Old-school dungeon crawls - post your favourite, and why!

[Au naturel]

I knew as soon as I picked up Chaos Strikes Back many years ago that it would be hard. When you see the stats of the starting characters...man.

I never did finish that one. As you say, it was insanely confusing and difficult.

 

[Jasede]

TBH I never played Chaos Strikes Back. What's the best version/only version? Amiga? Amiga would be nice; I could play Black Crypt while I am at it, and replay Ambermoon.

 

[Hazelnut]

TBH I never played Chaos Strikes Back. What's the best version/only version? Amiga? Amiga would be nice; I could play Black Crypt while I am at it, and replay Ambermoon.

See Section8's post? That's what I used to play DM2.

 

[made]

Black Crypt ftw. It was the best of its kind due to interface, gameplay and dungeon design when it comes to pure crawling.

Any games with a wilderness, cities etc to explore don't really fit the description as there was much more to them than mastering a labyrinth.

 

[SkeleTony]

As far as first person RPGs, besides the ones already mentioned(Wiz 7 & 8, etc.) I was a pretty strange freak about indie games & comics so I got a whole heap of pleasure from Ancients: Deathwatch and Moraff's Dungeons of the Unforgiven(corny/cheesy monsters and PC races...ugh!).

I loved M&M 7 beyond all otehrs but this thread is prompting me to break out my "Ultimate RPG Archive3s" disks with the M&M 5/Xeen games and give them another go.

As far as NON-first person(top down, isometric, etc.) games I still prefer Helherron, Natuk, Nahlakh, POWS, and Blades of Exile/Avernum.

 

[Raapys]

Hmm, I think Daggerfall is a step or two above the others, even though it's terribly unfinished and buggy. Ironically though, the actual dungeon crawling is perhaps where this game is the weakest.

Other than that, I greatly enjoyed the M&M games; fun combat and the games takes weeks/months in real time to finish. World of Xeen was possibly the best one purely content-wise, but M&M6, 7 and 8 were so much more playable with the highly improved UI.

Diablo is #1 when it comes to pure atmosphere, though. Blizzard really knew how to make them back then.

 

[slipgate_angel]

Old school wise, "Icewind dale 1" : I never really played with six characters, I actually played with a ranger class, who also hapen to be a wise crack. "Step right up, I've got plenty of death for everybody" .

New school wise, "Dark cloud 2" : This game was actually the title that got me caring about RPGs. Although I found out that not all of the console RPGs, turn based or action based were as fun and engaging for me as Dark cloud 2 was.

 

[Saxon1974]

Im surprised people would choose Diablo. I don't think of it as an old school dungeon romp but more the beginning of the action rpg genre which I hate. I thought it had good atmosphere but thats about it.

I also see alot of the Baldur's gate and icewind dale games being listed, these don't feel old school to me but that might be my age talking

The old school games like Ultima 3 - 6, MM1 - IV, and Wizardy's were not as good graphically or in NPC interaction but are much better at being "true" RPG's.

 

[Raapys]

Huh? What about Diablo is *not* old-school RPG? Walk around in dungeon, kill monsters, get phat loot, level up. All the ingredients are right there.

Besides, Rogue is basically the same game as Diablo, and it came out like 15 years earlier. Yet I doubt anyone would actually call that an 'action RPG'.

For action RPGs I'd say the bigger focus is on the player's skills, and not the character's. Diablo is basically 100% about the character's skills, so I don't think it qualifies for my definition of aRPG.

 

[Saxon1974]

Huh? What about Diablo is *not* old-school RPG? Walk around in dungeon, kill monsters, get phat loot, level up. All the ingredients are right there.

Besides, Rogue is basically the same game as Diablo, and it came out like 15 years earlier. Yet I doubt anyone would actually call that an 'action RPG'.

For action RPGs I'd say the bigger focus is on the player's skills, and not the character's. Diablo is basically 100% about the character's skills, so I don't think it qualifies for my definition of aRPG.

From what I remember of Diablo, its stictly linear with almost no story and nothing but kill, kill, kill.....it's probably on the fence as far as being an "RPG". It didn't have any fun puzzles, open exploration, tactical combat where you had to use strategy to win (At least I don't remember that), nor did it have hardly any NPC's to meet and get quests from (I think there were only a couple in the town).

Leveling up and Phat loot don't qualify as an old school dungeon romp RPG to me. It felt more like the arcade game "Gauntlet" to me.

 

[Raapys]

But that's what the old-school dungeon romps were about. You didn't go around doing silly quests, talk to lots of NPCs and explore the outsides, you were stuck in huge dungeons avoiding traps, killing monsters and finding loot.

 

[made]

"you were stuck in huge dungeons avoiding traps, killing monsters and finding loot."

Yes, but puzzles were a big part of that. Diablo and most games that came after it pronounce the kill&loot aspect and neglect the puzzle part.

 

[Xi]

But that's what the old-school dungeon romps were about. You didn't go around doing silly quests, talk to lots of NPCs and explore the outsides, you were stuck in huge dungeons avoiding traps, killing monsters and finding loot.

Miracle Warriors, the game I listed, was definitely in the vein you're describing, but it had an outside world. I think that's why I thought it was so cool. It wasn't as claustrophobic until you went into a dungeon.(Which it had plenty of) :D Plus it was made in like 1985 or 86. It was one of those gems not many people played.

 

[Raapys]

Yes, but puzzles were a big part of that. Diablo and most games that came after it pronounce the kill&loot aspect and neglect the puzzle part.

Well, Diablo just followed in the steps of Rogue and other later Roguelikes, and Rogue was as said from 1980. I haven't played Rogue for eternities, but I don't think it focused any on puzzles either.

