If you play every RPG ever made in chronological order...

...then by the second year of you doing so, you would have only reached Ultima V.

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/

That means starting from Akalabeth in the 1970s and working one's way down from there. It makes me realize that gaming during the late 1970s and early 1980s itself deserves a huge chapter and itself is many hours of playing before one can finish all of it. It's like a huge prologue that you haven't even finished and there are several other tomes still left to read, let alone the same book.

The man is currently still on 1988, and at this point, Pools of Radiance and Might and Magic I and II are the best games he has played for anything released during that year or before. Makes you realize that MM series was elite quality even in the 1980s. It's also a reminder of the undisputed giant that Pools of Radiance must have been in the 1980s.

 

I'm doing a similar project myself, though I don't intend to play all CRPGs, only selected ones. OTOH I don't limit myself to only CRPGs and I don't limit myself to the PC platform; I also play Amiga games and tried to replay some of my old ZX Spectrum favourites. I can still stand the primitive graphics of the Spectrum, but the problem is the horrid UI, so I had to give up on that.

I'm almost finished with 1988. Currently playing BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Inception and after that there is only Might&Magic 2 left.

So far Pool of Radiance is in a class of itself amongst the turn based CRPGs, while Dungeon Master is in a class of itself period. It's grotesque how much more games like Dungeon Master (but also Starglider 2 from 1988) uses the power of the Amiga than SSI titles like Star Command and Demon's Winter.

Bard's Tale has not stood the test of time well (endless amounts of random encounters in real time and primitive combat mechanics, though the sound and graphics of the Amiga version was awesome), while the Phantasie games have aged quite well despite primitive sound and graphics (they have auto-map).

Pleasant surprises was Might&Magic 1 (the first really good CRPG IMO. Ultima IV suffered from boring combat system and too much random encounters), Starflight and Demon's Winter.

Biggest disappointment was Wasteland. Perhaps my anticipation was too high? The combat system was not very good and the endless random encounters while aimlessly walking around in New Vegas was tedious. Or maybe I played it at the wrong time? Play was interrupted for a whole month due to vacation and reading and digesting A Dance with Dragons.

 

Interesting blog. Somebody should do the same with adventure games.

 

Could have been overhyped for you yeah.

Wasteland is my favorite game of all time (not adjusted for nostalgia), although I grew up enjoying games like The Bard's Tale so I'm probably biased. It's interesting that the things you list as flaws (lots of random encounters) are the things I most enjoyed. I just loved grinding levels and improving my characters in Wasteland.

I've tried going back and replaying it a few times over the years but for some reason I only get a few hours in before moving on to something else.

Wasteland was published well before the internet existed, so it was just you and the game. Playing games without an internet connection was an entirely different experience, and game designers didn't anticipate (alt-tab -> google) instant spoilage. You'd need a time machine, great self-control, or a cabin in Arkansas to recreate the intended experience.

 

octavius have you considering doing a blog with one or two paragraphs about each game pointing out the good and the bad?
Maybe also an excel table rating each game, like the other guy did.

 

I guess your Wasteland experience was much like my Bard's Tale experience. I had an Amiga, so I never got the chance to play Wasteland as a kid, but Bard's Tale was my first CRPG. I loved it and couldn't get enough of it, at least not untill BT 3. Replaying it as an adult was not quite the same.

I've thought about it, but if I started blogging it would feel too much like "work" and "responsibility".

 

Well, you could always start a thread in the codex and do one post per game, in that case instead of work it would seem like you're procrastinating on real work.

 

I briefly thought about someone starting up a blog where he'd play every FPS game released in chronological order.

He'd do brilliantly at the beginning, almost skipping the 80s entirely, but by the time he reaches 1994 he'd be bogged down by a barrage of "me-too" clones of Doom, and would probably give up after 4 months (real-time) and only having reached as far as early 1996.

 

How could anyone complain about random encounters in Wasteland and The Bard's Tale and think M&M1 is really good? You say BT1 has primitive combat mechanics and endless random encounters, then hold up M&M1 as the first really good crpg, which is worse and came out after BT1 and Wizardry and used that crappy text interface, with even less combat options than BT1? Any other game i might agree, but M&M1 has all the things you complain about.

I'll agree with folks about Demon's Winter and Phantasie still holding up, but what are you talking about Wasteland? Aimlessly walking around New Vegas? Are you sure you played it enough, or at all?

 

MM1, Bard's Tale and Wasteland all have similar combat systems, at least on the surface.

