Need a blobber that appeals to my discerning and superior taste.

[aweigh]

objectively rpg lite

Depends on what you define as "RPG"

 

[Roqua]

objectively rpg lite

Depends on what you define as "RPG"

Not if you use a sliding scale regarding depth and complexity.

If you consider tons of repetitive combat where you completely and 100% objectively don't have to think or try for the vast majority of it, sure.

And its not like I don't play these games. I own and play them all, and have for decades. We look for different things in games, and value different aspects of them.

We have some crossover, but in general what I want a game to give isn't what you want it to give. When I put 100 hours into a game it is because I play through it multiple times over the a long time span. For you, you just start getting into and think its good at 100 hours, with the same party. In one continuous playthrough. I can't do that. I wish I could. I wish I didn't get bored with even games I absolutely love. I've never beat most of my favorites. I never beat FO 1 and 2, Arcanum, Wiz7, WL2, etc. Tyranny is not one of my top 10 but I beat it multiple times. Wiz6 is an okay game I beat to transfer a party into 7. 7 is too long and gets to formulaic and repetitive and easy to keep my attention to beat it. That doesn't stop me from loving the first 25%, and enjoying the hell out of the next 25%, or playing the 25% after. I never beat FO 1 and 2 because of time. I played two a million times, but I can't skip content, and there just isn't enough time to do the content and beat the game without cheating.

To each their own. The original post was a valid post from someone with similar rpg values as myself. I salute him, and this post, which is bringing attention to great games on both sides of our spectrum for blobbers.

 

[aweigh]

A game like Bard's Tale 1 or Wizardry or Elminage is equally as much of an RPG as something like Baldur's Gate. dialog-trees and fetch quests have little to do with RPG-quality.

Also, I don't know what to tell ya about playing through games as I don't even know where you got this information about my playthroughs from...? one of the main things I did during my initial obsession with Elminage Gothic was make threads about my multiple playthroughs. E: Gothic to this day is the RPG i've most ever put hours in, with playthroughs of the PC version totaling around 400+ hours divided into 3 different runs, and about 120 hours or so put into the 3DS port in two different runs.

I would say E: Gothic has much more content than literally any other non-blobber RPG specifically because it doesn't consist of scripted interactions. A game like Wizardry 1 is inherently MORE replayable than your standard Adventure Game-Hybrid RPG.

EDIT: For reference the 2nd RPG I've put the most hours into was F: New Vegas. E: Gothic and FNV are the only 2 rpgs I've ever put hundreds of hours into. Anyway I don't see the relevance of amount of time or playthroughs on any of this, as this also has to do with the amount of time one sets aside for playing a video game...

I assume your point is that you don't particularly enjoy the combat aspects in Wiz-clones (or MM-clones for that matter), that you find the combat repetitive after a certain threshold and that it makes it hard for you to dedicate large chunks of time into playing through this "content" because you don't consider the party-building aspects and the itemization or the exploratory elements complex enough to adequately engross you: is this about right?

If so, dude, that's fucking fine. I agree that there are blobbers that are VERY different from the standard Wizardry formula (in fact there are probably more that deviate from the Wiz-blueprint than there are those that stick to it); what annoys me about blobber-related posts of this type is that no one ever sees any problem with the repetitious nature of THEIR preferred type of RPG, but this mostly stems from the fact that the Codex was never a "dungeon crawler friendly" forum, the Codex began as a pseudo-Fallout fansite and thus games like Fallout (the standard codexian Adventure Game-Hybrid RPG) is what's considered... well, the standard.

I mean, no one ever says "dungeon master games are too simple to be RPGs!!!!", or say that a game like Grimrock needs to "modernize". I've always found this very interesting because that type of real-time blobber is one I don't find enjoyable at all, yet it never gets any criticism, whereas the turn-based blobbers are always being criticized by people who don't enjoy the sub-genre.

 

[Roqua]

a game like Bard's Tale 1 or Wizardry or Elminage is equally as much of an RPG as something like Baldur's Gate. dialog-trees and fetch quests have little to do with RPG-quality.

I agree that BT, Wizardry, Elminage Gothic, and Baldur's gate have the same focus on super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat. You could throw Dungeon Siege and Clicker Heroes in that group too.

