Modern vs Old

[Dasale]

I never finished Ultima Underworld at it's release (because no computer to finish it) and started to replay it recently. Graphics and sound are ugly and the original interface system isn't as comfortable than more modern setup even after hours of play.

But it really hurt me how the gameplay has many qualities at a level you won't find in any or most modern CRPG from BG1 to nowadays. It's clear that modern CRPG have also qualities at a level you won't find in oldies. But why some core qualities decrease so much in modern CRPG?

When playing UW here a short list of features I feel much better than in most of the best modern CRPG (with some rare exception for some features) :
- Quantity and quality of stuff you search to solve. This includes many elements, hidden puzzles, riddles like stuff, tricks to find, secrets searching and finding.
- Difficulty level, even played at easy I'm satisfied when I feel it too easy in most modern CRPG.
- Area design from a pure mapping point of view, it's complexity to explore, the stuff to discover, the diversity. It's chocking to quote that UW, a 2.5D game, has levels design that are much much more 3D than any modern CRPG using 3D graphic cards at their full power.
- Action depth, a system where there's some challenge and a real learning curve with many stuff to discover thanks to the system depth or opponents design.

Don't be wrong, I can make a long list of features of modern CRPG that have a much better qualities than in oldies. But the question is here, about the list I quoted above, the worse is to quote how important they are for the gameplay.

[Corwin]

UU was a revolutionary game, though I actually prefer UU2. There has never been a studio with as revolutionary an outlook as Looking Glass and see where it got them!! Pity isn't it.

[Dasale]

UU was a revolutionary game, though I actually prefer UU2. There has never been a studio with as revolutionary an outlook as Looking Glass and see where it got them!! Pity isn't it.Cool I never played UUW2 so I'll have even more to play! UUW was most probably revolutionary but I don't see Looking Glass Studio had continue on the revolutionary path, I feel System Shock series more like a rehash of a System into a more popular genre than CRPG. Sure System Shock was a great game but revolution isn't obvious.

Anyway revolution wasn't my initial topic. You can get a game with features I mentioned above at high quality without any revolution. Eventually UUW is a bad choice for my purpose, not clear.

[Zaleukos]

I dont agree with all of your points. "Action depth" in particular isnt in a worse state than in the "good old days". Level design and overall difficulty level have however gone down in quality...

UU is actually a good example in that it has puzzles (with subtle hints spread out) that you dont see in modern games, and I think UU2 is an even better example of that. Though I did look at the walkthrough a few times I always felt "doh, why didnt I notice that" after doing so, as opposed to "this shit doesnt make sense" when I played Dungeon Lords recently:p

Another example of the whole evolution would be to compare the level of railroading in the main quests of Daggerfall (though nowhere near as subtle as UU2) and Oblivion.

One answer as to why we've seen this trend towards better interfaces (automap, quest logs, etc for RPGs) and less challenging gameplay is the mainstreaming of gaming. As the audience is bigger you get a larger chunk of not so patient potential customers. Devs spend time and money on aspects of the games that predictably cater to as many potential customers as possible, such as graphics. Put in a puzzle and your forum is quickly flooded with 13-yearolds who cant figure out how to enter the first dungeon in Morrowind...

I'm waiting for a saturation of the "streamlined" RPG market and a professional developer taking up a more hardcore niche, a bit like Paradox interactive did in strategy games when they created the Europa Universalis series...

[Dasale]

I dont agree with all of your points. "Action depth" in particular isnt in a worse state than in the "good old days". Level design and overall difficulty level have however gone down in quality...I feel it much more rare in best moderns than in best oldies. Sure I've two modern counter example, Gothic 2 + NOTR and Temple Of Elemental Evil. Apart that I see only a desert in modern CRPG, action in The Witcher isn't bad but more fancy than depth.
That's where my memory could fail me, I remember games like Pool Of Radiance having a very interesting fight system. UUW clearly has also a good one. Well my demonstration isn't very well argued. :)

UU is actually a good example in that it has puzzles (with subtle hints spread out) that you dont see in modern games, and I think UU2 is an even better example of that. Though I did look at the walkthrough a few times I always felt "doh, why didnt I notice that" after doing so, as opposed to "this shit doesnt make sense" when I played Dungeon Lords recently:p
That's a chock, Dungeon Lords had any puzzles? Mmmm well perhaps a few, most CRPG have some but too few and often not a right difficulty level, either a lot too obvious either dam tough. About fight system, Dungeon Lords has something good but it lacks of depth.

Another example of the whole evolution would be to compare the level of railroading in the main quests of Daggerfall (though nowhere near as subtle as UU2) and Oblivion.I never played Daggerfall, Oblivion pushed the system to the plain absurdity, remove any trace of your brain from your head and you'll play it as easily.

One answer as to why we've seen this trend towards better interfaces (automap, quest logs, etc for RPGs) and less challenging gameplay is the mainstreaming of gaming. As the audience is bigger you get a larger chunk of not so patient potential customers. Devs spend time and money on aspects of the games that predictably cater to as many potential customers as possible, such as graphics.For the interface design, automap, logs not only for quests but also diary, custom setups for controls, in-game help, I feel definitely modern. Automap is something I won't give up. I remember to be very fast bored by having to do myself maps. If a game has levels so well done that you almost never get lost, it's ok, otherwise it's not ok at all. for logs, quests, but also diary. Ok I admit that the lack of any diary doesn't disturb me a lot in UUW, I write few notes by switching to window mode (DOSBox) anyway I have to do that for some puzzles. But I'm sure that any CRPG I'll play from now, the diary like in The Witcher will be missing.

