one example. There are others.

Correct, what is a problem is having no vested interest. Are you attached to the shadowrunners you rent in SRR? No, they are props with some functionality. They aren't my characters and they aren't really npcs since they have no personality, they are nothing. If you do not understand this it is your hang-up. I play crpgs not board games.

 

[Roqua]

I always have wondered why people have made such a fuss over the AD&D goldbox games when there are clear superior examples of AD&D games such as the Dark Suns, and the Buck Rogers games blew them out of the water and no one mentions them or has even played them hardly ever.

How are they superior?

Dark Sun 1 & 2 attempted to add some depth to AD&D by adding the psionics abilities and the materials to weapons and material restrictions. Also, it didn't have a Ui that was 5 years outdated when the first game came out. The Buck Rogers, using the GB games engine, did have the shit outdated UI, but it also had a ton of depth in chargen and chardev, a very interesting rock vs paper vs scissors itemization system, various rpg systems utilized often, original stories, far more indepth combat, etc.

Since the GB games had the very rpg-lite AD&D system with the very basic chardev and combat system of AD&D any game that put a little functionality into the UI and chardev naturally is a batter game by definition, which means the Neverwinter modules for the GB games blow them all out of the water since they are based on a much more indepth chargen and dev system and have much more advanced UIs and itemization systems.

If you are saying the games are great due only to the modules they are based off of, then I would say people who utilize the medium of a game for stories are doing themselves a grave disservice since books and TV/movies/plays will always be a far better storytelling medium. A game has to be a good game for the story to matter. And specifically, in regards to crpgs, the meat of the game is the systems and how you access them (as well as presentation to a degree), so any rpg-lite system is not as good of an rpg as a more diverse, complex, heavy, and interesting rpg system. This cannot be argued. Its application is universal. Would you go to a five star restaurant of a world renowned chef and be happy if you got a plain boiled egg? Probably not. You want something more diverse, complex, heavy, and interesting. Almost anyone can make a plain boiled egg decently. Would you pay top dollar for an inexperienced architect who can't even design anything more complex than a shed to build your fancy smancy mansion? Probably not, you would want someone capable of designing something more diverse, complex, heavy, and interesting.

 

[octavius]

I always have wondered why people have made such a fuss over the AD&D goldbox games when there are clear superior examples of AD&D games such as the Dark Suns, and the Buck Rogers games blew them out of the water and no one mentions them or has even played them hardly ever.

How are they superior?

Dark Sun 1 & 2 attempted to add some depth to AD&D by adding the psionics abilities and the materials to weapons and material restrictions. Also, it didn't have a Ui that was 5 years outdated when the first game came out.

On paper I guess the DS games are better, but in practice I still prefer the GB games due to the better combat system. The DS games were more well rounded, while the GB games were more specialized. The first DS game also suffered from being too unblanced; too easy most of the game (so easy I never bothered to learn all the spells) and the end battle comes as a bit of a shock..

The Buck Rogers, using the GB games engine, did have the shit outdated UI, but it also had a ton of depth in chargen and chardev, a very interesting rock vs paper vs scissors itemization system, various rpg systems utilized often, original stories, far more indepth combat, etc.

Really? "Far more indepth combat"? BR lacked spells, but substituted some of them with items. Skills hadn't much impact in combat and there was no opportunity attack rules. I'd say the fantasy version of GB combat had an edge, and what eventually killed my will to finish the second BR game was the need to reload your "Wands of Fireballs" (Grenade Launchers) after each battle, or start the next battle with no "Fireball" if you forgot.

Since the GB games had the very rpg-lite AD&D system with the very basic chardev and combat system of AD&D any game that put a little functionality into the UI and chardev naturally is a batter game by definition, which means the Neverwinter modules for the GB games blow them all out of the water since they are based on a much more indepth chargen and dev system and have much more advanced UIs and itemization systems.

Just like the Infinity Engine games, right?

 

[Dorateen]

If you are going to make a game like Pillars of Eternity, why not make a 'Hardcore RPG mode' where you can change it to full party creation & turn based

Pillars has full party creation.

(Alas, still no turn-based combat)

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I always have wondered why people have made such a fuss over the AD&D goldbox games when there are clear superior examples of AD&D games such as the Dark Suns, and the Buck Rogers games blew them out of the water and no one mentions them or has even played them hardly ever.

How are they superior?

Dark Sun 1 & 2 attempted to add some depth to AD&D by adding the psionics abilities and the materials to weapons and material restrictions. Also, it didn't have a Ui that was 5 years outdated when the first game came out.

On paper I guess the DS games are better, but in practice I still prefer the GB games due to the better combat system. The DS games were more well rounded, while the GB games were more specialized. The first DS game also suffered from being too unblanced; too easy most of the game (so easy I never bothered to learn all the spells) and the end battle comes as a bit of a shock..

The Buck Rogers, using the GB games engine, did have the shit outdated UI, but it also had a ton of depth in chargen and chardev, a very interesting rock vs paper vs scissors itemization system, various rpg systems utilized often, original stories, far more indepth combat, etc.