In my opinion, all of those are vastly inferior to ToEE, MMX, Wiz8, RoA 1-3, both Buck Rogers, Arcanum, FO 1 and 2, WL2 DC, TToN, Underraill, etc.

I love Arcanum and FO 1/2 despite thinking all three had bad combat. Arcanum had combat as mindless and repetitive as BG.

I love Blackguards 1 despite it having a pre-generated party of talking heads and lacked the traditional rpg gameplay I want.

I loved JA2 in the same way as Blackguards 1. Etc.

I love Arcanum, FO 1/2, Underrail, etc, despite them only have one character and no party.

I am not saying the games you love aren't rpgs. I am saying they are very lite-rpgs when it comes to what I love most about them. I love heavy, complex, and deep rpg systems with tons of chardev choices where it is easy to gimp characters. I want every battle/combat to require me to think and try and pay attention. I want to create my whole party with a ridiculously complex chargen system. I prefer systems that have slow burn item upgrades, and getting a good item is rare and a big deal. I want tons of item slots.

What I don't want is pretty much exactly what you want, besides the full party generation and probably have similar takes on itemization.

What I don't want is dungeons that make absolutely no sense and were made to be as nonsensical and convoluted as possible like in Elminage Gothic.

I never liked making my own maps - some people love it. I didn't even like it when Etrian Odyssey did most of the heavy lifting but required my input for functional maps.

It boils down to this - I think I like good rpgs and you think I like shit rpgs, and vice versa. But objectively, compared to me - you like rpg-lite games with tons of mindless combat and no significant chardev. Still rpgs - but rpg-lite, mindless games for people with Attention Surplus Disorder.

But at least you like rpgs and not console filth slightly interactive movies made for people who think games should be a passive medium like books and movies.

 

[Strange Fellow]

Wizardry [...] super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you on this one.

 

[King Crispy]

Whatever, Roqua. You've made your personal preferences abundantly clear. Over and over. For years. We get it.

 

[Roqua]

Wizardry [...] super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you on this one.

Are you saying this isn't prevalent in the Wizardry-clones Aweight loves? Because you can make all the calls you want, it is an objective fact.

 

[Roqua]

Whatever, Roqua. You've made your personal preferences abundantly clear. Over and over. For years. We get it.

So are you saying I am not allowed to share my opinion? You can share your opinion on how butthurt the OP made you in a drama filled post of boyhood nostalgia that left out all objective reasoning, but when someone tries to class up a discussion with reason, logic, and real examples that actually addressed the OP's question instead of being outraged at the audacity of it they need to stopped?

Sounds spot on for you nuCodexers. When I was kid I thought the kid shit I loved was good too. I thought he-man and GI joe had very interesting stories. And making sand castles was fun and exciting. And then I grew up and my taste did to. But I also am attracted to adults, whereas we know that is another way your growth was retarded too.

Now please stop talking to me and replying to me. I'll leave you alone and you leave me alone. Okay, please?

 

[Strange Fellow]

Wizardry [...] super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you on this one.

Are you saying this isn't prevalent in the Wizardry-clones Aweight loves? Because you can make all the calls you want, it is an objective fact.

You said Wizardry, not Wizardry-clones. I object to that. I sincerely doubt it applies to Wizardry clones, either.

 

[Roqua]

Wizardry [...] super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you on this one.

Are you saying this isn't prevalent in the Wizardry-clones Aweight loves? Because you can make all the calls you want, it is an objective fact.

You said Wizardry, not Wizardry-clones. I object to that. I sincerely doubt it applies to Wizardry clones, either.

I agree that BT, Wizardry, Elminage Gothic, and Baldur's gate have the same focus on super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat. You could throw Dungeon Siege and Clicker Heroes in that group too.

You are technically correct. I'm proud of you! But, even as a small boy playing Wizardry 1 on the NES, I didn't think most of the fights presented much of a challenge.

 

[Strange Fellow]

You are technically correct. I'm proud of you! But, even as a small boy playing Wizardry 1 on the NES, I didn't think most of the fights presented much of a challenge.