For the less challenging and lack of puzzles point of view, I felt it more that they just forget hire any people dedicated to this. But you could be right. What's sure is that modern CRPG are in front of a problem of budget. Detailed graphics call for more details like to design and make many items, or design many details otherwise it will looks ugly inside fancy graphics. Also actor dialogs adds a lot of immersion but it's more cost.

Put in a puzzle and your forum is quickly flooded with 13-yearolds who cant figure out how to enter the first dungeon in Morrowind...Mmm perhaps it's internet the devil killing CRPG? Removes internet and those pesky kids won't make so much noises. :D Anyway for the puzzles it's probably more the explanation, young kids or more lazy people than budget problem. I doubt that adds one or two people to help design teams include various puzzles will crash the budget.

I'm waiting for a saturation of the "streamlined" RPG market and a professional developer taking up a more hardcore niche, a bit like Paradox interactive did in strategy games when they created the Europa Universalis series...Saturation? I feel you are very optimistic, I see more a slow dying than any saturation.

Another feature I hardly explain in modern CRPG is how dungeon design is very very weak. I see only one exception and it has only few dungeon like stuff, it's Gothic 3. But even among the best modern CRPG, dungeons are often near to to be crap.

[Zaleukos]

I feel it much more rare in best moderns than in best oldies. Sure I've two modern counter example, Gothic 2 + NOTR and Temple Of Elemental Evil. Apart that I see only a desert in modern CRPG, action in The Witcher isn't bad but more fancy than depth.
That's where my memory could fail me, I remember games like Pool Of Radiance having a very interesting fight system. UUW clearly has also a good one. Well my demonstration isn't very well argued. :)

Personally I dont find the fight system in UU very interesting. Three types of blows, and a mixed contact/random damage based system makes it only marginally better than say the (awful) combat system in Morrowind. The magic implementation via runes is interesting, but actually using magic in combat is cumbersome due to interface issues.

As for pool of Radiance and the goldbox system it's just AD&D. IMHO later titles such as Baldurs Gate (admittedly old by now, but much more modern than Goldbox) does this in a more interesting and intense way (while even more recent Neverwinter Nights 2 fail due to AI problems).


That's a chock, Dungeon Lords had any puzzles? Mmmm well perhaps a few, most CRPG have some but too few and often not a right difficulty level, either a lot too obvious either dam tough. About fight system, Dungeon Lords has something good but it lacks of depth.

Mainly the "find the lever" variety, and a teleport maze. Combat and monster variety are the fun points of a fairly mediocre game.


I never played Daggerfall, Oblivion pushed the system to the plain absurdity, remove any trace of your brain from your head and you'll play it as easily.

Daggerfall is like Elite and has many design flaws as well as bugs, but the main quest was interesting. You had a few alternative loose ends to look into (and they could be pursued in different orders), and several occasions where you could choose to side with different factions. Overall both the main quest and the side quests had a lot more alternative branches than Oblivion.


on maps and logs...

UU actually did this very well with an automap that allowed manual annotation.

Mmm perhaps it's internet the devil killing CRPG? Removes internet and those pesky kids won't make so much noises. :D Anyway for the puzzles it's probably more the explanation, young kids or more lazy people than budget problem. I doubt that adds one or two people to help design teams include various puzzles will crash the budget.

The internet is an opportunity as well as a challenge. It also makes distribution of sophisticated content a lot cheaper and easier than in the past. Mount and Blade (which is a bit refreshing when it comes to combat mechanics for sure) would have been incredibly hard to pull off without digital distribution.


Saturation? I feel you are very optimistic, I see more a slow dying than any saturation.

Another feature I hardly explain in modern CRPG is how dungeon design is very very weak. I see only one exception and it has only few dungeon like stuff, it's Gothic 3. But even among the best modern CRPG, dungeons are often near to to be crap.

Well, saturation in the sense that eventually the opportunity outside a congested mainstream market eventually will be attractive enough for someone to go off the beaten path.

Dungeons are sorely limited in modern games (G3 has what, three of them? With only the big smelter containing anything plot related). Not being an avid dungeon crawler (I find it unrealistic and like to deal with "political" NPC interaction) I'm ambivalent on the issue though. I think that Morrowind (even though it got criticism for having small dungeons) or Gothic 1 had dungeons of about the right complexity (well, maybe not Morrowind:p) and size.

[Dhruin]

The market has changed, for better or worse. In the early days, there was an obvious synergy between the PnP-playing geeks and the computer-owning-and-game-playing-geeks -- more often than not, they were the same people. Now, we're a tiny portion of the gaming market and the cost of production is too high to justify pleasing only our tiny market. There is an opportunity for "B" level games but the risk is high. Make an inexpensive, quality CRPG and there's a built-in 250k market -- more if you get the interface and polish right to bring in a wider market. The problem is, CRPGs are hard to make and that margin of error is too small. Further, the market is segmented - turn-based, rtwp, RT, first-person, third-person, iso, fantasy, not fantasy...too many CRPG fans will walk away from a product that doesn't meet their exact niche.

I'm not suggesting people should play something they don't enjoy but they need to understand the realities of the market.

