Why: Planescape Torment, Balders Gate 2, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights

I agree with both parties here

Games like BG 2, Icewind Dale, NWN are good. And many (not all) CRPG elements would work in a modern CRPG, too.

BG 2 shines with huge story, quest density and party member interaction.
The combat with pause on the other hand was not so good and often ended in some kind of chaos.
Icewindale has party creation and challenging fights. NWN is the modders best friend.

So all the games mentioned here offer some things to learn and to avoid for modern developers.

I would love to see a modern fantasy AD&D game with turn based tactical combat and high production values. IMHO there is a market for these kind of games.

The closest thing to Baldurs Gate in modern times with high production values is Dragon Age 1 (No AD&D, though). It is not so bad; Dragon Age 2 on the other hand is a desaster (from all I've heard - I didn't play it).

PS:
If you like NWN you have to play the Aielund Saga - it is better than the original.

I've never said there's nothing to learn from those games - and they're clearly good games - even great games.

But that's about it.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
The closest thing to Baldurs Gate in modern times with high production values is Dragon Age 1 (No AD&D, though). It is not so bad; Dragon Age 2 on the other hand is a desaster (from all I've heard - I didn't play it).

I totally 100% agree with everything you say here, but I am going to isolate this quote as it provides evidence that I haven't yet mentioned.

Dragon Age 2 was indeed a disaster. Like, the worst in the mentioned series, worse even than the debatably bad Icewind Dale 2. Dragon Age 2 wasn't even debatably bad, it was just all-round bad.

But people still bought it. A relatively large number of people have high praise for this game. This game is still going to produce a third in the series. If a failed game can produce many expansions and a full sequel, why can't a brilliant game that 'nearly' everyone accepts as the no.1 RPG can't even get to the pre-production stage.

I think this is very interesting evidence for the nature of this thread about why the question of why some games get re-boots but others don't.

Quote from wiki:

Within two months of the launch, the game sold-in "over two million copies", meaning that over two million copies have been distributed to retailers.

So if they can sell 2 million copies of a crap game that quickly got a reputation for being crap, I fail to see why they couldn't 'sell' a conscious effort at a re-boot of anything, even if it did turn out to be disappointing (which it might not of course).

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I've never said there's nothing to learn from those games - and they're clearly good games - even great games.

But that's about it.

What do you mean "that's about it"?

Imagine if you were in the board meeting when they were discussing a new Fallout…

"sorry guys, Fallout was a good game… a great game even, but that's about it."

reply from MD:

"Hurm… ok… thanks for that… now… where were we, ah yes, Roger, you'll be in charge of graphics, steve, you can do the writing… etc etc"

I'm imagining that board meeting - and I'm having trouble imagining your point

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm imagining that board meeting - and I'm having trouble imagining your point

Useless post number 10?

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
Useless post number 10?

Look at my post count

I think you're overestimating me

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Look at my post count

I think you're overestimating me

no.11?

This just in, Dartagnan's has cloned and split into two. Naturally he's arguing with the mirror. This has already gotten ugly.

BG's were Golden Age were they? I guess you missed the 80's when we had The Big 5.

You also don't include the first two Fallouts in that list.

You also don't realize the The Second Golden Age aka The Renaissance aka The Silver Age, whatever, starts with Might and Magic VI and arguably Diablo. Heck, I would even throw Ultima Online in there. These three games are nothing like those and they've spawned many clones.

We've had a couple of threads on this.

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showt…t=21283&page=4

After the return of consolish RPG's with Jade Empire and the two SWToR's we open up a dark and gritty era. Now we open up a mobile and indie era this day thanks to Kickstart. MMORPG's have branched out into MMOG's and now FTP.

--

@Jox
I wouldn't argue that WotC thought Torment was a crap setting, its that WotC did what they did to save PnP gaming, and streamlined back to their core product which had become unrecognizable with so many settings. D&D was turning into a sort of GURPs.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
This just in, Dartagnan's has cloned and split into two. Naturally he's arguing with the mirror. This has already gotten ugly.

BG's were Golden Age were they? I guess you missed the 80's when we had The Big 5.

You also don't include the first two Fallouts in that list.

You also don't realize the The Second Golden Age aka The Renaissance aka The Silver Age, whatever, starts with Might and Magic VI and arguably Diablo. Heck, I would even throw Ultima Online in there. These three games are nothing like those and they've spawned many clones.

We've had a couple of threads on this.

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showt…t=21283&page=4

After the return of consolish RPG's with Jade Empire and the two SWToR's we open up a dark and gritty era. Now we open up a mobile and indie era this day thanks to Kickstart. MMORPG's have branched out into MMOG's and now FTP.

—

@Jox
I wouldn't argue that WotC thought Torment was a crap setting, its that WotC did what they did to save PnP gaming, and streamlined back to their core product which had become unrecognizable with so many settings. D&D was turning into a sort of GURPs.

Hi, yes, I use the term Golden Era, because that is a phrase that is heavily associated with this selection of games, for many and multiple reasons that require huge walls of text to explain. I've no doubt there exists arguments against this form of phrasing, but the impact of 6 awesome titles in 4 years plus expansions, all following the same theme does suggest a peak. The extent to which you believe it is Golden… well, that's semantics and opinion.