Bully for you. I think you underestimate a small boy's patience, tenacity and intelligence. And it's only natural that the first few floors start you off with relatively easy encounters (mind you, many of them can still butcher an unsuspecting adventuring party). Wizardry to me is about the dungeoneering whole: fighting, looting, mapping, all with the knowledge that a misstep could prove disastrous not only to the party, but to the playthrough itself. You say you don't like mapping, and that's fine, it's certainly a niche within a niche. That said, there are some proper balls-to-the-wall encounters nearing the end, especially if you skip some of the floors.

 

[aweigh]

First floor encounters are some of the most dangerous, in proportion to how the party is setup, especially for a first time player; add in a newbie player deciding to disarm every chest and that's a probable wipe right there.

EDIT: Also, the different ports of Wizardry 1 all have varying degrees of difficulty, though I thought everyone knew this. The hardest version is the original (Apple), followed by the slightly downtuned DOS version (throw in the PC-98 version here as well), which is then followed by the PSX versions and the SNES versions, then the Game Boy (and GB Color) versions, and in last place the NES version.

In any case I don't want to comment too much on the differences in the ports because that has little to do with what roqua is saying, which is that all combat in turn-based blobbers is repetitious and hollow because of lack of properly "complex" mechanical elements or other RPG aspects, so whether the encounter rate frequence and the enemy stats are tuned upwards or downwards would be irrelevant as the combat would remain "brainless".

To each their own, mang, I don't have the energy to try (or the want) to convince you that what you think isn't accurate; you simply don't enjoy RPGs that focus on gameplay, instead you want fetch quests and "Codexian C&C", and that's fine.

 

[youhomofo]

I lack the requisite autism to properly appreciate those games.

You say they require autism to appreciate. Maybe you're right. Could be I've had autism since I was 17 years old, sitting in my room and playing this game when it came out in 1985 on an Apple II+.

But I've played games like the ones you seem to prefer. Ones that have more "story", ones that focus more on "exploration" and are somehow thought of in your mind as more prestigious. And of all those games, of all the Grimrocks and all the try-hard re-makes like Roqua's favorite M&M X, none of them, and I repeat, none, have ever had me staying up way past any reasonable measure of when I should go to bed for God's sake, and none of them could possibly ever convince me to re-play them again over thirty years later in a loving re-make which is drawing universal high praise. The Bard's Tale always has been and always will be referred to as one of the most beloved computer roleplaying games series, and for deserved reason.

So you go and have fun with your wannabe, pretender, supposedly superior story-based blobber (lol). Us true grognards will be here, still popping into Garth's to identify that new armor we just found, as happy as ever.

I'm not actually serious. I don't think one is superior to the other. But I do prefer games that have minimal combat and a more fleshed out environment with secret passages to find, riddles to solve, etc. Bard's Tale is a game that I can see being addictive, it just doesn't trigger that sweet dopamine release for me.

BTW, is Grimoire worth playing? I wish that crackerjack had a goddamn manual for his shit.

 

[aweigh]

youhomofo
BTW, for what it's worth Bard's Tale features MORE frequency of combat (and combat takes longer as well) than other turn-based blobbers of that time frame. If Bard's Tale is your first entry in this specific sub-genre then I wanted to clarify that.

EDIT: BTW I also second you trying out Dark heart of Uurkul. It's a fucking fantastic blobber although the combat is top-down view, which to some disqualifies it as a blobber.

Exploration is first-person though same as BT/Wizardry/MM and it is chock full of amazing dungeon design and great puzzles and narrative sequences and it has great world-building as well, much better in those regards than early Wizardry or MM games for sure.

It's a special game, and although not strictly a "blobber" due to the overhead view combat style (more reminiscent of Gold Box games) it's definitely an RPG worth playing.

 

[Roqua]

A game like Bard's Tale 1 or Wizardry or Elminage is equally as much of an RPG as something like Baldur's Gate. dialog-trees and fetch quests have little to do with RPG-quality.

Also, I don't know what to tell ya about playing through games as I don't even know where you got this information about my playthroughs from...? one of the main things I did during my initial obsession with Elminage Gothic was make threads about my multiple playthroughs. E: Gothic to this day is the RPG i've most ever put hours in, with playthroughs of the PC version totaling around 400+ hours divided into 3 different runs, and about 120 hours or so put into the 3DS port in two different runs.

