skavenhorde
Little BRO Rat
Dhruin mentioned in a previous newsbit that we don't cover CRPG Addict's blog as much as we should. I agree completely. I've enjoyed his blogs immensely. So I'm going to be playing catch-up and list all of the games he has played up until this point. This will be the first part in a series of newsbits to catalog all of the games he has played. It would be impractical to list them all in one newsbit.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with CRPG Addict, here is an introduction to his blog and here are his self-imposed rules:
Basically he is attempting to play every RPG ever made for the PC. He is using various lists to play them all in order from when they were published.
He hasn't always succeeded in playing them in order and has modified his rules a few times to include other lists (he started out only using Wiki's PC RPG list) and he later included text-based rpgs, but mostly CRPG Addict has succeeded in playing them in order.
I will include his thoughts about the games he's played and try to keep them mostly spoiler free. Now onto the games:
Aklebeth - I played Akalabeth more than four months ago now (the idea of a blog not having occurred to me back then), and I was surprised by how quick it went. There really isn't much to it; it's more of a demonstration project than a game. After you create your initial character and buy a few supplies (your weapons are limited to a rapier, an axe, a bow, and a magic amulet), you head over to Lord British's castle to get your first monster-killing quest, and then start plumbing the dungeons.
Rogue - The end result is that although the game would probably take only a few hours to complete if you could constantly save and reload, it took me four months to complete playing it "fair." And let's be clear: for three months and 28 days of those four months, I was playing with different characters than the one that ultimately won the game. Most of the time it takes to win Rogue involves playing, dying, screaming, and restarting at Level 1.
Temple of Apshai - Verdict: an interesting early dungeon crawl, pretty cool for its time, but without enough story or lore to tempt modern gamers.
Ultima I - Verdict: Should you play Ultima I? Absolutely, without question, if you intend to play any of the later Ultima games. It introduces you to the lore of the land and the basic mythology of what will become Britannia. The dungeon crawls are fun and the space stuff is silly but inoffensive. Finally, as you've seen, it takes a mere few hours to win.
Wizardry I - As a landmark in the history of CRPGs, it was fun and interesting to play. I'm not sorry I did. But neither am I sorry I played it only once.
Telengard - Telengard isn't really a game you play for a long time, since there's no way to "win." Instead, it's a game you blow an hour or two on here or there, perhaps competing for highest score or fastest leveling with a friend. The manual actually encourages this with several suggestions for "multi-player" games: "see which player can advance his character to the highest experience level in a given time period"; "see who can map the most dungeon spaces of a given dungeon level" (this is followed by the helpful suggestion to "use graph paper").
Ultima II - Even if you're an Ultima fan—hell, especially if you're an Ultima fan—I encourage you not to play this game. I've played many games with boring gameplay and many games with idiotic plots. It is a rare to find one that combines both.
Ultima III - My first impressions of Ultima III: Exodus are that it redeems Ultima II. It feels like a real game instead of Richard Garriott screwing around. It (at least so far) keeps the game grounded in more standard fantasy conventions without involving light swords and rocketships. Combat is more tactical and interesting (if longer), equipment and items are more varied, the magic system is more sophisticated, dungeons have a reason to exist, and the overall gameplay, to me, is a lot more satisfying.
Alternate Reality: The City - So what, in God's name, is going on in this game? What does this medieval setting have to do with aliens? Why is everyone trying to kill me? What is the goal of the game?
It turns out that the City was the first in a planned six-game series, but only the City and the Dungeon ever got made. There is no way to "win" Alternate Reality: the City, and the only reason to play really is to build up your character for the Dungeon, which never received a DOS port and thus isn't on my list. Life's too short to play just to mess around. Next game.
Autoduel - My six hours is up, and I'm tossing in the towel. I know I'm opening myself up to accusations of half-assing two games in a row, but Autoduel was about the least fun I've ever had with a CRPG—and to be honest, I'd debate applying that label to this game. In any event, I can't find any evidence that there's a main quest or a way to "win" Autoduel, so all it's doing is keeping me from The Bard's Tale.
I'm stopping here for today and will continue tomorrow starting with The Bard's Tale.