On the other hand, some things are improving (although it's uneven) - many old CRPGs are essentially dungeon-crawlers with complex chargen systems but many modern CRPGs improve the story and NPC interaction markedly.

I miss the classic games but I actually find good entertainment between the handful of quality modern CRPGs on one hand and the indie market on the other. They fulfil different needs (and it's rare to find a perfect game that combines both sides) but I'm fairly happy.

[bjon045]

Did anyone else win the final battle in Pools of Darkness or beat Talon in a hand to hand battle in buck rogers 1(supposed to be impossible but I did it once) or finish the final dungeon in Bards tale 3 (the one with nazi robots.....)? I find modern games also lack challenge and by challenge I don't mean tapping buttons in a certain order to create a super-combo I mean requiring an excellent strategy + well created characters + a lot of luck in order to win.

[Zaleukos]

I actually got stuck on the third wave of the final battle in PoD, but that and my first fight vs Kalistes were the only instances where I actually had difficulties in the game. The problem is that you need to play for days to get there. Prior to that two mages with Delayed Blast Fireball takes out almost anything. The Dragon cave is for instance quite laughable.

[fatBastard()]

I find modern games also lack challenge and by challenge I don't mean tapping buttons in a certain order to create a super-combo I mean requiring an excellent strategy + well created characters + a lot of luck in order to win.

I really don't have time to waste on anything involving luck. There are too many games out there for me to spend countless hours stuck on some frustratingly difficult encounter. Then again I don't play games for the challenge. I play games for the experience.

[Gallifrey]

The problem is, CRPGs are hard to make and that margin of error is too small. Further, the market is segmented - turn-based, rtwp, RT, first-person, third-person, iso, fantasy, not fantasy...too many CRPG fans will walk away from a product that doesn't meet their exact niche.

This is exactly true. Back in the Olden Days, we'd buy nearly any RPG that came out for whatever system(s) we owned, and it didn't matter much whether it was fantasy, D&D/not D&D, sci-fi, historical or any other genre or combination of genres. Now days, people are extremely picky and won't play an RPG if it's not precisely what they want in terms of genre (eg "Well, I want cyberpunk but this sci-fi game isn't quite close enough, I'll skip it"). And then they turn around and wonder why there aren't more independant cRPGs being made.

To the broader topic if old games being better than new ones, it goes both ways I find. Many older games had insanely difficult puzzles, tricks and so forth and there was huge reliance on either luck or the player putting literally hours into solving one element of the game. These days it's not like that, which I do tend to prefer, but at the same time it is indicative of games reaching a broader audience for better and for worse.
As far as my memories go, I have fond recollections of time spent with many games, but I'm sure that if I went back and played some of them I'd be sorely disappointed. Because of the (now) primitive appearance of those games, we needed to use our imaginations a lot to flesh out how the world looked, how our character looked and acted and so forth, and imagination is far more powerful and long-lasting than snazzy modern graphics. We played the games in our heads as much as we did on the computer itself. Today, everything is so perfectly rendered we don't need imagination that much, so games tend not to stick in memory so well.
In essence, it's nostalgia that dominates, not critical analysis, the looking back at the old computer RPGs.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I think that it's right what Rayk of Grotesque said: Ite, collecting has become a standard for modern RPGs, nowadays you will hardly see one without it.

But that's not role-playinmg ! That's just collecting !
But everyone does it, because the "industry standard" invented it it and now everyone follows !

[Squeek]

...we needed to use our imaginations...We played the games in our heads as much as we did on the computer itself. Today, everything is so perfectly rendered we don't need imagination that much....That's exactly what happened, and it began around the time of Ultima Underworld.

Back then we all enjoyed the cool new graphics and improved use of the first-person perspective. It added to the experience, even if it compromised a little, and that made it well worth it. But today's CRPGs have gone too far in that direction. What they emphasize and what they compromise are too much.

The end result that we're seeing today is more fitting for consoles than computers. They're play-at-home arcade games. Instead of dropping in quarters, you pay $60 to play all you want.

ComputerGamingWorld magazine called UU the best computer game of all time. The Gothic and TES games both borrowed from it, and ID Software credited it as inspiration for its pioneering FPS, Wolfenstein 3-D. I wonder if there are any regrets among them at this point, seeing how it all turned out.

[Dasale]

Personally I dont find the fight system in UU very interesting. Three types of blows, and a mixed contact/random damage based system makes it only marginally better than say the (awful) combat system in Morrowind. The magic implementation via runes is interesting, but actually using magic in combat is cumbersome due to interface issues.
For me there's a world between the two. There's two major differences, in UUW :
- It's efficient to search the best fighting depending of the opponents, not really in Morrowind/Oblivion sword system.
- Adapting to opponents move makes much more sense than in Morrowind or Oblivion.

BUT eventually it's because it's just too fast for me in elder scroll when it's fine in UUW, I don't know.

But you're right, I had in mind the sword fighting but fights aren't only that and UUW is very restrictive for magic use during fights, but it's not better in Morrowind and much less good for the swording. Yes Oblivion did better by allowing better mixing of swording and magic during fights. Anyway I find it has less depth than UUW sword and one spell ready. But for Oblivion the problem could comes from a weird difficulty level, it's so easy that apply roughly the same mechanical tactic is working. I already wrote it, Oblivion is a game for people with a brain removed from their head. :p

As for pool of Radiance and the goldbox system it's just AD&D. IMHO later titles such as Baldurs Gate (admittedly old by now, but much more modern than Goldbox) does this in a more interesting and intense way (while even more recent Neverwinter Nights 2 fail due to AI problems).
Using Real-Time a system designed for Turn-Based makes few sense and the worse is that many modern CRPG copy this a lot.