I would say E: Gothic has much more content than literally any other non-blobber RPG specifically because it doesn't consist of scripted interactions. A game like Wizardry 1 is inherently MORE replayable than your standard Adventure Game-Hybrid RPG.

EDIT: For reference the 2nd RPG I've put the most hours into was F: New Vegas. E: Gothic and FNV are the only 2 rpgs I've ever put hundreds of hours into. Anyway I don't see the relevance of amount of time or playthroughs on any of this, as this also has to do with the amount of time one sets aside for playing a video game...

I assume your point is that you don't particularly enjoy the combat aspects in Wiz-clones (or MM-clones for that matter), that you find the combat repetitive after a certain threshold and that it makes it hard for you to dedicate large chunks of time into playing through this "content" because you don't consider the party-building aspects and the itemization or the exploratory elements complex enough to adequately engross you: is this about right?

If so, dude, that's fucking fine. I agree that there are blobbers that are VERY different from the standard Wizardry formula (in fact there are probably more that deviate from the Wiz-blueprint than there are those that stick to it); what annoys me about blobber-related posts of this type is that no one ever sees any problem with the repetitious nature of THEIR preferred type of RPG, but this mostly stems from the fact that the Codex was never a "dungeon crawler friendly" forum, the Codex began as a pseudo-Fallout fansite and thus games like Fallout (the standard codexian Adventure Game-Hybrid RPG) is what's considered... well, the standard.

I mean, no one ever says "dungeon master games are too simple to be RPGs!!!!", or say that a game like Grimrock needs to "modernize". I've always found this very interesting because that type of real-time blobber is one I don't find enjoyable at all, yet it never gets any criticism, whereas the turn-based blobbers are always being criticized by people who don't enjoy the sub-genre.

I just want to point out when I replied to this post I replied to the whole post. There was only the two sentences. Everything else was added way later and I wasn't being a selective point picker.

I got the 100s of hours directly from you when we argued about your taste in games before. You said the combat doesn't get good in Elminage Gothic until newgame+ - and that it took you 100 hours to beat it to get to newgame+.

I wouldn't call it character building. I enjoy the party generation, but the chardev is just nonexistent. You level up. Once in a while you change classes. The players only input and decision is whether to reload and hope the game randomly gives them slightly better level, or accept what the game gave them. But yes, I do not enjoy that. On a sliding scale it is objectively rpg-lite.

I dislike the combat in fallout, but it isn't nearly even somewhat close to the same as in Wizardry clone blobbers. Its respective only in the save scumming aspect. It would have been a lot harder, and I would have avoided a ton of it, if FO 1 and 2 did not allow you to save scum combat. In FO1 you can literally kill a whole army right at the beginning. It wasn't designed for save scumming and would be a much, much better game without it. Allowing save scum combat totally undermined most of the systems in that game, and those systems were great.

If you are saying FO is repetitive not in combat, but in running around talking to people in a passive and mostly mindless way - I can't disagree. But I broke up the monotony by also sneaking into rooms, picking pockets, stealing shit, combat, tons of game stuff, content, chardev, etc.

BG and all the IE games, just like Dungeon Siege, just like NWN 1 and 2, just like Dragon Age, and all the fluff rpgs that had an extreme overabundance of super easy combat and near endless hordes of enemies are not fun for me for the exact same main reason Wizardry clones aren't.

I agree about the community of the nuCodex. Arguing with inconsistent children that can't make a competent or consistent argument, and that argue more about feelings over observable examples, and post to get buttons instead of further an adult discussion, are all super fucking annoying and most likely officially retarded. Yet, we are members here so its not like we are geniuses either. Hell, one of the leaders of this site admitted to liking pokeman more than real crpgs. You can't make this shit up.

 

[aweigh]

Yeah... that's why I used to rarely edit posts and instead make a new one under the previous one continuing my train of thought until the people here apparently thought that was "spamming" or some shit and kept complaining.

