Outlander
Custom Tags Are For Fags.
The list the OP made is incomplete without Arcania: A Gothic Tale
A brief tour of the Decline of proper CRPGs (non blob, non action, party based P&P simulators);
Name me a better game released after 2007 and then criticize DA for being decline.
A brief tour of the Decline of proper CRPGs (non blob, non action, party based P&P simulators);
That's also gameplay... You know, RPGs are not about combat alone, they're also about solving problems (Ultima and Fallout were all about this), and NPC interaction is used to provide clues to the player.Initially, gameplay was the focus of RPGs. But eventually, reading (or listening to) words and clicking options from lists became the focus of RPGs.
More spells. More classes. Dual classing. It streamlined some stuff, but by being a higher level adventure it also had added depth. But you're right in that Pool of Radiance felt a lot more free and had a greater variety in terms of stuff you could do.Next, play Curse of the Azure Bonds (1989), and notice how several interface issues from PoR were cleaned up, but also note that many ambitious design concepts from PoR have been simplified, streamlined and/or eliminated. For example, parlaying with monsters, finite numbers of wandering monsters, hiring NPCs from the training hall, animating party members as undead, interesting stuff to find on the overland map, dungeons that sort of make sense, etc.
Indeed. I think it's quite obvious that this game was rushed out of the door. But they improved afterwards with Pools of Darkness so it isn't really a sign of any decline.Next, play Secret of the Silver Blades (1990). Some of the Decline that I attributed to Curse of the Azure Bonds may actually have occurred here. The world map has been largely eliminated/rendered irrelevant and you're mostly just fighting endless wandering monsters in a linear dungeon that no longer makes much sense at all. Somehow there are hordes of dragons and high level mages hanging out in this abandoned mine. It's worth noting however that this is a low point for the Gold Box games. They would never again be as ambitious as Pool of Radiance (1988), but they would bring back the world map and generally settle into a formula that offered solid gameplay with some P&P style adventure and more of an illusion of freedom than SotSB.
I agree with this assessment.If you're taking the extended tour, it might be interesting to take a look at the Dragonlance games at this point, there was certainly a significant potential for decline as the plot was to some extent driven by NPCs from the official (bad) Dragonlance novels. Many people see them as part of the Decline. However, I would NOT consider the Dragonlance series to be true Decline, as there were a number of additional mechanics added to make the games more complex and interesting and there isn't really a significant change in the amount of freedom that is offered (not much). If Tanis Half Elven hadn't showed up to make you do something, some generic NPC/event would have.
I agree with this too. It was a huge decline from the best Gold Box games for the reasons you mentioned. Combat wasn't anywhere near tactical enough and dropping down to four party members was even more of a decline than the fall from eight to six between Wizard's Crown and Pool of Radiance. I can appreciate its dialogue tree approach to conversation systems because for the time it was massively under-explored in the genre, but speaking from 2012 it's safe to say that dialogue trees were a massive decline from the more abstracted forms of conversations that we had previously. Unfortunately, it looks like there's no going back now as too many gamers are used to selecting things for their characters to say. In fact, many even define cRPGs by it, even though the entire concept was stolen from adventure games.Next, play Dark Sun: Shattered Lands (1993). Aside from the turn based combat, this game should immediately feel familiar to early 2000s CRPG players. Notice how in-level exploration has been streamlined/simplified/reduced to a shroud removing formality by the switch from first person dungeon exploration to zoomed out third person exploration. Exploration has changed from a game into a task. Notice how much more time you spend on reading text boxes and clicking on options from lists. Notice how much less time you spend on tactical combat and adventuring. Notice how the party has been reduced to four members. Notice how there is more diversity in character options and how more spells are modeled, but also notice how the tactical combat has not significantly improved. Notice how much easier the game is if you select certain types of characters.