For me BG RT approach is one of the devil that make fights boring in modern CRPG.
Ho yeah the RT approach is fancy and funny, I admit it, but most depth is lost and that is a big problem.

Most of the tactics aspects are lost when compared to the same system with Turn-Based and fights made for Turn-Based (you can't switch to Trun-Based because fights aren't designed for it). I recently played BG1 and ToEE there's no comparison, roughly the same system for both but a system designed for Turn-Based, no surprise if the Turn-Based version is much more deep. But yes now kids find Turn-Based slow and boring, weird, that makes me sad.

Combat and monster variety are the fun points of a fairly mediocre game.Well removing fights from CRPG? You mean adventure game? It's not clear for me where you want to go.

I think it's the problem with most modern CRPG, fights became a filler. Most modern CRPG obviously underestimate fights design. For most the design of fights is very poor, it's often just a pack of free monsters thrown in an area. How can you except anything good from this? No no no, the fight system isn't all.

Even worse is opponents diversity too often it make no sense, it's just some new graphics and effects but the same fighting against opponents a bit too tough or something else. Gothic series is doing good on this, but I don't see many other modern CRPG that succeed this.

Daggerfall is like Elite and has many design flaws as well as bugs, but the main quest was interesting. You had a few alternative loose ends to look into (and they could be pursued in different orders), and several occasions where you could choose to side with different factions. Overall both the main quest and the side quests had a lot more alternative branches than Oblivion.

The elder scroll series is another devil with the BG series that brought modern CRPG to many non sense. This series is promoting quantity versus quality, a so wrong approach... for me, not for sells. Now modern CRPG seems damned to only do very big stuff that eat a lot of money of the budget so removed for something else like puzzling design or fights design.

The internet is an opportunity as well as a challenge. It also makes distribution of sophisticated content a lot cheaper and easier than in the past. Mount and Blade (which is a bit refreshing when it comes to combat mechanics for sure) would have been incredibly hard to pull off without digital distribution.I have downloaded this one but not yet played. Well it's not new, Avernum or Prelude to Darkness for example, I don't know any that achieve a success.

Out of CRPG there's for example Doom but common look at it, the game was far ahead it's time technically when all those shareware CRPG are far bellow their time technically. Yes it's not all but it's clear that this is important for sells. Yes Mount and Blade seems a bit less backward it's time technically. Don't be wrong I don't promote the idea to play only games technically in their time, it's just a clear link with sells.

Eventually the problem with Internet is it makes people too lousy and give them to much influence, that doesn't let some air to people trying to make something different. People do stuff they think it's crap but they do it because plenty other people thinks or say them they should do that. :biggrin:

[Dasale]

The market has changed, for better or worse. In the early days, there was an obvious synergy between the PnP-playing geeks and the computer-owning-and-game-playing-geeks -- more often than not, they were the same people. Now, we're a tiny portion of the gaming market and the cost of production is too high to justify pleasing only our tiny market....
What's PnP???

[Dasale]

I really don't have time to waste on anything involving luck. There are too many games out there for me to spend countless hours stuck on some frustratingly difficult encounter. Then again I don't play games for the challenge. I play games for the experience.I agree for the luck thing but certainly not for the challenge thing, gaming is a lot about using your brain, without challenge your brain becomes sleepy and the game boring. If you don't want use your brain then watch TV and stop play CRPG... but Oblivion. :p

[Zaleukos]

Using Real-Time a system designed for Turn-Based makes few sense and the worse is that many modern CRPG copy this a lot.

For me BG RT approach is one of the devil that make fights boring in modern CRPG.
Ho yeah the RT approach is fancy and funny, I admit it, but most depth is lost and that is a big problem.

BG et al doesnt use true real time, but rather "continuous turn based". Time is still discretised into turns and rounds as per the AD&D ruleset.

But it's not the real time component (I usually prefer turn based actually) that I enjoyed about the fighting in BG and Icewind Dale, it is the balance where individual monsters and groups of monsters had flavour and required more tactical variation than the enemies of the Goldbox games. I also feel that it is more than fair to compare the Goldbox games with BG and the Infinity engine games, since both are cases where the devs started with a tactical fighting engine and built a RPG around that (and the RPG component as in NPC and world interaction is obviously miles better in Baldurs Gate).


Well removing fights from CRPG? You mean adventure game? It's not clear for me where you want to go.

No, those are integral parts of games in the RPG genre (even though a game needs a few more components to qualify as a RPG). My point was that one particular title, e g Dungeon Lords, is a mediocre RPG but has fun fighting:) An RPG-like game where fighting is totally dominant would be a dungeon crawler, a type of game that doesnt interest me as much.

[Jaz]

What's PnP???PnP = pen and paper roleplaying games... the origin of the species, so to say.
About the challenge... I want to enjoy a game, want to see and experience a virtual 'world', so sandbox games are just fine for me. Frankly, I don't want to waste my free time trying to play a frustratingly difficult game (or parts of a game) nowadays. My real life job and family are challenging enough.
While I liked vast games with challenging puzzles (like UU) back in the days at University, I'd rather replay an often-replayed old favorite (like wandering through Daggerfall without achieving anything at all in terms of story progress) or a casual puzzle game nowadays... anything as long as it doesn't gobble up my limited amount of time.