EDIT: For those wondering why my method was more effective:

- when you make a new post in the thread (instead of editing your old one), whoever is writing a reply to your post willr eceive the notification that there is a new comment while they are writing their reply to your old post, which is something that DOESN'T happen when a comment is edited.

But apparently posting 3 times in a row in a thread makes people's heads explode.

 

[Roqua]

First floor encounters are some of the most dangerous, in proportion to how the party is setup, especially for a first time player; add in a newbie player deciding to disarm every chest and that's a probable wipe right there.

EDIT: Also, the different ports of Wizardry 1 all have varying degrees of difficulty, though I thought everyone knew this. The hardest version is the original (Apple), followed by the slightly downtuned DOS version (throw in the PC-98 version here as well), which is then followed by the PSX versions and the SNES versions, then the Game Boy (and GB Color) versions, and in last place the NES version.

In any case I don't want to comment too much on the differences in the ports because that has little to do with what roqua is saying, which is that all combat in turn-based blobbers is repetitious and hollow because of lack of properly "complex" mechanical elements or other RPG aspects, so whether the encounter rate frequence and the enemy stats are tuned upwards or downwards would be irrelevant as the combat would remain "brainless".

To each their own, mang, I don't have the energy to try (or the want) to convince you that what you think isn't accurate; you simply don't enjoy RPGs that focus on gameplay, instead you want fetch quests and "Codexian C&C", and that's fine.

That isn't what I said at all. Did MMX have endless hordes of enemies and combat you could dur out during 95% of the time? No. Only games, regardless of blobber or not, that have combat you can dur out during, not try, not make any choices, not pay attention, and win 95% of the time are like that, and most of those games revolve around and you spend the most amount of time doing combat. Its fucking boring. I want games to be more active, more involved, require more thought. I have been very consistent about this criticism, from arpgs, to talking-head rpgs like BG1/2, to whatever Dungeon Siege is, Emlinage Gothic, etc. They all pretty much equal Clicker Hero to me. Clicker Hero is a real game by the way. Check it out. All those games are like Clicker Hero with a tiny bit more wrappings and trappings.

 

[octavius]

I remember when I was 13, setting my alarm for 3am so I could play a few hours of The Bard's Tale every day, before having to catch the bus to school.

I spent a whole summer vacation with my Amiga playing BT 1.

And today I learnt that Roqua doesn't like blobbers and aweigh does.
In fact I think the world knows by now.

 

[Roqua]

BTW, is Grimoire worth playing? I wish that crackerjack had a goddamn manual for his shit.

Yes, definitely. The last version (V2) with the manual is supposed to be out this month. Will it? We'll see. I hope so. I really need something to play. Grimoire, to me, is the pinnacle of old school crpg blobbers. But, it has a ton of kill, kill, kill - and most of it is very mindless.

Seriously, if you haven't - play MMX, Wiz8, RoA 1-3. If you don't mind old, play a Buck Rogers game. I recommend Matrix Cubed on the PC. It requires a drag/drop into DOS box. I copy/paste any config from GoG (usually Wiz7 since I have it installed most of the time). If you are lazy, a lot of emulator sites allow you to play the Sega versions right through the sites, and save into the site - but the SEGA versions are gutted, rpg-lite versions that removed most chrgen and dev options/complexities. Most combat is mindless regardless of pc/sega, but a significant amount isn't compared to most blobbers, and will require thought, solid planning, and reloads/luck. The combat system is above par, especially for the time, with weird sci-fi guns and armor resistant to them, etc. Its also hard and you can completely fuck yourself, like with the brain infection sequence. What sucks with it, and the other goldbox games, is it refers you to a supplemental manual for a lot of in game content/story. The text area in game will refer you to the right page to read in the supplement. Also, the UI sucks really bad like in all old games.

 

[Grauken]

a game like Bard's Tale 1 or Wizardry or Elminage is equally as much of an RPG as something like Baldur's Gate. dialog-trees and fetch quests have little to do with RPG-quality.

I agree that BT, Wizardry, Elminage Gothic, and Baldur's gate have the same focus on super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat. You could throw Dungeon Siege and Clicker Heroes in that group too.

