Modern vs Old

I never finished Ultima Underworld at it's release (because no computer to finish it) and started to replay it recently. Graphics and sound are ugly and the original interface system isn't as comfortable than more modern setup even after hours of play.

But it really hurt me how the gameplay has many qualities at a level you won't find in any or most modern CRPG from BG1 to nowadays. It's clear that modern CRPG have also qualities at a level you won't find in oldies. But why some core qualities decrease so much in modern CRPG?

When playing UW here a short list of features I feel much better than in most of the best modern CRPG (with some rare exception for some features) :
- Quantity and quality of stuff you search to solve. This includes many elements, hidden puzzles, riddles like stuff, tricks to find, secrets searching and finding.
- Difficulty level, even played at easy I'm satisfied when I feel it too easy in most modern CRPG.
- Area design from a pure mapping point of view, it's complexity to explore, the stuff to discover, the diversity. It's chocking to quote that UW, a 2.5D game, has levels design that are much much more 3D than any modern CRPG using 3D graphic cards at their full power.
- Action depth, a system where there's some challenge and a real learning curve with many stuff to discover thanks to the system depth or opponents design.

Don't be wrong, I can make a long list of features of modern CRPG that have a much better qualities than in oldies. But the question is here, about the list I quoted above, the worse is to quote how important they are for the gameplay.

UU was a revolutionary game, though I actually prefer UU2. There has never been a studio with as revolutionary an outlook as Looking Glass and see where it got them!! Pity isn't it.

Originally Posted by Corwin
UU was a revolutionary game, though I actually prefer UU2. There has never been a studio with as revolutionary an outlook as Looking Glass and see where it got them!! Pity isn't it.

Cool I never played UUW2 so I'll have even more to play! UUW was most probably revolutionary but I don't see Looking Glass Studio had continue on the revolutionary path, I feel System Shock series more like a rehash of a System into a more popular genre than CRPG. Sure System Shock was a great game but revolution isn't obvious.

Anyway revolution wasn't my initial topic. You can get a game with features I mentioned above at high quality without any revolution. Eventually UUW is a bad choice for my purpose, not clear.

I dont agree with all of your points. "Action depth" in particular isnt in a worse state than in the "good old days". Level design and overall difficulty level have however gone down in quality…

UU is actually a good example in that it has puzzles (with subtle hints spread out) that you dont see in modern games, and I think UU2 is an even better example of that. Though I did look at the walkthrough a few times I always felt "doh, why didnt I notice that" after doing so, as opposed to "this shit doesnt make sense" when I played Dungeon Lords recently

Another example of the whole evolution would be to compare the level of railroading in the main quests of Daggerfall (though nowhere near as subtle as UU2) and Oblivion.

One answer as to why we've seen this trend towards better interfaces (automap, quest logs, etc for RPGs) and less challenging gameplay is the mainstreaming of gaming. As the audience is bigger you get a larger chunk of not so patient potential customers. Devs spend time and money on aspects of the games that predictably cater to as many potential customers as possible, such as graphics. Put in a puzzle and your forum is quickly flooded with 13-yearolds who cant figure out how to enter the first dungeon in Morrowind…

I'm waiting for a saturation of the "streamlined" RPG market and a professional developer taking up a more hardcore niche, a bit like Paradox interactive did in strategy games when they created the Europa Universalis series…

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
I dont agree with all of your points. "Action depth" in particular isnt in a worse state than in the "good old days". Level design and overall difficulty level have however gone down in quality…

I feel it much more rare in best moderns than in best oldies. Sure I've two modern counter example, Gothic 2 + NOTR and Temple Of Elemental Evil. Apart that I see only a desert in modern CRPG, action in The Witcher isn't bad but more fancy than depth.
That's where my memory could fail me, I remember games like Pool Of Radiance having a very interesting fight system. UUW clearly has also a good one. Well my demonstration isn't very well argued.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
UU is actually a good example in that it has puzzles (with subtle hints spread out) that you dont see in modern games, and I think UU2 is an even better example of that. Though I did look at the walkthrough a few times I always felt "doh, why didnt I notice that" after doing so, as opposed to "this shit doesnt make sense" when I played Dungeon Lords recently

That's a chock, Dungeon Lords had any puzzles? Mmmm well perhaps a few, most CRPG have some but too few and often not a right difficulty level, either a lot too obvious either dam tough. About fight system, Dungeon Lords has something good but it lacks of depth.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Another example of the whole evolution would be to compare the level of railroading in the main quests of Daggerfall (though nowhere near as subtle as UU2) and Oblivion.