Indeed. And you didn't even mention the move to single character control. This was perhaps the biggest decline, together with its imbalanced and simplistic combat system and broken AI. In my view it didn't even do anything mechanically interesting. It's only really noteworthy for having a crap load of non-combat binary skill checks. The whole low intelligence dialogue thing is a great example of what the game was all about, yet on a mechanical level it was a rigid waste of time. When developers have to resort to adding lots of "if statements" to scripts in order to add depth, you know they've gone in the wrong direction.Next, play Fallout (1997). Fallout technically belongs to its own short lived sub genre of games, but it is also highly relevant to any discussion of Decline. Take note of how much time you're now spending on reading text and selecting options from lists. Take note of how the turn based combat is so simplistic that it barely even qualifies as a game anymore. Realize that nothing of value was lost when they switched this series over to shitty FPS combat. Finally, give Ian a submachine gun and stand in front of him in a fight.
I agree with most of this. The game did popularise real-time combat which unfortunately led to far more horrible games afterwards, but it's still worth noting that the combat in the Baldur's Gate games and Icewind Dale were still a hell of a lot more tactical and complex than the vast majority of cRPGs that came both before and after. In fact, if you were to make a list of cRPGs and ranked them in order of combat depth/complexity, these games would rank somewhere near the top, behind games like Jagged Alliance 2, Temple of Elemental Evil, Knights of the Chalice and arguably the Gold Box games. The combat is a hell of a lot better than the two Dark Sun games though, even though it isn't turn-based.Next, play Baldur's Gate (1998). This game is highly relevant to any chronology of the Decline, but in and of itself, it is not a bad game. However, it is worth noting that the strategic ganeplay involved in party building has been replaced by simply picking from a modest sized list of recruitable characters. BG popularized real time combat in CRPGs, but since turn based combat in CRPGs hadn't significantly inclined since the very early 90s, the combat in BG isn't actually problematic. Recruitable party members will occasionally interrupt gameplay to make you read text and click an option from a list, but it isn't a significant distraction yet. Not everything is positive for this game though, it really drives home how tedious the shroud clearing task can become.
Well it's nice to know that you can appreciate the game. It did a lot of things right in my opinion, but the increased linearity (especially through the mid-portion of the game), restricted world exploration (a similar decline to the one between Pool of Radiance and Curse of the Azure Bonds), romances (and worthless party banter in general) and JRPG/Planescape: Torment inspired "personal story" with a repeatable villain really dragged it down. Still, some of the encounters were truly fantastic, and the increase in classes, abilities and items led to more varied combat gameplay. Like its predecessor, it also allowed you to play with full party creation (or even partial party creation) using the multiplayer option. I very much appreciate this feature today as it's the only interesting way to play the two games (though not with a full six characters because six player created characters makes the games way too easy).Next, play Baldur's Gate 2 (2000). In absolute terms, this is without a doubt the best CRPG ever created, but if you take the year of creation into account you can't help but feel disappointed at how little things have improved since 1989. Virtually all future decline can be traced back to this game, but in most areas it was a better game than Baldur's Gate (1998), even though you need to click through a lot more text. However, it is worth noting that party building has been simplified even further as there are not very many recruitable characters to pick from anymore. Recruitable characters are interrupting gameplay more often, but it still isn't particularly irritating. Romances appear; they will eventually transform this into a genre for perverts, but they're quite tame and minor here.
I agree with this assessment. It was like the world was trying to re-learn what turn-based combat meant in the space of a year or two. It's funny how the game fell for all the traps that developers in the late 80s learnt to overcome.Next, play Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (2001). Don't play for long, but get a feel for the combat in this game. Obviously, a huge step down from Baldur's Gate 2. But amazingly, the combat is not much more interesting than the combat from Curse of the Azure Bonds (1989) and it takes far longer to play. They seem to have forgotten how to design turn based games.
And you haven't mentioned two fundamental steps in the decline. Firstly, notice how in Knights of the Old Republic you can't position multiple characters at the same time? You can pause the game, but you can only queue up actions. You have to position characters manually using WASD while the game is unpaused, one character at time. Secondly, all possible companions wait around on your ship. You never really have to make permanent choices as to which ones you want. And furthermore, characters that you don't take with you while questing automatically level up to your own character's level. This means that every single companion in the game levels up whether you use them or not. If this isn't a huge decline then I don't know what is.Next, play Knights of the Old Republic (2003). Notice that information is no longer presented to the player in a clear, 2D format, but is now obscured by messy 3D graphics. Party building has declined further, you now have only two recruitable characters as party members. But don't worry, they'll nag you quite a bit.
Indeed. The combat system was great, but the content not so much. It's a shame really. I find it hard to call it a decline though, because it was mechanically more interesting than the vast majority of RPGs that had come out in the decade before it. After Hommlet it was more about game mechanics (combat) than shitty scripted quests.Next, play Temple of Elemental Evil (2003). Play through Hommlet only, you can stop after that. Sorry, that was cruel, I just wanted you to experience the worst level ever included in a CRPG, three hours of walking around, reading mundane text and clicking on options from lists. This game did finally improve turn based combat in CRPGs above 1989 standards, but was crippled by horrible level design, so it did not have any significant effect at halting or reversing the decline, aside from (probably) inspiring KoTC.
I didn't find the combat any easier than the already easy first game. The biggest decline here is that people hold this game up as a great cRPG "because of its writing". I see it name dropped all the time outside the Codex. "Play Knights of the Old Republic 2. It's one of the best RPGs because the characters are really well written!"Next, play Knights of the Old Republic 2 (2004). Information is again obscured by messy 3D graphics, but this time combat has been made so incredibly easy that it is almost a formality. Many players report going through the entire game with no need to use any consumables and there is little need to pause to consider your tactics. While this game still has the mechanically robust d20 system behind it, it is on par with Fallout in terms of terrible combat gameplay, simply because the game is so easy. With combat and exploration providing negligible gameplay, most of the "game" is about reading text and clicking on options from lists. We've almost reached full decline here, we just need some romances to attract the perverts.
Agreed. It's a fantastic game. One thing that would have improved it would have been a larger party size, though. And more character classes. But it's criminal how little attention this game gets. It would have fit nicely into the mid-90s in my opinion (ignoring the fact that the rules hadn't been invented then), and could have demanded enough attention to have changed the course of the genre for the better. As it stood, Baldur's Gate came out after a period of real-time first-person faggotry, making it look better than it was, and subsequently influencing decline thereafter.Next, play Knights of the Chalice (2007). Take note of the many, many ways in which turn based combat in CRPGs is finally improved from the standards of 1989. Take note of the fact that this game did not sell enough to warrant a sequel (Codexers complained about the graphics quite loudly) and that the developer is now doing a real time strategy game.
Ah, Dragon Age. Such a shitty game but you could tell that the inept BioWare designers at least wanted some parts of it to be decent. Almost all non-combat gameplay was a massive decline over almost any other cRPG, including shit like Knights of the Old Republic. No punishment for pickpocketing? Seriously? But yeah, the combat was woeful too. You could tell that someone in the company wanted to return to at least Baldur's Gate's level, but the system was almost a straight up World of Warcraft rip off. It was extremely shallow as you could repeat the same set of moves for every single fight and win with ease.Finally, play Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2. Just be sure to pirate them.
Like I said in another thread where someone complained about it, uncovering shroud goes back way further than whatever you're thinking of. Phantasie had it in 1985.So, a summary of the decline. Initially, exploration provided gameplay in the form of first person mazes. This was eventually replaced by the task of clearing all the shroud from the map. Eventually, this was replaced with third person 3d levels, but this didn't bring back significant amounts of gameplay to exploration. (Image of completely linear DA2 mini map goes here).
Agreed.Initially, turn based combat in CRPGs was good. But then it failed to incline (in CRPGs) for like 14 years. In some significant ways it actually got worse. By the time turn based combat inclined again, it was too late.
I sort of agree. The Infinity Engine's AD&D rules and mechanics resulted in the games having far better combat than the vast majority of cRPGs, but real-time with pause was always a decline, however you look at it. D&D saved the Infinity Engine. Any homebrewed system would have resulted in a complete piece of shit.Initially, real time with pause combat in CRPGs was not bad. But then it got bad.
Agreed.Initially, building a party offered strategic gameplay. But then you just got to pick your party from an ever shrinking list of RPCs. Eventually these RPCs started trying to molest you.
Indeed.Initially, gameplay was the focus of RPGs. But eventually, reading (or listening to) words and clicking options from lists became the focus of RPGs. That and molesting RPCs.
Take note of the fact that this game did not sell enough to warrant a sequel (Codexers complained about the graphics quite loudly) and that the developer is now doing a real time strategy game.
If you fail pickpocketing in Denerim, a bunch of guards will waylay you when you try to travel within the city.No punishment for pickpocketing? Seriously?
Not a fan of Darklands?D&D saved the Infinity Engine. Any homebrewed system would have resulted in a complete piece of shit.
Darklands had a shit combat system. The reason the game was any good was because of everything else the game had going for it.Not a fan of Darklands?D&D saved the Infinity Engine. Any homebrewed system would have resulted in a complete piece of shit.
Define conventional combat.Darklands combat system for conventional combat would be a great cure for the ills of the IE conventional combat.
Do you consider the Ultimas "proper CRPGs"? Playing games chronologically - both replaying old favourites and playing those I missed 20 years ago - and having now reached mid 1991, to me Ultima VI has been the greatest decline so far (tiny view area, clucky inventory system, boring gameplay), even though it was the first CRPG to use VGA graphics. In the Ultimas you were forced to chose from a limited amount of NPCs. Personally I don't have a problem with this, though. I like som variety.
BLOB CRPGs are proper CRPGs, single character CRPGs can be proper CRPGs
That's also gameplay... You know, RPGs are not about combat alone, they're also about solving problems (Ultima and Fallout were all about this), and NPC interaction is used to provide clues to the player.
More spells. More classes. Dual classing. It streamlined some stuff, but by being a higher level adventure it also had added depth. But you're right in that Pool of Radiance felt a lot more free and had a greater variety in terms of stuff you could do.
And you haven't mentioned two fundamental steps in the decline. Firstly, notice how in Knights of the Old Republic you can't position multiple characters at the same time? You can pause the game, but you can only queue up actions. You have to position characters manually using WASD while the game is unpaused, one character at time. Secondly, all possible companions wait around on your ship. You never really have to make permanent choices as to which ones you want. And furthermore, characters that you don't take with you while questing automatically level up to your own character's level. This means that every single companion in the game levels up whether you use them or not. If this isn't a huge decline then I don't know what is.
Why "shit"? From what I've heard the shit part was having to explore some locations in that mode and interface, not the combat system itself.Darklands had a shit combat system. The reason the game was any good was because of everything else the game had going for it.Not a fan of Darklands?D&D saved the Infinity Engine. Any homebrewed system would have resulted in a complete piece of shit.
Melee and ranged combat. Mainly ability to pick attack modes - normal attack, full attack without defence, aiming for vulnerable point and focusing on defence. No all or nothing armour. Distinction between damage that just impairs fighting capability and physical damage.Define conventional combat.Darklands combat system for conventional combat would be a great cure for the ills of the IE conventional combat.
Yes. Darklands had many combat options that would have been a great addition to AD&D games like Baldur's Gate. Furthermore, the calculations involving those options were very well thought out and on the whole very realistic. But the implementation of the combat in the game was dire, and I'm not talking about the interface. As most of the combat mechanics were invisible to the player and because the system was properly real-time (with pause) instead of broken up into discrete rounds, it ended up being even more decline than the Infinity Engine. In fact, many of the reasons why are exactly the same as the reasons why action RPGs have worse combat than turn-based RPGs. In Darklands you have to feel your way through combat. You have to get a feel for the power of each of your characters. You have to learn how to use them through practice and experience. You aren't making strict on the spot decisions using a little mathematics like in D&D. In other words, even though its "conventional" combat mechanics are a hell of a lot deeper than D&D's (look up the calculations if you haven't), it's still less of a thinking man's game than even Baldur's Gate.Why "shit"? From what I've heard the shit part was having to explore some locations in that mode and interface, not the combat system itself.
Melee and ranged combat. Mainly ability to pick attack modes - normal attack, full attack without defence, aiming for vulnerable point and focusing on defence. No all or nothing armour. Distinction between damage that just impairs fighting capability and physical damage.
In ranged combat, reloading as reloading not attacks per round which means that you can't just run away after firing for a round and then fire your crossbow again.
I preferred proper real time of Darklands over the pseudo-RT of Baldur's Gate. Also, I prefer the simulationfag approach over the abstractfag approach, so to me Darklands in as incline. I want to think in categories of realistic tactics, not in categories of abstract numbers.Yes. Darklands had many combat options that would have been a great addition to AD&D games like Baldur's Gate. Furthermore, the calculations involving those options were very well thought out and on the whole very realistic. But the implementation of the combat in the game was dire, and I'm not talking about the interface. As most of the combat mechanics were invisible to the player and because the system was properly real-time (with pause) instead of broken up into discrete rounds, it ended up being even more decline than the Infinity Engine. In fact, many of the reasons why are exactly the same as the reasons why action RPGs have worse combat than turn-based RPGs. In Darklands you have to feel your way through combat. You have to get a feel for the power of each of your characters. You have to learn how to use them through practice and experience. You aren't making strict on the spot decisions using a little mathematics like in D&D. In other words, even though its "conventional" combat mechanics are a hell of a lot deeper than D&D's (look up the calculations if you haven't), it's still less of a thinking man's game than even Baldur's Gate.
The only reason anyone prefers a "simulationfag" approach to combat over an "abstractfag" approach to combat is that you can often get by with little knowledge of the specific system. It's like trying to play chess for the first time using basic military tactics, it may serve you well enough early on, but you'll need to adopt a different way of thinking to get anywhere. Also, the abstract approach seen in games like D&D is far better for an RPG than a game that relies more on obscured simulation, because then it's no longer a game of having to iteratively learn the obscured simulation through experience and is instead about making fair choices using the same set of discrete information everyone would have.Also, I prefer the simulationfag approach over the abstractfag approach, so to me Darklands in as incline. I want to think in categories of realistic tactics, not in categories of abstract numbers.
No. The reason is that it is more realistic.The only reason anyone prefers a "simulationfag" approach to combat over an "abstractfag" approach to combat is that you can often get by with little knowledge of the specific system.Also, I prefer the simulationfag approach over the abstractfag approach, so to me Darklands in as incline. I want to think in categories of realistic tactics, not in categories of abstract numbers.
Realistic eh? No wonder you always ignore spell casting.No. The reason is that it is more realistic.
In a realistic game, spell casting would be possible as long as it's realistic inside of the game setting. So, for example realistic spellcasting in Forgotten realms would require having spell components and on the far end of realism scale a fireball would cause third degree burns.Realistic eh? No wonder you always ignore spell casting.No. The reason is that it is more realistic.
This is irrelevant because you have to learn what this inner logic is as it's not common place in our world. It's pretty much the exact same thing as having to learn any unrealistic system whether it's abstract or not. The only difference is that it's justified by the setting.Realistic within the inner logic of the world.
But this isn't really the debate at all. Having locational hit points is still abstract, but less so and more complex. Having flags for broken limbs is also still abstract, but potentially even less so. By introducing things like these you not only up the complexity but you also up the realism. However, you could also up the complexity but also lower the realism by doing completely alien stuff that doesn't tie into any internally justified "logic". In other words, realism and abstractness are two different things. But which one is most important/favourable in an RPG?You may live in a super duper magic world with prancing unicorns and wizards who can cast SPELL OF DOOM +99 around each corner, but a warhammer hitting your skull in full force will still kill you instantly, or at least break your skull and disorient you for quite some time, followed by a horrible headache, if you're even conscious.
Some people just think this is more fun than abstract draining HPs, me included.
Old. And I've already seen it. That's abstractly "realistic". It's not realistic. This is the way cRPG combat systems should be. The system simulates things to a level that is sufficiently accessible by the player through the abstract options presented to him/her. The key is that you need to keep the abstraction, which limits the amount of simulation you'll ever need to do. Simulation breadth is far more of an issue to today's RPGs than simulation depth. If the things you're simulating have no tangible impact on the player's choices of tactics and strategy then it's worthless.If you want to see an example of realistic crpg combat mechanics, check out this:
http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/support/TheRiddleOfSteel.zip