From this point forward CRPG Addict has implemented his own rating system for CRPGs. He calls it the GIMLET (Game Innovation, Merriment, Likability and Engagement Test). It's one of the only scoring system that makes any kind of sense to me. It still is highly subjective, but it beats the pants off of a numeric score based on a whim or with little to no feedback from a reviewer on how they rate the games they play.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with CRPG Addict, here is an introduction to his blog and here are his self-imposed rules:
Basically he is attempting to play every RPG ever made for the PC. He is using various lists to play them all in order from when they were published.
He hasn't always succeeded in playing them in order and has modified his rules a few times to include other lists (he started out only using Wiki's PC RPG list) and he later included text-based rpgs, but mostly CRPG Addict has succeeded in playing them in order.
I will include his thoughts about the games he's played and try to keep them mostly spoiler free. Now onto the games:
Aklebeth - I played Akalabeth more than four months ago now (the idea of a blog not having occurred to me back then), and I was surprised by how quick it went. There really isn't much to it; it's more of a demonstration project than a game. After you create your initial character and buy a few supplies (your weapons are limited to a rapier, an axe, a bow, and a magic amulet), you head over to Lord British's castle to get your first monster-killing quest, and then start plumbing the dungeons.
Rogue - The end result is that although the game would probably take only a few hours to complete if you could constantly save and reload, it took me four months to complete playing it "fair." And let's be clear: for three months and 28 days of those four months, I was playing with different characters than the one that ultimately won the game. Most of the time it takes to win Rogue involves playing, dying, screaming, and restarting at Level 1.
Temple of Apshai - Verdict: an interesting early dungeon crawl, pretty cool for its time, but without enough story or lore to tempt modern gamers.
Ultima I - Verdict: Should you play Ultima I? Absolutely, without question, if you intend to play any of the later Ultima games. It introduces you to the lore of the land and the basic mythology of what will become Britannia. The dungeon crawls are fun and the space stuff is silly but inoffensive. Finally, as you've seen, it takes a mere few hours to win.
Wizardry I - As a landmark in the history of CRPGs, it was fun and interesting to play. I'm not sorry I did. But neither am I sorry I played it only once.
Telengard - Telengard isn't really a game you play for a long time, since there's no way to "win." Instead, it's a game you blow an hour or two on here or there, perhaps competing for highest score or fastest leveling with a friend. The manual actually encourages this with several suggestions for "multi-player" games: "see which player can advance his character to the highest experience level in a given time period"; "see who can map the most dungeon spaces of a given dungeon level" (this is followed by the helpful suggestion to "use graph paper").
Ultima II - Even if you're an Ultima fan—hell, especially if you're an Ultima fan—I encourage you not to play this game. I've played many games with boring gameplay and many games with idiotic plots. It is a rare to find one that combines both.
Ultima III - My first impressions of Ultima III: Exodus are that it redeems Ultima II. It feels like a real game instead of Richard Garriott screwing around. It (at least so far) keeps the game grounded in more standard fantasy conventions without involving light swords and rocketships. Combat is more tactical and interesting (if longer), equipment and items are more varied, the magic system is more sophisticated, dungeons have a reason to exist, and the overall gameplay, to me, is a lot more satisfying.
Alternate Reality: The City - So what, in God's name, is going on in this game? What does this medieval setting have to do with aliens? Why is everyone trying to kill me? What is the goal of the game?
It turns out that the City was the first in a planned six-game series, but only the City and the Dungeon ever got made. There is no way to "win" Alternate Reality: the City, and the only reason to play really is to build up your character for the Dungeon, which never received a DOS port and thus isn't on my list. Life's too short to play just to mess around. Next game.
Autoduel - My six hours is up, and I'm tossing in the towel. I know I'm opening myself up to accusations of half-assing two games in a row, but Autoduel was about the least fun I've ever had with a CRPG—and to be honest, I'd debate applying that label to this game. In any event, I can't find any evidence that there's a main quest or a way to "win" Autoduel, so all it's doing is keeping me from The Bard's Tale.
I'm stopping here for today and will continue tomorrow starting with The Bard's Tale.
From this point forward CRPG Addict has implemented his own rating system for CRPGs. He calls it the GIMLET (Game Innovation, Merriment, Likability and Engagement Test). It's one of the only scoring system that makes any kind of sense to me. It still is highly subjective, but it beats the pants off of a numeric score based on a whim or with little to no feedback from a reviewer on how they rate the games they play.
Last edited:
I loved that game and it remains one of my most frequently replayed games (although on Apple ][ not DOS - though I doubt there's much difference).
