Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Gold Box I played the NES port of Pool of Radiance for a bit; this game is terrible

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,131
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
You said (foolishly) bad game, not bad level. If you want to beclown yourself you're always free to do so.
Ok, I hurt yer feelings. It's a game from your childhood. Maybe it's not that bad, since a lot of you enjoyed the game. I will change the adjective I used, it's too archaic to my taste, and I don't think the game will get better at level two. Moving through the map is confusing, even drawing a map. Maybe the battles will get better, but I don't think so.

Nah, my family has a monopoly on my feelings nowadays. It's just a famous game in the history of vidja and one level isn't really enough to get a feel as for why. I wouldn't recommend any game of that era to just play for fun straight up.

We're not Amish.
 

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,131
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
How cute, a newfaq saying something edgy to show he's a philistine, what a novel thing to do

I've gotten plenty from the oldfaqs too. Phillistine would be a step up from nihilism.
 

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,131
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
Nope, my sperm w/ donor eggs.

Sorry for your loss, Unorus.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
You said (foolishly) bad game, not bad level. If you want to beclown yourself you're always free to do so.
Ok, I hurt yer feelings. It's a game from your childhood. Maybe it's not that bad, since a lot of you enjoyed the game. I will change the adjective I used, it's too archaic to my taste, and I don't think the game will get better at level two. Moving through the map is confusing, even drawing a map. Maybe the battles will get better, but I don't think so.

Use Gold Box Companion and you won't have to draw a map.
 

sgm

Educated
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
79
Location
cá nada
The AD&D rules system which this game was based upon was not about being a murderhobo. The lack of healing options outside of safe areas, coupled with the high amount of enemies that give little value in terms of experience in contrast to gaining treasure, were there to discourage players from fighting everything they ran into. That is why this game had the option, which was always a large part of D&D encounter resolution, to parley (I believe the first character's Charisma score was significant in affecting the outcome of the parley option chosen in the Gold Box games. In D&D it was the character chosen whose side won initiative that acts as the "speaker" and known faction associations had an affect as well, such as racial preference and known religious affiliations, particularly for Clerics and Paladins). Also, searching in D&D caused the chance for an encounter to occur to rise significantly. Therefore it was never something adventurers did every time they moved one square down a hallway, nor when they were attempt to return to a safe area.

Of course, vidya gaem players were too retarded to not try and kill everything they encountered, causing a number of critics to point out these so-called "flaws" in design. Not surprising, this ignorant opinion is still held by many moderntard role-players who most likely started playing on either a console, computer, or 3.X garbage that still doesn't understand the point of the game. Neither Conan, nor Fafhrd ever had a kill count as high as your typical Pathfinder, or 5E player. Cugel the Clever didn't ever backstab/sneak-attack, so much as bullshit his way through (and into) every bad circumstance he encountered. Magic was always limited, but extremely deadly when used correctly, as T'sain proved by defeating the much more powerful wizard Mazirian; cleverly using the few spells she had to full effect.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
You said (foolishly) bad game, not bad level. If you want to beclown yourself you're always free to do so.
Ok, I hurt yer feelings. It's a game from your childhood. Maybe it's not that bad, since a lot of you enjoyed the game. I will change the adjective I used, it's too archaic to my taste, and I don't think the game will get better at level two. Moving through the map is confusing, even drawing a map. Maybe the battles will get better, but I don't think so.

Nah, my family has a monopoly on my feelings nowadays. It's just a famous game in the history of vidja and one level isn't really enough to get a feel as for why. I wouldn't recommend any game of that era to just play for fun straight up.

We're not Amish.

I play lots of games from that era for fun. Has nothing to do with being Amish, I just value good stuff. Every era creates terrible shit and gems and if you can't enjoy the greats history has bestowed upon us, then the problem is you
 

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,131
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
You said (foolishly) bad game, not bad level. If you want to beclown yourself you're always free to do so.
Ok, I hurt yer feelings. It's a game from your childhood. Maybe it's not that bad, since a lot of you enjoyed the game. I will change the adjective I used, it's too archaic to my taste, and I don't think the game will get better at level two. Moving through the map is confusing, even drawing a map. Maybe the battles will get better, but I don't think so.

Nah, my family has a monopoly on my feelings nowadays. It's just a famous game in the history of vidja and one level isn't really enough to get a feel as for why. I wouldn't recommend any game of that era to just play for fun straight up.

We're not Amish.

I play lots of games from that era for fun. Has nothing to do with being Amish, I just value good stuff. Every era creates terrible shit and gems and if you can't enjoy the greats history has bestowed upon us, then the problem is you

I enjoy the greats. Currently have a BG SCS playthrough in progress. The not so greats I run out of patience pretty fast. Pool of Radiance is right on that edge.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I play lots of games from that era for fun

Yeah, you because you played it when it came out, or you played similar games of that ancient era.

My first RPG was Diablo which I played in the early 00s, and I was born in 88 so the first games I played were from the 90s - Monkey Island, Commander Keen, etc.

