Matt's Top Ten Worst CRPGs @ Armchair Empire

Matt Barton has followed up his last list with his Top Ten Worst CRPGs. It's a personal list but I'm going to take this snip because I disagree:

#6. Alpha Protocol. Chris Avellone, what have you done? How could the same guy who gave us Planescape: Torment produce a flop like this, particularly when the premise (an "espionage RPG") sounds so fascinating? Just hearing that phrase alone makes me want to buy it. But, yeah, we just got another mess with more bugs than a public lavatory without any soap left. Like Dungeon Siege 3, I'm kinda reminded of a bunch of frat guys trying to bake a cake. But they didn't plan well, and now they're out of time, so they turn up the oven to broil thinking it'll turn out just as great in half the time. What really makes this game so galling is that you can't help but see that it could have--should have--been so much better. Perhaps the "alpha" in the title is a not so subtle clue?

Click to expand...

While we're doing lists, Jay Barnson has some Guilty Pleasure RPGs.
More information.

Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world who didn't have one bug issue in Alpha Protocol. I honestly thing people mistake rough edges and general lack of production values for "bugs."

In any case, the rest of the list seems roughly accurate, though a lot of them were before my time. I watched a Let's Play of Lands of Lore 3 and it looked terrible.

It's funny, I think I may be the only person on the Watch who thought Alpha Protocol was pretty crappy. Everyone else seems to refer to it as an "underdog" that's underappreciated

Oh, and I fully agree with his list except for his number 2. I think U9 is a very good game underneath the messy technical state and the unfortunate move towards mainstream concessions.

I disagree with both #1 and #2.

I would never claim that Ruins of Myth Drannor is a good game, but I think there are plenty of worse games out there.

Of course I realize that it's just his personal list. He's obviously going to be strongly biased seeing as how the original Pool of Radiance was his favorite crpg of all time.

I'm with you Dhruin on Alpha Protocol - it is one of those games that makes me think 'if THIS is on your top 10 worst, you haven't played many RPGs!'. I'm not saying it is great, but it is certainly better than, say, Loki. Also, Dungeon Siege III is another 'recent annoyance' that would never make the list in even 5 years. Mediocre, sure, but not that terrible.

And Dungeon Lords could easily supplant a bunch of games on the list!

JDR13 said:

He's obviously going to be strongly biased seeing as how the original Pool of Radiance was his favorite crpg of all time.

Click to expand...

And how PoR:RoMD could erase your hard drive ...

I love the irony of it potentially erasing your drive if you UNINSTALL it

I'm another that had a merry old time with Alpha Protocol and didn't encounter any bugs at all. Whilst it was obviously flawed and lacking in polish (the AI was often rather weak it must be said) I liked the writing and choices enough to finish it at least twice. A strange selection in some ways.

Have to agree on Lands of Lore II - I've tried at least twice over the years, but just couldn't come to grips with the changes in gameplay style compared to the great first game. The FMV sequences were plenty painful as well. Any Watchers care to comment on the differences between II and III and which is the more playable? I've got a boxed version of III which I bought years ago, but never got around to testing it.

Heroes of the Lance - I remember getting this on my C64 years ago and excitedly booting it up, hoping for a fabulous adventure with my companion buddies from Krynn. Imagine my horror when I saw the type of game that it was, a bizarre platformer action game. Matt's got this one spot on. Despite that, I tried hard to finish it, but never did.

I've mellowed somewhat over the years, but if you'd asked me when I first played it exactly what I thought about Ruins of Myth Drannor, the answer would be full of expletive based adjectives. So in a way I empathise with Matt for selecting it, but on the other hand - as my thread on the 'Watch recently will attest to, (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13001) it's amazing how the genuine lack of modern turn based combat in cRPGs will open your mind up to how much mediocrity you're willing to tolerate.
In short, I'm glad I finally beat it, but I wouldn't impose the experience upon someone else who had strong memories of the original game.

Pessimeister said:

Have to agree on Lands of Lore II - I've tried at least twice over the years, but just couldn't come to grips with the changes in gameplay style compared to the great first game. The FMV sequences were plenty painful as well. Any Watchers care to comment on the differences between II and III and which is the more playable? I've got a boxed version of III which I bought years ago, but never got around to testing it.

Click to expand...

Well, I loved Lands of Lore 2 for its story. It had some pretty great sequences and though the gameplay was sort of quirky and streamlined - it was still a VERY worthwhile experience. The original Lands of Lore was already pretty streamlined from Eye of the Beholder (same team behind it) - but the story makes all the difference.

I'm not sure it would hold up today. In fact, I'm pretty sure it won't. But for its time, it had amazing production values - and in particular the music was strong. If you ever get to "City of the Ancients" - you'll now what I mean

Land of Lore 3 is a total and complete piece of shit in comparison. I bought it back when I had almost no money, and I remember actually giving it away on the same day. It was just a horrible game overall. But you might not appreciate that, if you look at the gameplay - which I remember being somewhat the same. It's more the matter of story/tone/setting - which was more like a joke than anything else.

LoL2 had great locations - with several huge and fantastic dungeons to explore. At least, that's how I remember it.

Definitely worth a try on a rainy day with nothing else to do.

Heroes of the Lance - I remember getting this on my C64 years ago and excitedly booting it up, hoping for a fabulous adventure with my companion buddies from Krynn. Imagine my horror when I saw the type of game that it was, a bizarre platformer action game. Matt's got this one spot on. Despite that, I tried hard to finish it, but never did.

