View Single Post

Default 

December 8th, 2012, 06:47
To make this clear: I'm not a rabid old school fan who wants everything to look like in the late 90's. I loved BG and BG II, and Morrowind is also one of my favorite games. They are all pretty easy games, and Morrowind has lots of warts (also in the "lack of consequences" department), but they still had at least some gaming elements and worlds that had some thought behind them. I wouldn't mind games of this kind with pretty graphics. It's just that nobody has the money for it.
By the way, it's good that you are not a rabid old school fan. But when you say that you like "some game in your game", and "worlds that had some thought behind them" and "consequences" you are comparing Morrowind and Baldur's Gate to what? Because, no matter what the label tells us, Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1 & 2 and most so called "old school RPGs" have little with common with RPGs. They are, in fact, more closely related to strategy games. Not so? Well, they have isometric view, for a better strategic approach to combat and better view of the battlefield/ dungeon. Check. They are mostly turn based, an archaic method of time control, still used by some strategy games. Check. They usually have parties of characters, and not just one character, or one character plus one or two followers - never send a man to do a squads job, like in any strategy game. Check. The are third person… Hmmm, well, OK, that's not a strategy-only thing, but that kind of isometric third person perspective looks a lot like Stracraft and X-Com which are… Strategy games. Check.
So old school games have well thought worlds, have "some game in their game" and lots of consequence? Well, it's nice when strategy games have a well thought world, and of course they are true games, not interactive movies, they are strategy games, after all. And there are consequences, of course, you win or you loose (which is not a role playing thing, this wining or loosing bit).
I'm not trying to sell you anything, but most point-and-click adventure games have more of a RPG feeling to them than your average "old school role playing game". That's why "old school" aren't really role playing games. Just as playing D&D in pen and paper form. Most of the time D&D gamers are practicing their arithmetic and map making skills, while making tactical decisions about their party of characters, while they are supposedly role playing. Just supposedly… As in the "old school" kind of games, where the tactical aspect, and the win or loose kind of mentality rules. That's why most non-professional reviews (and some of the professional too) are focused on that nostalgic "where are all the difficult games gone?" kind of discourse. And the usual speech that consists of "I hate all this modern games that have objective pointers, and maps with markers" and "Devs are always dumbing down the games for kids to buy them". I frankly don't give a damn about difficult games, but if I did I would turn up the difficulty of the game. I play for the story and the immersion, not to feel bright for beating the computer or clever for wining the game. Role playing games aren't about difficulty, although there has to be goals with a certain amount of difficulty, else the game gets boring easily, and they aren't about tactical maneuvers, wining or loosing, they are about playing a character, immersing in a world and having fun doing it. Saving and reloading all the time because we are trying to beat the PC in a tactical win or loose situation is a chore, not fun.
MigRib is offline

MigRib

Watchdog

#13

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 136