By all means, I should not be able to enjoy Pool of Radiance because it's from an era before I got into computer games, if nostalgia is the only reason people still enjoy it.

But no. I played it in 2016 (after ignoring it for years due to the interface being so archaic) and genuinely enjoyed it.

I also played early 90s RPGs in the 2000s and 2010s and enjoyed them, despite them being comparatively "archaic" compared to the Baldur's Gates and Fallouts and Morrowinds of the day. Might and Magic 3 to 5, Ultima VI and VII, Betrayal at Krondor, etc.

These games are genuinely fun. If they were fun 30 years ago they can still be fun today. Why would they lose their enjoyment factor just because of age?
 

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,013
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
You said (foolishly) bad game, not bad level. If you want to beclown yourself you're always free to do so.
Ok, I hurt yer feelings. It's a game from your childhood. Maybe it's not that bad, since a lot of you enjoyed the game. I will change the adjective I used, it's too archaic to my taste, and I don't think the game will get better at level two. Moving through the map is confusing, even drawing a map. Maybe the battles will get better, but I don't think so.

Use Gold Box Companion and you won't have to draw a map.
You might also consider pressing A.
 

Darkzone

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,323
Roguey doesn't get PoR.
I played it back then as it was released and still i think that it one of the best games ever made. It is a just a tactical RPG with exploration and the quests are nearly automatically solved. But it has an inherent beauty that you only understand if you can see in abstractions.
If people like chat and like to have romances in their RPGs, then it is not for them. But if you like tactical combat and have a sense of accomplishment as you level up then it is for you. Ultima 5 was released in the same year as was Pool of Radiance and both are giants on different levels.

I still remember most of the slums and sokal keep encounters after 31 years.
 

Bruma Hobo

Lurker
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
2,409
Of course, vidya gaem players were too retarded to not try and kill everything they encountered, causing a number of critics to point out these so-called "flaws" in design.
More like some developers were too retarded to design computer games properly, thinking people would play without resting after every battle or reload after some bad rolls. Newsflash, if there's no DM supervising your game, most p&p sessions would play exactly like the kind of murderhobo fantasy you condemn.

Instead of wasting time autistically filling their shops with tons of polearms, the designers should have implemented some new rules so the players wouldn't spam spells and immediately rest, or easily savescum every time an encounter goes poorly. Or not, but then they shouldn't blame the player if he just roflstomps their games instead of act as an actual adventurer cautiously avoiding unnecessary encounters.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
You said (foolishly) bad game, not bad level. If you want to beclown yourself you're always free to do so.
Ok, I hurt yer feelings. It's a game from your childhood. Maybe it's not that bad, since a lot of you enjoyed the game. I will change the adjective I used, it's too archaic to my taste, and I don't think the game will get better at level two. Moving through the map is confusing, even drawing a map. Maybe the battles will get better, but I don't think so.

Use Gold Box Companion and you won't have to draw a map.
You might also consider pressing A.

There's a genuine difference between seeing the whole map at once versus it getting slowly revealed by you exploring it. I prefer the 2nd almost all the way (that's why I love tools like GridCartographer, the Gold Box Companion or Where Are We so much, even plain grid paper is great)
 

Dramart

Learned
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
540
Location
Argentina
My first RPG was Diablo which I played in the early 00s, and I was born in 88 so the first games I played were from the 90s - Monkey Island, Commander Keen, etc.

By all means, I should not be able to enjoy Pool of Radiance because it's from an era before I got into computer games, if nostalgia is the only reason people still enjoy it.

But no. I played it in 2016 (after ignoring it for years due to the interface being so archaic) and genuinely enjoyed it.

I also played early 90s RPGs in the 2000s and 2010s and enjoyed them, despite them being comparatively "archaic" compared to the Baldur's Gates and Fallouts and Morrowinds of the day. Might and Magic 3 to 5, Ultima VI and VII, Betrayal at Krondor, etc.

These games are genuinely fun. If they were fun 30 years ago they can still be fun today. Why would they lose their enjoyment factor just because of age?

It has nothing to with how old the game is. Yes, you can enjoy a game from any era. You can also dislike a game from any era. Grauken seems to have enjoyed the game because he played it when it was something new. But Desiderius said that he wouldn’t recommend a game of that era if you want to have fun. Both are right. You played that old game, recently and enjoyed as Grauken did. I didn’t, I think it was boring.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
Why are you so reasonable? That's not how we do things on the codex, throw some monkey shit
 

Darkzone

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,323
I also played early 90s RPGs in the 2000s and 2010s and enjoyed them, despite them being comparatively "archaic" compared to the Baldur's Gates and Fallouts and Morrowinds of the day. Might and Magic 3 to 5, Ultima VI and VII, Betrayal at Krondor, etc.
Wait you didn't play Ultima IV and V and WL? Immediately stop posting and play them. This is a necessary requirement as is F1 + 2.
 

King Crispy

Too bad I have no queen.
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
1,876,563
Location
Future Wasteland
Strap Yourselves In
Play Pool of Radiance Remastered for NWN2 instead. It's one of the few modules that make that game bearable.

1166801727fullres.jpg
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom