Play the baldurs gate games, first 1 then 2.
I´d say the difference is in the extent of general hand holding, not just combat.I have an additional question about difficulty. Generally people say older games were harder and required more thinking. I'm all for that, but I can't quite imagine what that means and would be happy to hear a clarification.
Generally what I think tactics is comes down to three approaches.
But why? Is people's psychology different nowadays? I refuse to believe it, it almost sounds like earlier there were much less people interested in gaming and those were mostly hardcore fans of it, and nowadays so many people play that the majority are "casual" (bad word, it sounds degrading) gamers.
P.S. Meanwhile I finally managed to make Pool of Radiance work on my PC, yay! Ultima IV will have to wait its turn, it's way too complicated to figure out, Pool is intuitively accessible.
As far as I understand all of you, the issue lies with the new approach to creating games. They're made easier so that gamers would not feel frustrated. On a blog, I believe it was the crpgaddict blog mentioned in this thread, I read that ealier some game developers took pride in their games being insanely difficult. So the approach was definitely different, I can't imagine developers being proud of that now.
But why? Is people's psychology different nowadays? I refuse to believe it, it almost sounds like earlier there were much less people interested in gaming and those were mostly hardcore fans of it, and nowadays so many people play that the majority are "casual" (bad word, it sounds degrading) gamers.
Too many old games had an almost Gygaxian desire to kill, and there have been quite a few discussions on how many old game designers used to brag that no one finished their games. I still can't believe anyone thought that was a good thing.
But rogue and its likes are design around this in an entirely different way, and you don't have to go through the same level(s) time and time again, due to their random nature. I much prefer roguelikes that give the player more control over their character, and thus allows you to effectively counter many of the dangers of the dungeon through player skill & forethought rather than luck though.Well rogue and its ilk were designed for you to die, fail, replay many times before winning based very much on luck. It's certainly a design style. Not my favorite.
There are still a handful of more "harcore" releases each year, though usually these are indies. And look at Daemon's souls, the very fact that it was demanding for the player was what made it popular. To my knowledge it don't compete with the biggest of the biggest in terms of sales, but due to it finding an underexploited niche, it was able to do quite well. It is the same reason why Paradox have been doing so well, they found an underexploited niche in the strategy game market and filled it.In that way, I - as an enthusiast - can't really blame the developers or the audience. I can just lament that there aren't more who're passionate enough to look beyond numbers - and who might want to INSPIRE enthusiasm in the larger audience.
Stonekeep which I loved. .
There are still a handful of more "harcore" releases each year, though usually these are indies. And look at Daemon's souls, the very fact that it was demanding for the player was what made it popular. To my knowledge it don't compete with the biggest of the biggest in terms of sales, but due to it finding an underexploited niche, it was able to do quite well. It is the same reason why Paradox have been doing so well, they found an underexploited niche in the strategy game market and filled it.
It's not as well known as the Gold Box games, but another good D&D game is Dark Sun: Shattered Lands. It's got a really good, non-standard setting and some cool concepts, and feels a bit like a proto-Baldur's Gate. It's a pity that everything that's come since, with the notable exception of PST, has kept to the blandest-of-the-bland Forgotten Realms setting.
Older games (pre infinity and Fallout) tend to be very limited in character interaction and choices and consequences, but there are some exceptions.
The Goldbox games are more similar to IWD than to Baldurs Gate, with lots of fighting and little else.
I'd like to point out one of the exceptions (at least for the second point): Dragon Wars. Not only most situations have multiple outcomes (such as getting out of Purgatory in the beginning), but some of your choices can lead to pretty interesting consequences (such as a town getting destroyed). I also second the Dark Sun endorsement.
The Buck Rogers games are an exception, though. In spite of the high combat rate, they offer skill-based gameplay (with a ridicolously extensive skill system) as well as some very interesting instances of choices and consequences (such as the multiple ways you can deal with some factions in Matrix Cubed, with appropriate consequenes in the last mission)
Darklands was great, it has such a great atmosphere unequaled by any other RPG. Only thing I didn't like were the repetitive quests for the merchants/Hanse and such but I wouldn't mind seeing that as a remake.