Bottom 10 CRPGs Of All Time

Evil, I think you just misunderstood it. I know Ultima Online was a drastic change in the ultima playstyle. But now the shopkeepers sell alot more than tricorne hats. You're combat skill was probably just low, which is why you couldn't slay the bunny, and the bandwith is alot better. Sure there are pk's, but that's what makes it more intense. I play on the Siege Perilous shard, where if you get killed, everything that you have equipped or are carrying can be taken away. As a result, everytime you go into pvp, my adrenaline goes up because if I die, I stand to lose a lot. It's just more intense.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
93
I see what you are saying. If sound and such really helps that much for you, you'd definitely be lacking in the earlier Ultima's! As much as I despise U9, I will agree that the sound effects and graphics (for the time) were amazing. I've never seen a sunset rendered so beautifully, before or since.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,356
Location
Austin, TX
Evil, I think you just misunderstood it. I know Ultima Online was a drastic change in the ultima playstyle. But now the shopkeepers sell alot more than tricorne hats. You're combat skill was probably just low, which is why you couldn't slay the bunny, and the bandwith is alot better. Sure there are pk's, but that's what makes it more intense. I play on the Siege Perilous shard, where if you get killed, everything that you have equipped or are carrying can be taken away. As a result, everytime you go into pvp, my adrenaline goes up because if I die, I stand to lose a lot. It's just more intense.

I think he was referring to the early days. I can completely agree with what he is saying about his frustrations with the game, i felt many of them myself. I almost got back into it a few years ago, but I found that to do anything remotely cool, you had to join a guild, and to join a guild, you had to do certain tasks before and during, which were often monotonous and it began to feel more like work than fun.

Now maybe they've fixed that, but my idea of Ultima online (or any other MMO) was login, go to some central location, see what was going on, then go quest. If I hook up with some new people great, if I see other people I know great, but I don't want to ever feel like I have to log in and do stuff or I won't get to do cool stuff later.


I think if I could design my ultimate MMO, you'd have your own quests, which you could do on your own, or have friends/hired guns go with you to help, and the outcome of your quest would both affect the world an be effected by how the other players completed their quests as well. I'd design specific way points where every couple months or so, depending on the cumulative choices of the quests undertaken, something major would change in the world, and a new group of quests/areas became available. And if I wanted to not play for a month or two, it wouldn't affect my character, other than the outcomes of his quests.

Now, I'm not trying to say I know better than what the current designer are doing, or even if what I say is possible (Maybe there are current ones like that, I just don't play them anymore), just that that would appeal to me.


I got very excited reading about Eve Online, but then when I read about the guilds and how one guild literally took a year in planning some attack on another guild, I got really turned off. Sure maybe I could play the game, but would I really get to experience the cool parts of the game if I wasn't going to put the time required to be a member of one of these guilds?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,356
Location
Austin, TX
I think if I could design my ultimate MMO, you'd have your own quests, which you could do on your own, or have friends/hired guns go with you to help, and the outcome of your quest would both affect the world an be effected by how the other players completed their quests as well.

Have you played guild wars? Its the best solo mmo out there. Som of its quests are even better than in standard single player crpgs. It has a central story, characters and the world does change around you. Also you can quest with NPCs so you dont need other players at all if you so wish.

The game even has printed manuals which describe the world, its history and its characters ultima style.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
I never even considered Guild Wars simply because with the name, I figured it was even worse than UO in terms of Guilds!
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,356
Location
Austin, TX
I never even considered Guild Wars simply because with the name, I figured it was even worse than UO in terms of Guilds!

Actually the name is a bit misleading. You dont have to join any guild or play any pvp to enjoy the game. The grind is non-existant too. You get most of your exp from quests.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Sweet! Maybe I'll check it out.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,356
Location
Austin, TX
Sweet! Maybe I'll check it out.

The game has 4 campaigns divided into 3 games and one addon (thers a set that includes them all iirc). Nightfall campaign is the highlight of the entire game (story/questvice):

But if an immersive story is your thing, you're in luck: that's where Nightfall really shines. A series of quests leads you from one chapter to the next, and from one end of the continent of Elona to the other. >From repelling a pirate invasion to defeating the avatars of a dark god, it's up to you to save the whole world from a terrible enemy. No pressure.

As you move through the quests, you'll meet other heroes of the story. But they aren't other players. Heroes are computer-controlled party members you outfit, manage and direct in battle. You pick their equipment, skills and attributes. In battle, you use a simple set of commands: go there, be aggressive or defend, focus on that target. Then the AI takes over to carry out your orders.