I never played Daggerfall, Oblivion pushed the system to the plain absurdity, remove any trace of your brain from your head and you'll play it as easily.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
One answer as to why we've seen this trend towards better interfaces (automap, quest logs, etc for RPGs) and less challenging gameplay is the mainstreaming of gaming. As the audience is bigger you get a larger chunk of not so patient potential customers. Devs spend time and money on aspects of the games that predictably cater to as many potential customers as possible, such as graphics.

For the interface design, automap, logs not only for quests but also diary, custom setups for controls, in-game help, I feel definitely modern. Automap is something I won't give up. I remember to be very fast bored by having to do myself maps. If a game has levels so well done that you almost never get lost, it's ok, otherwise it's not ok at all. for logs, quests, but also diary. Ok I admit that the lack of any diary doesn't disturb me a lot in UUW, I write few notes by switching to window mode (DOSBox) anyway I have to do that for some puzzles. But I'm sure that any CRPG I'll play from now, the diary like in The Witcher will be missing.

For the less challenging and lack of puzzles point of view, I felt it more that they just forget hire any people dedicated to this. But you could be right. What's sure is that modern CRPG are in front of a problem of budget. Detailed graphics call for more details like to design and make many items, or design many details otherwise it will looks ugly inside fancy graphics. Also actor dialogs adds a lot of immersion but it's more cost.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Put in a puzzle and your forum is quickly flooded with 13-yearolds who cant figure out how to enter the first dungeon in Morrowind…

Mmm perhaps it's internet the devil killing CRPG? Removes internet and those pesky kids won't make so much noises. Anyway for the puzzles it's probably more the explanation, young kids or more lazy people than budget problem. I doubt that adds one or two people to help design teams include various puzzles will crash the budget.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
I'm waiting for a saturation of the "streamlined" RPG market and a professional developer taking up a more hardcore niche, a bit like Paradox interactive did in strategy games when they created the Europa Universalis series…

Saturation? I feel you are very optimistic, I see more a slow dying than any saturation.

Another feature I hardly explain in modern CRPG is how dungeon design is very very weak. I see only one exception and it has only few dungeon like stuff, it's Gothic 3. But even among the best modern CRPG, dungeons are often near to to be crap.

Originally Posted by Dasale
I feel it much more rare in best moderns than in best oldies. Sure I've two modern counter example, Gothic 2 + NOTR and Temple Of Elemental Evil. Apart that I see only a desert in modern CRPG, action in The Witcher isn't bad but more fancy than depth.
That's where my memory could fail me, I remember games like Pool Of Radiance having a very interesting fight system. UUW clearly has also a good one. Well my demonstration isn't very well argued.

Personally I dont find the fight system in UU very interesting. Three types of blows, and a mixed contact/random damage based system makes it only marginally better than say the (awful) combat system in Morrowind. The magic implementation via runes is interesting, but actually using magic in combat is cumbersome due to interface issues.

As for pool of Radiance and the goldbox system it's just AD&D. IMHO later titles such as Baldurs Gate (admittedly old by now, but much more modern than Goldbox) does this in a more interesting and intense way (while even more recent Neverwinter Nights 2 fail due to AI problems).

That's a chock, Dungeon Lords had any puzzles? Mmmm well perhaps a few, most CRPG have some but too few and often not a right difficulty level, either a lot too obvious either dam tough. About fight system, Dungeon Lords has something good but it lacks of depth.

Mainly the "find the lever" variety, and a teleport maze. Combat and monster variety are the fun points of a fairly mediocre game.

I never played Daggerfall, Oblivion pushed the system to the plain absurdity, remove any trace of your brain from your head and you'll play it as easily.

Daggerfall is like Elite and has many design flaws as well as bugs, but the main quest was interesting. You had a few alternative loose ends to look into (and they could be pursued in different orders), and several occasions where you could choose to side with different factions. Overall both the main quest and the side quests had a lot more alternative branches than Oblivion.

on maps and logs…

UU actually did this very well with an automap that allowed manual annotation.

Mmm perhaps it's internet the devil killing CRPG? Removes internet and those pesky kids won't make so much noises. Anyway for the puzzles it's probably more the explanation, young kids or more lazy people than budget problem. I doubt that adds one or two people to help design teams include various puzzles will crash the budget.

The internet is an opportunity as well as a challenge. It also makes distribution of sophisticated content a lot cheaper and easier than in the past. Mount and Blade (which is a bit refreshing when it comes to combat mechanics for sure) would have been incredibly hard to pull off without digital distribution.

Saturation? I feel you are very optimistic, I see more a slow dying than any saturation.

Another feature I hardly explain in modern CRPG is how dungeon design is very very weak. I see only one exception and it has only few dungeon like stuff, it's Gothic 3. But even among the best modern CRPG, dungeons are often near to to be crap.

Well, saturation in the sense that eventually the opportunity outside a congested mainstream market eventually will be attractive enough for someone to go off the beaten path.

Dungeons are sorely limited in modern games (G3 has what, three of them? With only the big smelter containing anything plot related). Not being an avid dungeon crawler (I find it unrealistic and like to deal with "political" NPC interaction) I'm ambivalent on the issue though. I think that Morrowind (even though it got criticism for having small dungeons) or Gothic 1 had dungeons of about the right complexity (well, maybe not Morrowind) and size.

The market has changed, for better or worse. In the early days, there was an obvious synergy between the PnP-playing geeks and the computer-owning-and-game-playing-geeks -- more often than not, they were the same people. Now, we're a tiny portion of the gaming market and the cost of production is too high to justify pleasing only our tiny market. There is an opportunity for "B" level games but the risk is high. Make an inexpensive, quality CRPG and there's a built-in 250k market -- more if you get the interface and polish right to bring in a wider market. The problem is, CRPGs are hard to make and that margin of error is too small. Further, the market is segmented - turn-based, rtwp, RT, first-person, third-person, iso, fantasy, not fantasy…too many CRPG fans will walk away from a product that doesn't meet their exact niche.

I'm not suggesting people should play something they don't enjoy but they need to understand the realities of the market.

On the other hand, some things are improving (although it's uneven) - many old CRPGs are essentially dungeon-crawlers with complex chargen systems but many modern CRPGs improve the story and NPC interaction markedly.

I miss the classic games but I actually find good entertainment between the handful of quality modern CRPGs on one hand and the indie market on the other. They fulfil different needs (and it's rare to find a perfect game that combines both sides) but I'm fairly happy.

Did anyone else win the final battle in Pools of Darkness or beat Talon in a hand to hand battle in buck rogers 1(supposed to be impossible but I did it once) or finish the final dungeon in Bards tale 3 (the one with nazi robots…..)? I find modern games also lack challenge and by challenge I don't mean tapping buttons in a certain order to create a super-combo I mean requiring an excellent strategy + well created characters + a lot of luck in order to win.

I actually got stuck on the third wave of the final battle in PoD, but that and my first fight vs Kalistes were the only instances where I actually had difficulties in the game. The problem is that you need to play for days to get there. Prior to that two mages with Delayed Blast Fireball takes out almost anything. The Dragon cave is for instance quite laughable.

Originally Posted by bjon045
I find modern games also lack challenge and by challenge I don't mean tapping buttons in a certain order to create a super-combo I mean requiring an excellent strategy + well created characters + a lot of luck in order to win.

I really don't have time to waste on anything involving luck. There are too many games out there for me to spend countless hours stuck on some frustratingly difficult encounter. Then again I don't play games for the challenge. I play games for the experience.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
The problem is, CRPGs are hard to make and that margin of error is too small. Further, the market is segmented - turn-based, rtwp, RT, first-person, third-person, iso, fantasy, not fantasy…too many CRPG fans will walk away from a product that doesn't meet their exact niche.

This is exactly true. Back in the Olden Days, we'd buy nearly any RPG that came out for whatever system(s) we owned, and it didn't matter much whether it was fantasy, D&D/not D&D, sci-fi, historical or any other genre or combination of genres. Now days, people are extremely picky and won't play an RPG if it's not precisely what they want in terms of genre (eg "Well, I want cyberpunk but this sci-fi game isn't quite close enough, I'll skip it"). And then they turn around and wonder why there aren't more independant cRPGs being made.