Miracle Warriors, the game I listed, was definitely in the vein you're describing, but it had an outside world. I think that's why I thought it was so cool. It wasn't as claustrophobic until you went into a dungeon.(Which it had plenty of) Plus it was made in like 1985 or 86. It was one of those gems not many people played.

Yeah, looks like that's the way it evolved. Eventually more and more dungeon-games started having an outside world; first just cities, then wilderness, etc. Actual dungeons have become more and more rare.

 

[SkeleTony]

Huh? What about Diablo is *not* old-school RPG? Walk around in dungeon, kill monsters, get phat loot, level up. All the ingredients are right there.

Nah...it was a very good GAME, don't get me wrong and I am not one of those elitist pricks who says it is NOT a RPG. But it does not really fit the "old school" dungeon romp classification. For starters character creation & development is a bit on the console-styled, 'dumbed down' side. And then the real-time, twitch combat...while not as bad as Daggerfall I think is still kind of console-ish.

Besides, Rogue is basically the same game as Diablo, and it came out like 15 years earlier. Yet I doubt anyone would actually call that an 'action RPG'.

Rogue(and Nethack etc.) which inspired Diablo is not so dumbed down and is certainly no click-fest in terms of combat.

For action RPGs I'd say the bigger focus is on the player's skills, and not the character's. Diablo is basically 100% about the character's skills, so I don't think it qualifies for my definition of aRPG.

Actually Diablo is a bit of a hybrid in this regard. True that the skill of the PC determines whether the character hits and such but it is the PLAYER'S ability to frantically move the mouse around and mash buttons that determines how well you are abel to slaughter hordes of enemies while downing potions of healing/mana.

 

[Saxon1974]

Anyone know of any discussion boards discussing particular old school games? (Other than this one).

I was trying to find one talking about MM2, but then again I might be one of the only people playing a game that old.

 

[mirrorshades]

Anyone know of any discussion boards discussing particular old school games? (Other than this one).

I was trying to find one talking about MM2, but then again I might be one of the only people playing a game that old.

http://www.abandonia.com/forum/index.php?showforum=29

I think the underdogs has forums too, not sure how active they are. Also might check out the MobyGames forums.

 

[Saxon1974]

Anyone know of any discussion boards discussing particular old school games? (Other than this one).

I was trying to find one talking about MM2, but then again I might be one of the only people playing a game that old.

http://www.abandonia.com/forum/index.php?showforum=29

I think the underdogs has forums too, not sure how active they are. Also might check out the MobyGames forums.

Cool thanks.

 

[Saxon1974]

Anyone know where I could find a level advancement tables for MM2? I have the clue book and manual and dont see it.

Just wondering because my knight levels up with far less XP than some of my other character, seemed a bit odd to me.

 

[mirrorshades]

Anyone know where I could find a level advancement tables for MM2? I have the clue book and manual and dont see it.

Just wondering because my knight levels up with far less XP than some of my other character, seemed a bit odd to me.

From the manual:

EXPERIENCE POINTS: A running total of all points gained from defeating monsters, completing quests, etc.
Experience points determine a character's eligibility for various types of training and for advancement to the
next experience level. Approximately 2000 points are needed to advance from level 1 to level 2. Point
requirements generally double with each subsequent level.

I think that roughly the "fighter" types tend to level up quicker than the "caster" types. A quick check with a new party showed that the knight and thief only needed 1500 xp to level 2, while the rest needed 2000. This becomes more pronounced as you go on, but as long as you maintain a consistent party (i.e. don't start a new level 1 thief into a party where everyone else is level 137), they'll be close enough in level to do okay.

Really gets tough for the spellcasters, though, since they only gain new spells every other level.

 

[Saxon1974]

Anyone know where I could find a level advancement tables for MM2? I have the clue book and manual and dont see it.

Just wondering because my knight levels up with far less XP than some of my other character, seemed a bit odd to me.

From the manual:

EXPERIENCE POINTS: A running total of all points gained from defeating monsters, completing quests, etc.
Experience points determine a character's eligibility for various types of training and for advancement to the
next experience level. Approximately 2000 points are needed to advance from level 1 to level 2. Point
requirements generally double with each subsequent level.

I think that roughly the "fighter" types tend to level up quicker than the "caster" types. A quick check with a new party showed that the knight and thief only needed 1500 xp to level 2, while the rest needed 2000. This becomes more pronounced as you go on, but as long as you maintain a consistent party (i.e. don't start a new level 1 thief into a party where everyone else is level 137), they'll be close enough in level to do okay.

Really gets tough for the spellcasters, though, since they only gain new spells every other level.

Ok, well at least I know my game is not bugged then. My Knight needed something like 150,000 less XP than my paladin to level up, which seemed a bit odd. Thanks. Amazing how much fun im having with this game, haven't played it since I was about 14 when it first came out.

 

[Moggs]

I adored MM2 back on the Amiga. I wouldn't mind giving it another go. What platform are you emulating to play it, Saxon? And do you have a copy of the manual, I seem to remember there were some "refer to page 45" type screens in the game?

 

[Jasede]

You didn't ask me, but I am using a Mac emulator to play the Mac version. It allows me to import the party from MM 1 in addition to having a wonderful interface, intuitive and easy to use; very different from the Apple version.

 

[Moggs]

A mac emulator, you say? I've never used a mac, but am willing to give it a go. Any links to a particularly good version? CHeers.

 

[Jasede]

Well, setting up a Mac emulator is a difficult process. I had a lot of trouble with it and would say it is as difficult as installing an old Debian Linux version without reading the manual or reading the help-files.

However, I found that this website here explains everything you need to do, and also provides links. The games can be found on the Mac section of HOTU.

http://wiki.oldos.org/Mac/68kEmulator