[Dasale]

BG et al doesnt use true real time, but rather "continuous turn based". Time is still discretised into turns and rounds as per the AD&D ruleset.
I know but your time isn't turn-based that's all the difference. And set the preferences to get Turn-Based in BG series and then it's obvious fights aren't adapted to this setting.
But it's not the real time component (I usually prefer turn based actually) that I enjoyed about the fighting in BG and Icewind Dale, it is the balance where individual monsters and groups of monsters had flavour and required more tactical variation than the enemies of the Goldbox games. I also feel that it is more than fair to compare the Goldbox games with BG and the Infinity engine games, since both are cases where the devs started with a tactical fighting engine and built a RPG around that (and the RPG component as in NPC and world interaction is obviously miles better in Baldurs Gate).
I played too long ago the goldbox games to be able to do a fair comparison. But what's the nearest to goldbox is ToEE. And there's no comparison, it's much more tactical than the whole BG series plus all the clones.

Icewindale is something special, it's a crap CRPG but it's clear fights got a high degree of design, here is a good example that the fight system isn't all but it's also the design of each fights.
No, those are integral parts of games in the RPG genre (even though a game needs a few more components to qualify as a RPG). My point was that one particular title, e g Dungeon Lords, is a mediocre RPG but has fun fighting An RPG-like game where fighting is totally dominant would be a dungeon crawler, a type of game that doesnt interest me as much.
Ok we agree on this a game with only fights and some character system isn't a CRPG. But many modern CRPG seems to have forgotten that fights shouldn't be just fillers.

[Dasale]

The market has changed, for better or worse. In the early days, there was an obvious synergy between the PnP-playing geeks and the computer-owning-and-game-playing-geeks -- more often than not, they were the same people. Now, we're a tiny portion of the gaming market and the cost of production is too high to justify pleasing only our tiny market.I don't have any clear statistics to quote but I strongly doubt anything is related to pnp. For sure pnp took a major part in design of CRPG but I don't see public sharing. As far I know p&n start to decrease in popularity at the beginning of the 80's, time when CRPG started, probably not a hazard. Also I knew people playing pnp but never any CRPG during the 80's and thee reverse too.

Myself if I played a bit of pnp during the 80's I can't consider myself as a pnp player.

There is an opportunity for "B" level games but the risk is high. Make an inexpensive, quality CRPG and there's a built-in 250k market -- more if you get the interface and polish right to bring in a wider market. The problem is, CRPGs are hard to make and that margin of error is too small. Further, the market is segmented - turn-based, rtwp, RT, first-person, third-person, iso, fantasy, not fantasy...too many CRPG fans will walk away from a product that doesn't meet their exact niche.
Well if it's true then it's sad, myself I'm ready to any attempt in any kind as soon as it is good and is CRPG.

Eventually the problem is more that in percentage the number of CRPG players declined significantly this involving the problem you mention. It's weird because CRPG are the essence of computer playing games, it's the core that has anything in the best balance, story, adventures, puzzles, action, simulation. :)

On the other hand, some things are improving (although it's uneven) - many old CRPGs are essentially dungeon-crawlers with complex chargen systems but many modern CRPGs improve the story and NPC interaction markedly.For sure, modern CRPG have many qualities oldies hadn't, I feel the problem is that quality of the core gaming features decreased a lot in most modern CRPG. It seems just forgotten, not for any budget problem but more a lack of focus on those core features.

I miss the classic games but I actually find good entertainment between the handful of quality modern CRPGs on one hand and the indie market on the other. They fulfil different needs (and it's rare to find a perfect game that combines both sides) but I'm fairly happy.Ok I don't know the indie market you mention, if it's game like Eschalon, I can't agree fights are poor and this removes a lot. The problem with those sort of game is that it's rare that a single person combine the numerous qualities a CRPG requires. Programming, drawing, writing, puzzle design, fight design, I certainly forget something. Eventually I found few scenario that was amazing but those people reuse through an engine most of the programming, drawing and fight system design. And succeed to combine qualities for story writing, design of fights and puzzles and enough programming skills to build something, resulting in impressive scenario. Rare, at least I don't know many and the lack of any true market around scenario building for an engine clearly decrease the importance of what's result from this.

[Dasale]

As far as my memories go, I have fond recollections of time spent with many games, but I'm sure that if I went back and played some of them I'd be sorely disappointed.
I'm not sure at all this is true, eventually we aren't speaking of the same oldies. If you are thinking of Wizadry 1, Ultima 1 or Moria then for sure it's crap but since decades. I also think that it's very hard to get back and lost some comfort like the automap and sometimes the diary. Otherwise I'm not sure playing oldies should not work. Partially because of the reason you mention forward (imagination), plus that core qualities of gaming aren't lost.

That said I probably have my limits too, I have discovered recently the mass of oldies you can play under DOSBOx and I started replay or play some. I already got shocked by two, Albion and Ultimate Underworld, both aren't that old but still very old if you compare to modern CRPG. I also tried to replay Ultima 7 (I played it only very partially in the past) but for now didn't succeed to solve a problem of speed of the game. But it seems promising if I succeed to solve the problem.