To the broader topic if old games being better than new ones, it goes both ways I find. Many older games had insanely difficult puzzles, tricks and so forth and there was huge reliance on either luck or the player putting literally hours into solving one element of the game. These days it's not like that, which I do tend to prefer, but at the same time it is indicative of games reaching a broader audience for better and for worse.
As far as my memories go, I have fond recollections of time spent with many games, but I'm sure that if I went back and played some of them I'd be sorely disappointed. Because of the (now) primitive appearance of those games, we needed to use our imaginations a lot to flesh out how the world looked, how our character looked and acted and so forth, and imagination is far more powerful and long-lasting than snazzy modern graphics. We played the games in our heads as much as we did on the computer itself. Today, everything is so perfectly rendered we don't need imagination that much, so games tend not to stick in memory so well.
In essence, it's nostalgia that dominates, not critical analysis, the looking back at the old computer RPGs.

I think that it's right what Rayk of Grotesque said: Ite, collecting has become a standard for modern RPGs, nowadays you will hardly see one without it.

But that's not role-playinmg ! That's just collecting !
But everyone does it, because the "industry standard" invented it it and now everyone follows !

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
…we needed to use our imaginations…We played the games in our heads as much as we did on the computer itself. Today, everything is so perfectly rendered we don't need imagination that much….

That's exactly what happened, and it began around the time of Ultima Underworld.

Back then we all enjoyed the cool new graphics and improved use of the first-person perspective. It added to the experience, even if it compromised a little, and that made it well worth it. But today's CRPGs have gone too far in that direction. What they emphasize and what they compromise are too much.

The end result that we're seeing today is more fitting for consoles than computers. They're play-at-home arcade games. Instead of dropping in quarters, you pay $60 to play all you want.

ComputerGamingWorld magazine called UU the best computer game of all time. The Gothic and TES games both borrowed from it, and ID Software credited it as inspiration for its pioneering FPS, Wolfenstein 3-D. I wonder if there are any regrets among them at this point, seeing how it all turned out.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Personally I dont find the fight system in UU very interesting. Three types of blows, and a mixed contact/random damage based system makes it only marginally better than say the (awful) combat system in Morrowind. The magic implementation via runes is interesting, but actually using magic in combat is cumbersome due to interface issues.

For me there's a world between the two. There's two major differences, in UUW :
- It's efficient to search the best fighting depending of the opponents, not really in Morrowind/Oblivion sword system.
- Adapting to opponents move makes much more sense than in Morrowind or Oblivion.

BUT eventually it's because it's just too fast for me in elder scroll when it's fine in UUW, I don't know.

But you're right, I had in mind the sword fighting but fights aren't only that and UUW is very restrictive for magic use during fights, but it's not better in Morrowind and much less good for the swording. Yes Oblivion did better by allowing better mixing of swording and magic during fights. Anyway I find it has less depth than UUW sword and one spell ready. But for Oblivion the problem could comes from a weird difficulty level, it's so easy that apply roughly the same mechanical tactic is working. I already wrote it, Oblivion is a game for people with a brain removed from their head.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
As for pool of Radiance and the goldbox system it's just AD&D. IMHO later titles such as Baldurs Gate (admittedly old by now, but much more modern than Goldbox) does this in a more interesting and intense way (while even more recent Neverwinter Nights 2 fail due to AI problems).

Using Real-Time a system designed for Turn-Based makes few sense and the worse is that many modern CRPG copy this a lot.

For me BG RT approach is one of the devil that make fights boring in modern CRPG.
Ho yeah the RT approach is fancy and funny, I admit it, but most depth is lost and that is a big problem.

Most of the tactics aspects are lost when compared to the same system with Turn-Based and fights made for Turn-Based (you can't switch to Trun-Based because fights aren't designed for it). I recently played BG1 and ToEE there's no comparison, roughly the same system for both but a system designed for Turn-Based, no surprise if the Turn-Based version is much more deep. But yes now kids find Turn-Based slow and boring, weird, that makes me sad.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Combat and monster variety are the fun points of a fairly mediocre game.

Well removing fights from CRPG? You mean adventure game? It's not clear for me where you want to go.

I think it's the problem with most modern CRPG, fights became a filler. Most modern CRPG obviously underestimate fights design. For most the design of fights is very poor, it's often just a pack of free monsters thrown in an area. How can you except anything good from this? No no no, the fight system isn't all.