At first, Heroes look a lot like the henchmen who have been part of Guild Wars since the beginning. But they change how the game is played. You lead your Heroes like troops in a squad-based shooter. You can tune your Heroes to fight well as a unit by choosing the right skills and attributes for each. And you can form a full, reliable group of eight with just two players and three Heroes each.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/pc/guild-wars-nightfall/review-491733
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind and Oblivion - For continuing ruination of good content RPGs. God, please, no more level scaling. How can people like this? But this would make lots of people's top ten list... so... case in point? I didn't play the other two, not sure if they are set up the same way.
Morrowind had level scaling??

Daggerfall and Oblivion certainly did, but lack of level scaling was one of the things I didn't like about Morrowind.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,877
Hmm, I don't really know how to do such a list without being unfair to a lot of games. First, I don't know any of the old titles. Second, I guess that I'm more of a "casual gamer", but not in the sense that I only play a few hours once in a while: Every half a year or so, I try new games, and sometimes, I like them that much that I spend weeks or months with them. But I have lots of unfinished games or games where I only tried the start. I guess I could put the unfinished ones into the "disappointed" bin, whereas the once I completely abandoned from the start into the "bad" one, but "bad" mostly means that the games didn't grab me at all.

The "Stillborn":

Wizardry Gold: Didn't do it for me. I don't really know whether I can play these old classics. Especially in this case, I doubt it.

Wizardry 8: This is the reason why I doubt it. You fight, and fight, and fight, and fight... I heard there may be some story somewhere, but I didn't see it in the beginning.

Might & Magic 8: I started the game and played a while, but then I decided that it was more of the M&M6 or M&M7 gameplay, just weirder, more unbalanced and disjointed.

Might & Magic 9: This was even a shorter glimpse. I might have a look again whether i was just fed up, but I guess I just don't like it.

Diablo: Click, click, click...

Gothic: Who are you, and what did you do to my mouse? You have to consult the manual in order to find out how to pick something up. Yes, it's the usual complaint about the interface. Sue me.

Gothic2: see above.

Arcanum: I don't see colors well. It doesn't help when they all look the same (to me at least).

Temple of Elemental Evil: I found the interface slightly complicated, and I encountered one nasty bug early on. I might go back to this one day.

Icewind Dale 2: Not sure, but it was too similar to the first one for me, right at the beginning.

Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor:
Good grief! Who thought this was a good idea? The beginning was incredibly tiresome and boring, and the combat drove me nuts. *shudder*

Dungeon Lords:: Cute how those enemies slide down the hill slope. And cute mixes. Eh...

Eh, yes. I assure you, there _are_ CRPGs I liked and finished ;). But here come the unfinished ones:

Those that overstayed their welcome:

Neverwinter Nights:
Original campaign. Although I forced myself to finish it in order to be able to play the extensions, which were supposedly better, and which I didn't finish ;). The game felt like a catalog of the monsters available in the editor, and the enjoyment was on the level of reading a telephone book, especially later on.

Neverwinter Nights 2:
This was actually much better in the beginning than the first game, although the story was terribly contrived and felt like someone rummaged deep through the crate with the Bioware props. When, after several hours of cutscene/fight/cutscene/fight/cutscene/fight/etc. my party died, I didn't touch the game anymore. I didn't want to repeat the whole tiresome experience once again. Although I guess I wasn't far from the end, anyway.

TES IV: Oblivion: God, was this one pretty. And boring. And who thought of this idiotic level scaling system? I thought that, after a break, I might enjoy the game again. I went back to it half a year later, but after 20 minutes, I shelved it. It didn't help that I absolutely hated the main campaign.

Hmm. OK. I guess I should add one honorable mention of a game I actually finished:

Dungeon Siege: Yes, I finished this one. Somehow. I don't remember anything past the part that was already in the demo, except some hazy stuff of scorpion people and some underground cave, but I don't remember the end. Or the end boss. I guess I only finished it because I liked the music. The whole rest was utterly forgettable.

Oops, that was more than 10. What am I doing on this forum :D;)?
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
804
Location
Austria
A few more:

Descent to the Undermountain- just terrible, nothing was right

Pool of Radiance 2, Ruins...- boring, and sooo slow (plus cheating AI)

Daggerfall- because of the bugs, bugs, bugs. Tried twice, run in gamestopping bug both times. And random generated dungeons, the automap...