But I also tried quickly Dungeon Master that I also played in the past but much later than it's release and never finished it. Honestly if some historian see it as the real grand father of modern 3D CRPG games more than UUW, my attempt to enter in it totally failed.


In essence, it's nostalgia that dominates, not critical analysis, the looking back at the old computer RPGs.Perhaps but again I'm not sure it's true, I really think some core qualities of gaming was often better in many oldies.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

We played the games in our heads as much as we did on the computer itself. Today, everything is so perfectly rendered we don't need imagination that much, so games tend not to stick in memory so well.

That's why I

- think text-adventures are great for igniting creativity
- prefer P&P
- modern "graphically enhanced" games are a foe of Ctreativity
- therefore people - (especially) younger generations - might end up being less creative in the aspect of imagination than former ones were
- people become too passive in that respect
- this might have some effect on culture in general

TV and games that look like TV movies (well, almost right now), imhop tend to produce rather passivity than creativity. And this - I fear - might have an impact on culture at one point in the future.

Or to put it in other words: We are becoming sheep ...

[Dasale]

Lol Alrik you're tough to see us as a crowd of sheeps! Eventually you are right but I'd like add that I don't think entertainments is the same thing than culture, perhaps a part of it but I don't feel it's the core of gaming. And also art isn't culture nor gaming and gaming isn't art even if very few game had some art embedded.


EDIT : That was running in my head but I couldn't extract it. All I complain about CRPG is linked to the occidental world decadence, our society is firmly leading to women values by opposition to men values. Opposition and confrontation are the core of gaming and are men values but games tends to appealing and entertaining that are more women values. Here is the source of the problem not the sheeps. :biggrin:

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Sorry, but I'm always trying to project *far* into the future.
It's one of my skills, in addition to my "network thinking", and might let sound some of my posts rather weird. ;)

EDIT : That was running in my head but I couldn't extract it. All I complain about CRPG is linked to the occidental world decadence, our society is firmly leading to women values by opposition to men values. Opposition and confrontation are the core of gaming and are men values but games tends to appealing and entertaining that are more women values. Here is the source of the problem not the sheeps. :biggrin:

I believe that it's rather so that men are using games to "proof their manhood", kind of a "test" of what more ancient or "primitive" societies would conduct as a special test for younglings to enter the "adult phase".

I've read a book by WArren Farrwll in the mid-80s, and it heavily influenced me.
He states there that women rather prefer men who are able to "support" them and their children, and therefore men are rather trying to show what they can to impress these women.

I recently read about a scientific study which also says that women prefer men with "might" or "power" and men prefer "good looking women" as partners for reproducing.
This adds to this point of view.

So, I believe - following this "thought school", that men are - as Warren Farrell says - in constant competition - among themselves - to show what a) each one is able to do, and b) show women whio's the best for supporting.

Gaming is in my opinion - following that - just another "play field" or "battle field" of men testing and competing one another.

If this is so, then gaming might a whole different recognition in women, I think. Not as a platform for constant competition, but rather for something else ...

And by the way, Warren Farrell says that women have their own kind of competition, too : How to look good ...

[Dasale]

Sorry, but I'm always trying to project *far* into the future.
It's one of my skills, in addition to my "network thinking", and might let sound some of my posts rather weird. ;) Lol, not a problem, your sheep world vision was clear and easy to understand. :biggrin:

Not much more to add to it so I branch to a shift the lost of men values involving our decadence. I suspect the studies you quote needs some rehash. I've seen other studies showing funny things. In short, the male showing traditional qualities, mainly those you mentioned was highly favorite by women in state of been able to be pregnant (dunno the english word!) but not all by women not in this state that clearly prefer men much more "women like". Funny paradox! Anyway even if there's link I'm not sure the decadence problem is here.

Still in short, there's various explanation, here the one I prefer. The lost of men values involve a lost of the man pattern ie the father pattern which involves a lost of the ability to really learn what is the law and this involves a lost of shared morale values which involves a lost of important mental barrier which involve and will more and more involve for more and more people an instability and difficulties to enter a group. One of the more funny side effect is rise of violence of any kind, I'm not talking about war. It's a funny side effect because this shift of values expect exactly the reverse than what it gets.

Yes I have no arguing about this, that could become complicate and not enough linked to our subject.

I think there's link anyway because, I could be wrong, I see the core of game values and what make games are games (sport is in the same category) is two things :
- Human confrontation in a strict context, but all non mp games don't have this.
- Human confrontation to a series of rules with a goal to reach.

That's all and not entertainment at all, it's just that it's also entertainment because it can keep you busy.

Now if you look at older CRPG and their features that disapear or decrease a lot in modern CRPG: Puzzles, fights, higher difficulty, maps design making you scratch a little your mind. All of that is the core of gaming and is about confronting to problems, not entertainment. Ie men values, and when you look at modern CRPG and which features are better than in oldies you'll get a list of features linked to women values.

Just another hint that we are going to an occidental civilization with women values only. :p

EDIT : That could even explain why Europe seems to take the CRPG market those last years, this old country is nearer to decadence so paradoxically it anticipate better values more and more expected!!!

EDIT 2 : In fact The Witcher catch and symbolize the problem with irony but quite well. Geralt or the withers are tthe only male figures with male values. The figure isn't only tuned into ridiculous but it's also the last one, can't reproduce or eventually through genetic manipulation but even that is lost. Death of man. :-) But not only that, Geralt doubt about choices and where is evil isn't clear anymore, is a funny link to lost of morale values and lost of men values!!