Click to expand...

Well, I got my hands on the Amiga version right around the time when I was first reading the books. The music alone was enough to move my little teenage heart

The actual game might have been a joke, but I spent hours playing it - just because it had to do with my beloved characters. That said, I only liked Chronicles - but I loved Legends.

Perhaps Forsaken Gods do not even qualify as a serious contender.

There certainly are some poor games on his list.
Personally I really liked Alpha Protocol. Considering how little time I have for games I went through it in a few weeks.
Lands of Lore 2 was perhaps one of my biggest disappointments. I loved the first one but absolutely hated the second one, never bothered with part 3. Perhaps it just got released at a bad time where gaming was moving into the 3D realm. It looked terrible and the protagonist was just a complete moron. Not even the Glide patch made things much better.
Even though they are in my collection I've never really spend much time with Ultima IX and PoR:RoMD.
I do remember Heroes of the Lance but calling it a RPG is stretching it a bit, I think.

The reasoning for most of the choices is rather poor.
He also forgot to repeat the "Chris Avellone, what have you done?" line in the Descent to Undermountain entry .

And Alpha Protocol rulez of course.

Really like Alpha Protocol, I'm not sure there is another game that has so many choices and consequences. It's so good I'm gonna install it and play it again, just becasue he brought it up. Steve (don't call me that) where are you?

Don't worry about me, I have enough drugs in my anus to make a small country go high.

Click to expand...

The ONLY people who could possibly like Lore 3 is someone who really liked Lore 2. They are tied together and Lore 3 provides some sense of closure/ending. The style is the same in Lore 3. I really liked Lore 2 for it's technical achievements at the time. The first sweeping landscape scene was breathtaking view of being flown into the castle dungeon. Afaik their use of cutscenes was the start of modern RPG using them in gameplay and dialog.

Edit: Damn wish I could find that Tom Chick list of 10 reasons why Alpha Protocol is better than ME2.

Huh, they made Ultima IX?

*checks list*

Oh, crap, it's just "Ascension" ... *continues to wait for a real Ultima IX*

There are games that are bad, then there are games that you benefit from a degree in Sociology or at least a mountain of background information to explain. Ruins of Myth Drannor is a such game. When one knows it's history it can be explained and you may even appreciate how consistent and solid the game is considering it's history.

Gothic 3: Forsaken Gods is harder. If you visit Gamerankings, search for PC RPG worst-to-best and at least one review it have 12 games with worse average scores, but "Gothic" is probably the most recognizeable brand for RPG fans.

Now Forsaken Gods shouldn't be confused with Gothic 3. With it's fanpatches G3 is one of the most enjoyable RPG's out there. Vanilla Gothic 3 however was pushed out of the door early, with reviewers tearing it to pieces (Gothic 3 was one buggy hombre). This caused a major fight between JoWood and Piranha Bytes with a split between the two. PB later made Risen. Forsaken Gods is a standalone expansion/sequel that was outsourced to Spellbound.

FG is built on top of G3 in a fashion unlike anything else seen before or since. Basically they opened up G3 and begin to wildly delete the old game and place a new story in the same game. Despite "delete-patches" that simply delete stuff that shouldn't remain in-game, a lot of artifacts from G3 still remains in FG which makes no sense. For example, a G3 temple overrun by undead with dead guards, blood and gore everywhere is in FG refit as a prison, giving no clue why the blood, gore and spooky music still remains in the game. The prison guards just stand there like it was the most natural thing to do.

They also cropped both the northern and southern landscape, leaving only the middle, adding nothing. Finally they destroyed the trilogy, seriously screwing up several beloved NPC's from former titles and the great ending in G3. The quests are poor, there are numerous gamestopping bugs that must be fixed with the console, the humor is embarrasing and unfunny and there are a few "crazy men" too many.

I recommend people to download this game. It will make you reconsider what you call "bad".

U9 may be beautiful but let's not forget it was unpossible to play when it was released - literally. It took the second patch, and likely a Voodoo Card, to make it work at all - but there was still some major problems: mainly the memory leaks. It is notorious for being the first game where the forums were reset because of user negativity (today publishers of bad games moderate all complaints to a single thread).

PoR, aside from being boring, simply destroyed your operate system.

Wish I could say yay or nay to Alpha Protocol but I don't play M rated games. I think maybe he felt he had to put something newer on this list - does DA2 fit there? If this list were a few years older would he replace AP with KotOR2, FO3, ToEE, Arcanum, Lionheart, or NWN?

IMO the Gold Box games are way over rated - I always thot SSI games were ugly and tedious and it hurt D&D brand, but it least it opened the way for new computer users to see how a real RPG should be made (Wizardry, Ultima, Bard's Tale and Might and Magic).

Leave Alpha Protocol alone !

Not that I would want to discourage discussion, but aren't some of you kinda missing the point of this list. It's just a little piece of entertainment - and he's very obviously not trying to be all that objective. Seems to me he's just pouring his thoughts about these games out on a page for people to be amused by.

I get that we don't agree, really, but personally - I think pointing out his list as "wrong" is an overreaction.

Oh well, to each his own.

Is the issue of Pool of Radiance messing up your OS when uninstalling true or just BS? If true, which OS's?