Even worse is opponents diversity too often it make no sense, it's just some new graphics and effects but the same fighting against opponents a bit too tough or something else. Gothic series is doing good on this, but I don't see many other modern CRPG that succeed this.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Daggerfall is like Elite and has many design flaws as well as bugs, but the main quest was interesting. You had a few alternative loose ends to look into (and they could be pursued in different orders), and several occasions where you could choose to side with different factions. Overall both the main quest and the side quests had a lot more alternative branches than Oblivion.

The elder scroll series is another devil with the BG series that brought modern CRPG to many non sense. This series is promoting quantity versus quality, a so wrong approach… for me, not for sells. Now modern CRPG seems damned to only do very big stuff that eat a lot of money of the budget so removed for something else like puzzling design or fights design.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
The internet is an opportunity as well as a challenge. It also makes distribution of sophisticated content a lot cheaper and easier than in the past. Mount and Blade (which is a bit refreshing when it comes to combat mechanics for sure) would have been incredibly hard to pull off without digital distribution.

I have downloaded this one but not yet played. Well it's not new, Avernum or Prelude to Darkness for example, I don't know any that achieve a success.

Out of CRPG there's for example Doom but common look at it, the game was far ahead it's time technically when all those shareware CRPG are far bellow their time technically. Yes it's not all but it's clear that this is important for sells. Yes Mount and Blade seems a bit less backward it's time technically. Don't be wrong I don't promote the idea to play only games technically in their time, it's just a clear link with sells.

Eventually the problem with Internet is it makes people too lousy and give them to much influence, that doesn't let some air to people trying to make something different. People do stuff they think it's crap but they do it because plenty other people thinks or say them they should do that.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
The market has changed, for better or worse. In the early days, there was an obvious synergy between the PnP-playing geeks and the computer-owning-and-game-playing-geeks -- more often than not, they were the same people. Now, we're a tiny portion of the gaming market and the cost of production is too high to justify pleasing only our tiny market….

What's PnP???

Originally Posted by fatBastard()
I really don't have time to waste on anything involving luck. There are too many games out there for me to spend countless hours stuck on some frustratingly difficult encounter. Then again I don't play games for the challenge. I play games for the experience.

I agree for the luck thing but certainly not for the challenge thing, gaming is a lot about using your brain, without challenge your brain becomes sleepy and the game boring. If you don't want use your brain then watch TV and stop play CRPG… but Oblivion.

Originally Posted by Dasale
Using Real-Time a system designed for Turn-Based makes few sense and the worse is that many modern CRPG copy this a lot.

For me BG RT approach is one of the devil that make fights boring in modern CRPG.
Ho yeah the RT approach is fancy and funny, I admit it, but most depth is lost and that is a big problem.

BG et al doesnt use true real time, but rather "continuous turn based". Time is still discretised into turns and rounds as per the AD&D ruleset.

But it's not the real time component (I usually prefer turn based actually) that I enjoyed about the fighting in BG and Icewind Dale, it is the balance where individual monsters and groups of monsters had flavour and required more tactical variation than the enemies of the Goldbox games. I also feel that it is more than fair to compare the Goldbox games with BG and the Infinity engine games, since both are cases where the devs started with a tactical fighting engine and built a RPG around that (and the RPG component as in NPC and world interaction is obviously miles better in Baldurs Gate).

Originally Posted by Dasale
Well removing fights from CRPG? You mean adventure game? It's not clear for me where you want to go.

No, those are integral parts of games in the RPG genre (even though a game needs a few more components to qualify as a RPG). My point was that one particular title, e g Dungeon Lords, is a mediocre RPG but has fun fighting An RPG-like game where fighting is totally dominant would be a dungeon crawler, a type of game that doesnt interest me as much.

Originally Posted by Dasale
What's PnP???

PnP = pen and paper roleplaying games… the origin of the species, so to say.
About the challenge… I want to enjoy a game, want to see and experience a virtual 'world', so sandbox games are just fine for me. Frankly, I don't want to waste my free time trying to play a frustratingly difficult game (or parts of a game) nowadays. My real life job and family are challenging enough.
While I liked vast games with challenging puzzles (like UU) back in the days at University, I'd rather replay an often-replayed old favorite (like wandering through Daggerfall without achieving anything at all in terms of story progress) or a casual puzzle game nowadays… anything as long as it doesn't gobble up my limited amount of time.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
BG et al doesnt use true real time, but rather "continuous turn based". Time is still discretised into turns and rounds as per the AD&D ruleset.