In my opinion, all of those are vastly inferior to ToEE, MMX, Wiz8, RoA 1-3, both Buck Rogers, Arcanum, FO 1 and 2, WL2 DC, TToN, Underraill, etc.

BT, Wiz and EG have a strong focus on strategic challenge (dungeon spelunking as a whole) while keeping the individual battles short, while you seem to prefer in-depth tactical challenges that come with each battle in the games you like. Given the amount of combat in tb-based blobbers, this just wouldn't be much fun in the long run, but neither approach is superior, just different

 

[CyberWhale]

One question for you dungeon crawling autists - how do you rate the Pokemon series? Please answer only if you actually played the games. Thnx.

 

[Grauken]

Never touched them, but maybe because it was after my time, lots of my younger colleagues can't stop talking about the good memories they have of playing Pokemon as a kid, when I tell them I like RPGs. I have to restrain myself from telling them what I think of Pokemon

I initially didn't touch the Shin Megami Tensei series because it sounded too much like Pokemon, though I've come to appreciate its dungeon crawler qualities and the fusion system is good

 

[CyberWhale]

I share your opinion, but I don't gain anything with your answer. Waiting for experienced autists.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

So I've been playing the remastered Bard's Tale and I realize the game is popamole on steroids. Dungeons are Skinner rat mazes for me to hack apart all manner of life until I get my pellet of food/level up.

Are there any top tier blobbers that have more focus on exploration and meaningful combat? I'm not a huge storyfag, but some story isn't a bad thing. I've played Grimcock and Wizardry.

Bard's Tale is like the Might & Magic series to me. It's just kill, kill, kill. It's like they're made to appeal to lobotomized dope fiends. I lack the requisite autism to properly appreciate those games.

You'll need to make a choice between exploration and combat. For the former, you should try Dungeon Master, Chaos Strikes Back, and their better imitators (more recently Legend of Grimrock I & II), which are real-time with more interaction that enhances exploration. For the latter, it seems you would prefer a turn-based game without random encounters, where every combat is a scripted event, which is highly unusual for turn-based blobbers.

Or you could simply play Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar, the greatest game ever created by 'thalkind.

 

[Roqua]

a game like Bard's Tale 1 or Wizardry or Elminage is equally as much of an RPG as something like Baldur's Gate. dialog-trees and fetch quests have little to do with RPG-quality.

I agree that BT, Wizardry, Elminage Gothic, and Baldur's gate have the same focus on super easy, endless hordes of enemy combat. You could throw Dungeon Siege and Clicker Heroes in that group too.

In my opinion, all of those are vastly inferior to ToEE, MMX, Wiz8, RoA 1-3, both Buck Rogers, Arcanum, FO 1 and 2, WL2 DC, TToN, Underraill, etc.

BT, Wiz and EG have a strong focus on strategic challenge (dungeon spelunking as a whole) while keeping the individual battles short, while you seem to prefer in-depth tactical challenges that come with each battle in the games you like. Given the amount of combat in tb-based blobbers, this just wouldn't be much fun in the long run, but neither approach is superior, just different

The same could be said for Dungeon Siege, the IE games, etc. These games are probably great for people with Attention Surplus Disorder, but I want every combat to require me to think, try, and be an active participant - or at least half of them. In BT1 and games like it I don't even look what the enemy is, and hit AAAADD. Repeat a million times. In the IE games and games like it I click on one enemy and watch my party win. No trying, no thinking, for 95% of the combats.

I want the encounters ramped down to 1/10th of what they are, and the challenge for the rest ramped up significantly, with tactics and strategy and various options. MMX did it pretty well - enough to not bore me to death. Even super indy jrpg-likes like Deadly Sin 2 did very well in requiring you to pay attention and try in every fight - while still requiring you to have the same long term strategy you talk about. My type of game give you what you want, as well as gives me what I want.

But we can all agree to disagree on what we want games give us. I will never agree, or agree to disagree, that simple games with overly repetitive, simple, no-try, autowin combat somehow has good combat. If it does not require me to think or pay attention even a little - its bad combat, even if the boss fights, or the few challenging battles it does have are super well done.

But, again, there are lots of games with bad combat I love despite having bad combat.