As I said in my OP, I only use this selection of games as an example, because this selection really writes the situation so easily. I could have written about Final Fantasy, or Might and Magic, or, indeed, the Ultima series, but none of those series has this 'problem' of cancelled series - they all follow logical common sense, just keep making sequels until the well is empty. All the titles from the Golden Era just died. All of them should have had their III, IV, V, XI, XII - but none of them did, they all stopped at II, and not even that for PS:T. Which is logically insane.

I didn't include the Fallouts in the OP because they are not sword and sorcery and because the Fallouts have had very successful re-boots and are doing just fine - they are further proof as to the oddness of the lack of production interest in 3 major existing brands.

I'm afraid I'm one of those people who doesn't consider Diablo an RPG. Call it snobbery, call it bias, call it whatever you like, but I don't understand the concept of re-spawning monsters that serve no game-function other than providing expand loot (a freaking sword dropping out of a rat, I mean C'MON). I feel this genre of pure kill-level-gear-kill-level-gear without regard to plot, tactics, varied character development (as in engages with it's environment beyond killing) etc etc etc should have a completely different 'label' than RPG, just as Zelda is considered 'adventure' and CoD is considered 'FPS'. Maybe LGs (Loot Games) would be a better descriptor, for example.

I agree there are lots of games around, the Elder Scrolls, the Witcher, Gothic, etc, etc, etc, most of which adhere to some form of sword and sorcery - but do 'any' of the modern developers spend 'any' money on 'originality' and 'experimentation'? Do any of them even 'try' to fill holes in the market and use their profit to provide greater 'variety'? No, they just milk a title. Which is fine, logical, but who's milking the titles in the OP? No-one… why?

I agree, the kickstarter programme does offer a nice bone to all the rejected gamers, such as myself and the guy who posted earlier in the thread about a need for a purely turn-based game - but can indies EVER produce something approaching an AAA title? With all that natural finesse and totality that a main development title gets? Or will they all be like Dragon Age 2, haphazrd and disjointed and, essentially, uncomplete works? We'll soon find out I guess.

As the OP states, this thread is about what you want from a cRPG and why you may not be getting what it is you want - it's not really a thread for people that are inundated with what they want (such as MMOs, FPSaRPG, sex simulators, etc), but more an opportunity for people to lament what ISN'T currently available and trying to learn WHY some people's 'preferred' RPG style is being ignored.

Mobile devices and pads? I'm not entirely sure how this will work, it seems like a step backwards to me, 'smalling' everything back down and limiting pixel-specific game interaction to the somewhat larger finger size - I'm very skeptical at this point in time… but I do look forward to finding out how RPGs will adapt to this kind of game environment.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
Hi, yes, I use the term Golden Era, because that is a phrase that is heavily associated with this selection of games, for many and multiple reasons that require huge walls of text to explain. I've no doubt there exists arguments against this form of phrasing, but the impact of 6 awesome titles in 4 years plus expansions, all following the same theme does suggest a peak. The extent to which you believe it is Golden… well, that's semantics and opinion.

You accuse me of semantics and opinion but you say "that is a phrase that is heavily associated with this selection of [my listed] games" without any empirical evidence.

I see there's no arguing with you. You clearly weren't around in the 80's like many of us here were when it seemed like developers were tripping over themselves to make the next great CRPG starting with Wizardry and Ultima. After all, it was when D&D was at its height and entered into popular culture.

I'll just point you to that thread I mentioned earlier where we've already discussed this to death and point out the fact that the good Dr.'s themselves named Jagged Alliance "..and of course, the Ultimas" as their major influence for Baldur's Gate.

Ok, from everything I said, you want to focus on the semantics of the phrase 'golden age' - fair enough, I do not wish to derail the thread with such a topic, so I shall personally stop using the term 'golden age' in any further posts.

Happy now?

Personally, I won't be happy until you stop trying to post your opinions as fact, completely oblivious to how obtuse you are being of the changes to market demographics that occurred between the 80's and now.

On further checking, it appears the term 'golden age' has indeed been 'officially' snagged by RPG historians and is a term used to describe RPGs made between "the late 80s and early 90s"

I apologise for my unofficial use of the word who's only empirical evidence is quotes from individuals posting on gaming forums over the last 10 years rather than any 'official' source. Which would indeed be a more 'individual taste' based definition than an official historians use of the phrase.

The most recent quote I heard and liked was:

"I'm beginning to think that the whole early 2000s era was just a fluke…"

For example…

Originally Posted by Drithius
Personally, I won't be happy until you stop trying to post your opinions as fact, completely oblivious to how obtuse you are being of the changes to market demographics that occurred between the 80's and now.

Why don't you just tell me about those changes instead of insulting me?

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
This just in, Dartagnan has cloned and split into two.

This is worrisome. I just hope the server doesn't crash under the weight of that much hubris.

Originally Posted by JDR13
This is worrisome. I just hope the server doesn't crash under the weight of that much hubris.

Don't you have a keyboard you should be arguing with or something?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Don't you have a keyboard you should be arguing with or something?

I already won.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I already won.

Let's hope the next one is less of an obstacle to victory

So you all prefer the small digs and pseudo-insults rather than on-topic discussion eh.

Ah well.

I had no idea why I thought this forum might be 'different'…

Lol.