Really? "Far more indepth combat"? BR lacked spells, but substituted some of them with items. Skills hadn't much impact in combat and there was no opportunity attack rules. I'd say the fantasy version of GB combat had an edge, and what eventually killed my will to finish the second BR game was the need to reload your "Wands of Fireballs" (Grenade Launchers) after each battle, or start the next battle with no "Fireball" if you forgot.

Since the GB games had the very rpg-lite AD&D system with the very basic chardev and combat system of AD&D any game that put a little functionality into the UI and chardev naturally is a batter game by definition, which means the Neverwinter modules for the GB games blow them all out of the water since they are based on a much more indepth chargen and dev system and have much more advanced UIs and itemization systems.

Just like the Infinity Engine games, right?

I love Dark Sun Shattered Lands but I do have to agree that the combat in GB games is far more elegantly implemented. A single character can occupy one square. In understanding the rules, it is easy at a glance to understand all rules at play on the battlefield. This is impossible in games that don't clearly define grids on the battlefield; everything smashes together like buckyballs and it is not easy to resolve AoA, positioning, etc. ...one of the things I most appreciate about good grid based combat.

 

[mondblut]

Party creation is not a prerequisite for attachment to party members.

Sane players do not attach to party members that suck balls. Party creation is the only way to ensure a party works like an efficient mechanism.

 

[chaddiek]

Games such as this no longer exist and the likes of Fargo and Feargus have forsaken you. You gotta build it yourself, bros. All these minds, all this manpower. Build it goddammit.

That's what I'm gonna do.

I'm with you 100% brother, there IS a market for it. And I would contribute anything I could to make it see the light of day.

Pillars has full party creation.

(Alas, still no turn-based combat)

It does? I have only been able to create my main character, all the others are the characters the game makes you use: Durance the priest, Aloth the mage etc...

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Party creation is not a prerequisite for attachment to party members.

Sane players do not attach to party members that suck balls. Party creation is the only way to ensure a party works like an efficient mechanism.

You've said two different things here. The bit about efficiency will only be be true with meta knowledge.

 

[chaddiek]

Party creation is not a prerequisite for attachment to party members. If it is for you that's your hang-up. Perhaps creating a party is better than the alternative in cases where the game does not do enough to establish the characters of your part members, but that is correlation not causation.

Battle Bros. Is quite impressive in how attached you can get to party members you do not create. The game does an exemplary job of building their characters. That is one example. There are others.

Sane players do not attach to party members that suck balls. Party creation is the only way to ensure a party works like an efficient mechanism.

It may not be a prerequisite to liking a character, but my characters all have their own back stories and personalities that they bring with them into each game.

I want my Halfling Rogue that specializes in archery because I am familiar with him. I don't want a female Tiefling Rogue who specializes in backstabbing because that's what the game is making me play.

In fact, I resent her for it.

 

[Dorateen]

Pillars has full party creation.

(Alas, still no turn-based combat)

It does? I have only been able to create my main character, all the others are the characters the game makes you use: Durance the priest, Aloth the mage etc...

At every Inn, and the stronghold as well, you can hire adventurers, who are as customizable as the main character. This is how you make a player generated party. The Black Hound Inn is available in the first village, shortly after the tutorial and suffering through a couple of scripted encounters.

 

[Roqua]

I always have wondered why people have made such a fuss over the AD&D goldbox games when there are clear superior examples of AD&D games such as the Dark Suns, and the Buck Rogers games blew them out of the water and no one mentions them or has even played them hardly ever.

How are they superior?

Dark Sun 1 & 2 attempted to add some depth to AD&D by adding the psionics abilities and the materials to weapons and material restrictions. Also, it didn't have a Ui that was 5 years outdated when the first game came out.

On paper I guess the DS games are better, but in practice I still prefer the GB games due to the better combat system. The DS games were more well rounded, while the GB games were more specialized. The first DS game also suffered from being too unblanced; too easy most of the game (so easy I never bothered to learn all the spells) and the end battle comes as a bit of a shock..

The Buck Rogers, using the GB games engine, did have the shit outdated UI, but it also had a ton of depth in chargen and chardev, a very interesting rock vs paper vs scissors itemization system, various rpg systems utilized often, original stories, far more indepth combat, etc.

Really? "Far more indepth combat"? BR lacked spells, but substituted some of them with items. Skills hadn't much impact in combat and there was no opportunity attack rules. I'd say the fantasy version of GB combat had an edge, and what eventually killed my will to finish the second BR game was the need to reload your "Wands of Fireballs" (Grenade Launchers) after each battle, or start the next battle with no "Fireball" if you forgot.

Since the GB games had the very rpg-lite AD&D system with the very basic chardev and combat system of AD&D any game that put a little functionality into the UI and chardev naturally is a batter game by definition, which means the Neverwinter modules for the GB games blow them all out of the water since they are based on a much more indepth chargen and dev system and have much more advanced UIs and itemization systems.

Just like the Infinity Engine games, right?

I love Dark Sun Shattered Lands but I do have to agree that the combat in GB games is far more elegantly implemented. A single character can occupy one square. In understanding the rules, it is easy at a glance to understand all rules at play on the battlefield. This is impossible in games that don't clearly define grids on the battlefield; everything smashes together like buckyballs and it is not easy to resolve AoA, positioning, etc. ...one of the things I most appreciate about good grid based combat.

So GB games are better than ToEE, D:OS, etc, since they didn't have grids?