When I said BT has primitive mechanics it is because chance to hit, both for monsters and your own characters, is based on Armour Class. Your lvl 99 Paladin will suddenly not be able to hit much if he takes off all his armour. So of these three BT has the most primitive combat system. BT also has the worst encounter design, since random encounters are checked in real time, not per step or turn your party makes. Just waiting a few seconds will usually generate a new random encounter. But despite the crude combat mechanics any individual battle in BT is fun because combat is quick and there is a lot of diversity in weapons, armour, spells and monsters so you rarely feel you fight the same battle twice. But the sheer number of random encounters is just overwhelming.

MM1 has a better system, where your stats and weapons determine chances to hit. Amount of random encounters is far less than in BT and are only checked for each step you take. In addition the fixed vs random encounters ratio is much higher for MM1. Like BT MM1 also scores high on diversity, but are all things considered superior to BT1.
In addition MM1 also has a large world to explore, with lots of dungeons to explore, some NPC to interact with and lots of quests. So to me it defintely is the first really good CRPG, even though I only recently played it for the first time, while BT was the first real CRPG I played as a kid (and I loved it then).

The problem with Wasteland (as with BattleTech - The Crescent Hawk's Inception) is lack of the mentioned diversity. You fight the same damned robots over and over and over and over again with a limited arsenal. The fixed vs random encounters ratio is also poor. On the plus side Wasteland has more logical encounters, while BT and MM1 just throws together several types of random monster groups.

So yes, MM1 is clearly superior to BT1 and Wasteland when it comes to combat.

 

No, you are wrong. You don't just fight robots, you don't start in Vegas, you don't have a limited aresenal, and you don't have nearly as many random encounters as in MM1. You don't even see a robot until after Highpool, Needles, Quartz, and the Servants of the Mushroom cloud. Even after that, you still go to the Cathedral and other places that are robot free. The last... I don't know, 25% of the game does have quite a few robots, but that's because you have power armor, lazer guns, etc.

Combat in Wasteland at least allows for skills with abilities determining "to hit", as well as splitting teams in combat, combat of both ranged and melee against animated enemies, being one of the first games that had skills increase with use. MM1 had complete shit combat, ripped off from D&D, level scaled, non-animated enemies, in flat 4 color locations using state of the art ansii text. Everything, even outdoors, being a maze of somekind. Fuck MM1 in its shitty ass. I played that game 50+ hours when it came out and that game sucked balls just as much then as it does now. Fuck you for even mentioning it in the same sentence as Wasteland.

If it's combat is so great, you'd finish it. However, after 20 hours you'd find yourself level 12 fighting random level 12 mobs getting level 8 loot. That may be fun for someone, but not me pal. Ok, gotta stop now, caught myself spergin' out over a 25 year old video game. Sigh.

 

Well FPS games are usually pretty quick-playing if you 're not going for 100% completion. And unless you have a must-finish rule, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to spend only a couple of hours on some of the really terrible ones (Operation Body Count, In Extremis, and so on). It's definitely more feasible than all-CRPG's, which take much, MUCH longer to finish per game.

 

Never said you start in Vegas. The game was actually good untill Vegas.
Yes, you have a limited aresenal compared to MM1. In Wasteland you have 30 different weapons and a small selection of armour. In MM1 you have 255 different items as well as lots of spells. So there is clearly more variety in tactics in MM1.

Maybe not the whole game, but Vegas clearly throws more random encounters at you than any area in MM1. Compared to for example Bard's Tale MM1 actually has very few random encounters.

Yup, that is a point in favour Wasteland.
Although I found the Rifle skill to be useless, since my characters had much more problems hitting with a rifle than with a hand gun.

No, it was not ripped off from D&D. If anything it was ripped off from Wizardry.
And no, the monsters were not level scaled, they were area scaled.
As for graphics and animations, Wasteland came out two years after MM1. If you want to compare graphics and animations, compare it to MM2 instead.

Does Wasteland have bouncing naked boobies?

I did.

 

If you had to play every FPS ever made with a rule that you must spend at least five hours on each game or at least complete two levels, whichever is later, how long do you think it will take?

 

Less than doing the same with RPG's, which was my point. Also, the 5-hour rule will stop being a problem eventually when all FPS's can be finished in around 2 or 3

I'm not saying it's easy or quick, I just think it is doable within a lifetime. Not that I'd want to do it, mind you.

 

You'd get fucking depressed.

 

Out of the Addict's next four games on his list, I don't see him finishing Wasteland or Wizardry: Heart of the Maelstrom.

 

the crpg addict will hang himself before the end

watch and see

 

Ok, you win. I guess I need to go back and try MM1 again to renew my perspective.

 

Heh, the bouncing boobies are from MM2, though.

But if you overlook the crude graphics of MM1 (it is an 1986 game after all) it is a fine game.

I may give Wasteland a new chance myself. I have a save from right before going to Vegas I can use. The CRPG Addict will play it soon, so maybe his blog will inspire me.