[fatBastard()]

I agree for the luck thing but certainly not for the challenge thing, gaming is a lot about using your brain, without challenge your brain becomes sleepy and the game boring. If you don't want use your brain then watch TV and stop play CRPG... but Oblivion. :p

And that was exactly my point. You obviously play games as you would any kind of sport, as an exercise of sorts. In any kind of exercise you've got to get the blood flowing and sweat a little. In terms of brain exercise you've got to challenge the brain with puzzles or strategy or whatnot.

I'm NOT playing RPG games as a kind of sport. When I play RPGs I seek the same kind of experience I would get from reading a book or watching a movie. I want to hear/read the dialog, I want to experience the story, I want to get to know the characters, I want to be the fly on the wall that was there when the fate of the one/many/world/universe was decided.

It is not that I refuse to play a game that is challenging but when poor game design, be it in-game ability reliance ("You're not a fighter? Well, then you won't be able to beat this boss") or real life reliance ("Come now, all you've got to do is hit these 10 buttons in the correct order within 2.2 seconds") or even precognition ("Come now, you should have realized that all you have to do is combine your Mystery Potion with your Wand of Unidentification in this secret spot at this undisclosed time and you'll unlock the only vulnerable spot in Mega Boss's Shield"), creates artificially difficult scenarios then I lose interest in the game.

If I want a brain challenge then I play games designed for such activity (e.g. Puzzle games).

[Arpyjee]

The important point is that every uniquely individual RPG'er plays each unique RPG in a different style/mode, and gets a uniquely subjective experience OUT of that individualistic approach within the context of the unique RPG.

Therefore, the notion ... "if your opinion of the game is different than mine, then one of us must be wrong", is itself, wrong.

[Dasale]

Yes, it's not a problem of what is better, it's about how different it became. I also agree that my description of what a game is, is restrictive. The old dream of interactive novel, in a way, perhaps some games, eventually some CRPG are going nearer to this goal.

Anyway, fatBastard quote "When I play RPGs I seek the same kind of experience I would get from reading a book or watching a movie." bring me the exact example of what I tried to explain. CRPG are now seen less and less as game but more like novel or movie. Well is it game or movie or novel? At least a puzzle game is a game, eventually CRPG road is to not be anymore games but something else closer to novel or movie.

[Arpyjee]

That's why I

- think text-adventures are great for igniting creativity
- prefer P&P
- modern "graphically enhanced" games are a foe of Ctreativity
- therefore people - (especially) younger generations - might end up being less creative in the aspect of imagination than former ones were
- people become too passive in that respect
- this might have some effect on culture in general

TV and games that look like TV movies (well, almost right now), imhop tend to produce rather passivity than creativity. And this - I fear - might have an impact on culture at one point in the future.

Or to put it in other words: We are becoming sheep ...


Yes, it seems as if the imaginative process is being bypassed in favor of spoon fed, uber-realistic imagery.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a TV dinner in the microwave.

[Lucky Day]

Alrik, are you saying that Women find gamers attractive? The better you are at them the more you become a magnet?

[Squeek]

Let's hold that thought! Take your time with that one, Alrik!

[Ubereil]

Meh, I still won't get any... :brood:

Übereil

[Geist]

CRPG are now seen less and less as game but more like novel or movie. Well is it game or movie or novel?.
Why not all three: An interactive story, augmented by visuals, and interspersed with tactical/analytical challenges.
Sorry to change the subject about gamers being chick magnets and all, I know it's a tantalizing thought:)

[skavenhorde]

What a thought, gamers are chick magnets......ok, holding this thought for as long as possible until reality sets in. Stupid reality will ruin it every time.

[Dasale]

Why not all three: An interactive story, augmented by visuals, and interspersed with tactical/analytical challenges.
Sorry to change the subject about gamers being chick magnets and all, I know it's a tantalizing thought:)Sure all three is the dream, but currently I see attention too much caught by the interactive novel and forgot a bit gaming values. That really hit me because I'm playing some older games and the difference is very big, gameplay was the main focus of older CRPG when now the main focus for CRPG is more interactive novel and simulation.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Alrik, are you saying that Women find gamers attractive? The better you are at them the more you become a magnet?

Not in gaming, but in general. Gaming is only ONE form of competition.

Women - as I see it - have rather a tendency towards socializing than to competition, especially among themselves, I think.

[Corwin]

In my experience, women are just as competitive as men are, but in a different way; perhaps a more subtle way!!

[Dasale]

Is there close link between testosterone and competition? Answer this and you get the answer to your question. :biggrin:

[Alrik Fassbauer]

In my experience, women are just as competitive as men are, but in a different way; perhaps a more subtle way!!

I agree. And: About different things.


Besides, this author has influenced me in the 80s to some extend, because he came to similar conclusions I had developed in the 80s : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell
Edit: I see that someone has heavily reworked this article; a few months ago it looked quite differently (especially longer !) and more objective.

[Jaz]

Alrik, are you saying that Women find gamers attractive? The better you are at them the more you become a magnet?Wishful thinking. Women find nice bodies attractive (you can always put a towel over his head, so there).
If a guy's good at a video game, that just makes him a target for either my envy or my pity (depending on whether I can beat him or not).
:p

[fatBastard()]

Wishful thinking. Women find nice bodies attractive (you can always put a towel over his head, so there).