I know but your time isn't turn-based that's all the difference. And set the preferences to get Turn-Based in BG series and then it's obvious fights aren't adapted to this setting.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
But it's not the real time component (I usually prefer turn based actually) that I enjoyed about the fighting in BG and Icewind Dale, it is the balance where individual monsters and groups of monsters had flavour and required more tactical variation than the enemies of the Goldbox games. I also feel that it is more than fair to compare the Goldbox games with BG and the Infinity engine games, since both are cases where the devs started with a tactical fighting engine and built a RPG around that (and the RPG component as in NPC and world interaction is obviously miles better in Baldurs Gate).

I played too long ago the goldbox games to be able to do a fair comparison. But what's the nearest to goldbox is ToEE. And there's no comparison, it's much more tactical than the whole BG series plus all the clones.

Icewindale is something special, it's a crap CRPG but it's clear fights got a high degree of design, here is a good example that the fight system isn't all but it's also the design of each fights.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
No, those are integral parts of games in the RPG genre (even though a game needs a few more components to qualify as a RPG). My point was that one particular title, e g Dungeon Lords, is a mediocre RPG but has fun fighting An RPG-like game where fighting is totally dominant would be a dungeon crawler, a type of game that doesnt interest me as much.

Ok we agree on this a game with only fights and some character system isn't a CRPG. But many modern CRPG seems to have forgotten that fights shouldn't be just fillers.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
The market has changed, for better or worse. In the early days, there was an obvious synergy between the PnP-playing geeks and the computer-owning-and-game-playing-geeks -- more often than not, they were the same people. Now, we're a tiny portion of the gaming market and the cost of production is too high to justify pleasing only our tiny market.

I don't have any clear statistics to quote but I strongly doubt anything is related to pnp. For sure pnp took a major part in design of CRPG but I don't see public sharing. As far I know p&n start to decrease in popularity at the beginning of the 80's, time when CRPG started, probably not a hazard. Also I knew people playing pnp but never any CRPG during the 80's and thee reverse too.

Myself if I played a bit of pnp during the 80's I can't consider myself as a pnp player.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
There is an opportunity for "B" level games but the risk is high. Make an inexpensive, quality CRPG and there's a built-in 250k market -- more if you get the interface and polish right to bring in a wider market. The problem is, CRPGs are hard to make and that margin of error is too small. Further, the market is segmented - turn-based, rtwp, RT, first-person, third-person, iso, fantasy, not fantasy…too many CRPG fans will walk away from a product that doesn't meet their exact niche.

Well if it's true then it's sad, myself I'm ready to any attempt in any kind as soon as it is good and is CRPG.

Eventually the problem is more that in percentage the number of CRPG players declined significantly this involving the problem you mention. It's weird because CRPG are the essence of computer playing games, it's the core that has anything in the best balance, story, adventures, puzzles, action, simulation.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
On the other hand, some things are improving (although it's uneven) - many old CRPGs are essentially dungeon-crawlers with complex chargen systems but many modern CRPGs improve the story and NPC interaction markedly.

For sure, modern CRPG have many qualities oldies hadn't, I feel the problem is that quality of the core gaming features decreased a lot in most modern CRPG. It seems just forgotten, not for any budget problem but more a lack of focus on those core features.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
I miss the classic games but I actually find good entertainment between the handful of quality modern CRPGs on one hand and the indie market on the other. They fulfil different needs (and it's rare to find a perfect game that combines both sides) but I'm fairly happy.

Ok I don't know the indie market you mention, if it's game like Eschalon, I can't agree fights are poor and this removes a lot. The problem with those sort of game is that it's rare that a single person combine the numerous qualities a CRPG requires. Programming, drawing, writing, puzzle design, fight design, I certainly forget something. Eventually I found few scenario that was amazing but those people reuse through an engine most of the programming, drawing and fight system design. And succeed to combine qualities for story writing, design of fights and puzzles and enough programming skills to build something, resulting in impressive scenario. Rare, at least I don't know many and the lack of any true market around scenario building for an engine clearly decrease the importance of what's result from this.