Thunderscape- Uninspired. And again a terrible automap

Spelljammer- tried several times, stopped by bugs

Knights of Legend- Long, hard, boring combat. Unfair leveling system. Was supposed to be the first part of a series that never appeared. So you got stuck on very low levels.

Disiples of steel- Tried to blend strategy with rpg (combat similar to the gold-box-series) and failed. Again, gamestopping bugs.

Lionhart-Could have been good, wasted potential

Alternate Reality- While not a bad game by itself, it was the first part of a series that was never made. So it left you 'hanging in the air', especially for those Amiga- and PC-User who did not even see the second part (realesed for C-64 and ???).

Space left open

By the way...I think level scaling was in every Elder Scrolls game??
If I remember correctliy it was in Arena, too.
 
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
9
TOEE has the far best in-game help system I've ever encountered.
I'm still impressed, even now.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,997
Location
Old Europe
TOEE has the far best in-game help system I've ever encountered.
I'm still impressed, even now.

ToEE truly broke my heart. The prerendered backgrounds were beautiful, it was based on an old-school D&D module I never got to play way back in the 80's, and it was made by Tim Cain in which the dialogues would be like Fallout (choices and consequences, dialogue based on stats). I absolutely loved the notion of party alignment and the beginning vignettes (I don't remember any other CRPGs with those features). This shold have been as good as Fallout.

Alas, it fell way short. The quests were tedious in town and clearly unfinished. There was such potential for Hommlet. And unfortunately, the vignettes fell a bit short too. Some were just plain silly. Then there were the bugs. I got tired of the game and opted to take the first ending I could. I never encountered the big boss at the end. I wound up joining the cult and the game ended. I was so frustrated by that time I didn't bother to go back and choose another dialogue option that would keep my party playing.

I know there have been fan fixes and added content, but there have been mixed reviews on what this does for the game.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
491
Morrowind had level scaling??

Daggerfall and Oblivion certainly did, but lack of level scaling was one of the things I didn't like about Morrowind.

It had level scaling using levelled monster lists. Depending on the dungeon or the area you encountered random monsters of anything from level 1 to your current level, with a local cap for the location. The grazelands is the most obvious example, where you start off facing rats and later mainly run into golden saints and high level daedra. The starting area around Seyda Neen on the other hand has such a low max level that you wont run into anything heavier than netches and blighted cliff racers. Some dungeons and named enemies were exempt, and I imagine some places had relatively nasty "lowest level" critters.

Most enemy types werent scaled though. A netch would for instance always have the same stats, regardless of your level when you encounter it.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
Most enemy types werent scaled though. A netch would for instance always have the same stats, regardless of your level when you encounter it.
But those netches were non-aggressive, anyway, so I'm not sure they count. The first kagouti was a surprise, though.

Daedra ruins were not a good idea for low level characters.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
804
Location
Austria
Daedra ruins were not a good idea for low level characters.

True, but even they were scaled. Scamps were replaced by nastier critters as you increased in level.

Anything with Samurai-looking armour was bad news for the inexperienced adventurer though, and maybe that's what you are thinking of as those guys hang out at some daedric sites? :)
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
Hmm, I don't think I went to a ruin at very low level. But you are right, there might have been some mages or other shady people outside of the ruins that kept me from going there. And later, hungers were a problem for my inept character. I admit that much of the "problems" I had early on came from my inadequate character choice. But it turned out well with regard to my appreciation of the game :).
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
804
Location
Austria
Heh, was reading this and wondering why no one mentioned Gothic 4... it hadn't been released yet! :rolleyes:

I was thinking of adding a little "Hall of Shame" in my book, something to warn people and point out their flaws. Here's my current list:

Arcania: Gothic 4
Ultima IX: Ascension
Might & Magic IX
Dungeon Lords
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Descent to Undermountain
Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor
Lands of Lore 3
Dragon Age 2
Lionheart : Legacy of the Crusader

What you guys think?
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
201
What you guys think?
Dungeon Lords is actually pretty fun. It's like a film that's so bad it's good. Invisible War wasn't so bad either just in comparison to the previous game in the series. Other than that it looks fine.

I'd add FallOut 3. Not because how disappointing it was after FallOut2 but because it was genuinely bad on its own and critics and consumers alike slurped that shit up like it was crystal meth.
 
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
123
F3 is just mediocre, and becomes somewhat decent with mods.

Also I'll have a very hard time explaining why I placed a game that won tons of "10/10" and even a "game of the decade" award on a Hall of Shame.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
201
Back
Top Bottom