Ah crap. My toolset have never been released so there goes my chance of having a "Better Body" mod created by the community. :bigcry:

[Jaz]

:rotfl:
Hey, don't cry. Different women like different body types, so who said yours wasn't nice?
Besides, while there may not be a special '()fatbastard' toolset, there is a generally available, universal one - it's called 'plastic surgery'. Unfortunately, it's a) risky and b) expensive and c) can lead to nightmarish results... ;).

[Corwin]

Yeah, just look at Michael Jackson if you can stomach it!!

[blatantninja]

In regards to going back and playing old games, I find it strange. I can go back and play the really old games like Ultima I-V or Legacy of the Ancients that are basically just block grpahics moving around and have no problem getting into them (maybe not as much as when I had an age in single digits!), but when I try to play games that actually try to tried to show more real-life characters, like the Sierra games and Ultima VI onward, I have trouble getting past the graphics! If I push through it, in the end of I'm fine, but at first it's really tough!

[skavenhorde]

but when I try to play games that actually try to tried to show more real-life characters, like the Sierra games and Ultima VI onward, I have trouble getting past the graphics! If I push through it, in the end of I'm fine, but at first it's really tough!

Sierra games were and are brilliant. I have no problem replaying any Space Quest, Quest for Glory or Lesuire Suit Larry Games (gotta love Laffer). I don't really understand how Legacy of the Ancients is no problem but Ultima IV is. Don't get me wrong I love Legacy along with Below the Root, Autoduel and all the great oldies of yesterday. I just don't understand how those are ok but Ultima IV and especially Sierra games are tough to push through. Quest for Glory 1 - 5 will always be one of the greatest series ever made. Space Quest 1 - 6 greatest and Lesuire Suit Larry series are the funniest adventure series ever made. Of course those are all IMO ;)

[blatantninja]

Ultima VI, not Ultima IV. U6 was the first one that went from the block characters to the 3d isometric view.

[skavenhorde]

:lol:Ahhh I see my misunderstanding...But still agree with what I said earlier. If you had said Ultima VII then I would agree wholeheartily with you. I didn't like U VII - IX at all compared to the originals. The thing that bugged me the most about UVII was real time combat. It made my mage playing avatar quite useless or you had to click around so fast and then hope you get the spell off before the baddies come rushing towards you...

Yes... I do believe we are on the same page with our way of thinking about when CRPG started focusing less on what made Ultima 1 - 6 absoluetly the best and started down that road of trying to make it real in Ultima 7(you say it's ultima 6 that started that but LB didn't get rid of TB combat till U7 and when he did, it was the only Ultima game that I couldn't finish.) I didn't mind the schedules. I liked the ability to make bread and sell it. I liked that everyone had a life (time to go to work, time to go to the pub, time to go to sleep) but the combat oooohhhh the combat is where I will never forgive LB for messing up so bad. I know there are a lot of U7 lovers out there and will probably be recieving hatemail ;) but the style of combat changed so much from Ultima 6 to 7 that it just wasn't the same ultima for me anymore.
As for the seirra games though... I still stand by my earlier report in that they were and are the best. If you haven't tried Quest for Glory 2 in awhile. I say give it another try it may surprise you in how much it makes you think about the problems that need to be solved.

In any case sorry about the misunderstanding:biggrin:

[blatantninja]

No worries. I remember disliking the combat in U7 as well, but the story was so awesome that I just didn't care! I also disliked that basically the Avatar was the only one that could do magic at all.

When I say that U6 started more to attempt to be more 'real,' I mean the graphics, not the combat. I don't seem to have a problem playing the first five and imagining what it really looks like, but with the later ones, the portraits, the sprites, etc. just look so rudimentary that I have a hard time making the same jump, though they were breath taking at the time.

I guess what it comes down to is that when I think back to the first 5, I remember the blocky characters and 4 colored world, so I get what I expect. When I think back to anything with a sense of realism, I remember it looking so much better than it did, so I end up disappointed at first! Damn tricky memory!

I liked U6 to an extent. Good premise, huge step towards what we think of today as modern games yet enough of the old school to keep me happy. One problem I had was that my brother and I quickly figured out how to about 50% through the game due to a plot problem. The thing was, we didn't realize we'd done it until it was too late! I did later go back an play it through without cheating but it wasn't the same thing as experiencing a truly epic event the first time.

That said, I enjoyed the two offshoots using the same engine much more!

[Corwin]

Well, wait for the U6 Project to be released late next year. Be sure to check out the Milestone 4 release when it comes to a download near you very soon; the game is progressing well!!

[skavenhorde]

Well, wait for the U6 Project to be released late next year. Be sure to check out the Milestone 4 release when it comes to a download near you very soon; the game is progressing well!!

I'm glad that some of the ultima projects that were started are being finished. When you guys were back at the dot it seemed that everyone was making an Ultima mod with Dungeon Siege or Morrowind or with their own engine, but many of them fell apart halfway through. It's nice to see that some people didn't get bored and give up. Especially U5 Lazarus, I couldn't believe the things he did with the Dungeon Siege engine.

[blatantninja]

I played a bit through milestone 3. Very impressive. I'd love to contribute to it, but my current work and other constraints have made that impossible so far.

[Corwin]

I'm currently playing a pre-release of milestone 4 and there's been a few nice improvements. As they're building on the groundbreaking work of the Lazarus team, this game should be even better!!