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.

CRPGAddict

Gastrick

Cipher
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
1,704
So Schopenhauer was an idiot who couldn't manage more than a couple of books, ok
Few is more than a couple, and the point seems to be that all those extraneous, time-wasting books are worthless and deserve to be burned.
I'd say just being forgotten in an archive is more than enough.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,756
DnDAngst1.png

DnDAngst2.png

DnDAngst3.png


Existential Comics: Dungeons & Dragons & Philosophers VI
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,786
So Schopenhauer was an idiot who couldn't manage more than a couple of books, ok
Few is more than a couple, and the point seems to be that all those extraneous, time-wasting books are worthless and deserve to be burned.
I'd say just being forgotten in an archive is more than enough.

Well, if he thinks all those book are extraneous and time-wasting then he's really an idiot, and you as well for parroting him
 
Last edited:

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
And that's, ladies and gentlemen, how philosophy got a bad rep - because of people citing aphoristic statement and thinking that appeal to authority is enough to make them indisputable truth.
 

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.
>philosopher literally tells you to stop reading so many books and using them as appeal to authority, claiming it's true because you read it in a book
>people start arguing about what that philosopher said instead of actually... you know... thinking for themselves like he wanted them to

bing bong
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,786
>philosopher literally tells you to stop reading so many books and using them as appeal to authority, claiming it's true because you read it in a book
>people start arguing about what that philosopher said instead of actually... you know... thinking for themselves like he wanted them to

bing bong

All this would be incredibly useful if CRPGAddict set out to play games to gain deep insights about the CRPGs, which he obviously did not, but instead tried to play all of them in chronological order and comment on that.

But let's assume he said his mission would be to play all the important and relevant CRPGs to formulate deep insights about the CRPG genre, then the discussion about which those are would and has been waged ad infinitum on this board and everywhere else. Some people often assume there are unassailable classics, eternal in their quality and in an absolute sense better than other games. I for one fundamentally disagree with that position, I think quality is inherently relative and never absolute. Give me any classic (by whatever best of list) and I find a better game (for my definition of better) and so the position there are those worthy to save forever and those better left burned is both distasteful and wrong, because one man's treasure is another man's trash and vice versa. And neither is really right or wrong.

The only objective quality games have is sales and to a lesser degree (because it's much harder to pin down in exact numbers) influence.
 

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 can always gain insights even from bad games, if only about what not to do when designing a game.

In fact, people who wanna do game design themselves should also play terrible games so they know what to avoid. Game designers not doing that is how we end up with so much shit (or maybe game designers genuinely like shit, who knows).
 

Nifft Batuff

Prophet
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
3,169
You can always gain insights even from bad games, if only about what not to do when designing a game.

In fact, people who wanna do game design themselves should also play terrible games so they know what to avoid. Game designers not doing that is how we end up with so much shit (or maybe game designers genuinely like shit, who knows).
I don't know. You can always gain some insights from what has been done in the past, obviously. The problem is that the way something is considered good or bad depends always on what are the current memes. I consider most of the bad design choices that I hate in modern games as deliberate, for example. They are perceived effectively by modern audience to be an improvement from the past in the context of these memes.
 

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.
That's because the people who play those games are casuals, not enthusiasts. They're looking for some casual entertainment rather than a deep gameplay experience that requires full attention.

And even then, if we disregard all that, there's some objectively good design and objectively bad design. Having millions of samey random encounters at a high encounter frequency is objectively bad (unless you're a turboautist who actually enjoys grind like that). Level design with different approaches to your goal, like in most levels of Thief and Deus Ex, is objectively good. There are several encounters in RPGs that I would consider objectively good, like the encounter with Lareth the Beautiful in ToEE, and there are several encounters in RPGs that I would consider objectively bad, like the majority of the Deep Roads in Dragon Age.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,786
That's because the people who play those games are casuals, not enthusiasts. They're looking for some casual entertainment rather than a deep gameplay experience that requires full attention.

And even then, if we disregard all that, there's some objectively good design and objectively bad design. Having millions of samey random encounters at a high encounter frequency is objectively bad

Wrong

Level design with different approaches to your goal, like in most levels of Thief and Deus Ex, is objectively good.

Wrong

That was exactly what I was saying, we fundamentally disagree about what is good or bad
 

Darth Canoli

Arcane
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
5,687
Location
Perched on a tree
All this would be incredibly useful if CRPGAddict set out to play games to gain deep insights about the CRPGs, which he obviously did not, but instead tried to play all of them in chronological order and comment on that.

But let's assume he said his mission would be to play all the important and relevant CRPGs to formulate deep insights about the CRPG genre, then the discussion about which those are would and has been waged ad infinitum on this board and everywhere else. Some people often assume there are unassailable classics, eternal in their quality and in an absolute sense better than other games. I for one fundamentally disagree with that position, I think quality is inherently relative and never absolute. Give me any classic (by whatever best of list) and I find a better game (for my definition of better) and so the position there are those worthy to save forever and those better left burned is both distasteful and wrong, because one man's treasure is another man's trash and vice versa. And neither is really right or wrong.

The only objective quality games have is sales and to a lesser degree (because it's much harder to pin down in exact numbers) influence.

Thanks for throwing at us so many tropes.

It doesn't matter if his goal was to become an "authoritative" source on Baldur's Gate the cRPG genre, he's posing as one in his comments and people refer to him as if he was one.

Simply reading about his comments in here would show anyone with half a brain that even if he played twice all the cRPG released and to be released in the next 100 years, he still wouldn't have a clue about what makes a good cRPG.

/End thread.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,189
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
You can always gain insights even from bad games, if only about what not to do when designing a game.

In fact, people who wanna do game design themselves should also play terrible games so they know what to avoid. Game designers not doing that is how we end up with so much shit (or maybe game designers genuinely like shit, who knows).

But it's not like all these shitty 80's games are terrible in an unique way, they're pretty much similar in their terribleness. Also it's not very useful for modern designer since nobody makes games like that anymore. It's not like making grindy barely functional dungeon crawlers with no story or sense of direction is a common pitfall for modern designers.
 

Gastrick

Cipher
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
1,704
>philosopher literally tells you to stop reading so many books and using them as appeal to authority, claiming it's true because you read it in a book
>people start arguing about what that philosopher said instead of actually... you know... thinking for themselves like he wanted them to

bing bong
>The philosopher who says that makes heavy use of appeals to authority in his works.
>The one who started appealing to authority wasn't me but the guy saying his idol CRPGaddict is not only an authority on games, but the ULTIMATE authority.
There you have it.

Some people often assume there are unassailable classics, eternal in their quality and in an absolute sense better than other games. I for one fundamentally disagree with that position, I think quality is inherently relative and never absolute. Give me any classic (by whatever best of list) and I find a better game (for my definition of better) and so the position there are those worthy to save forever and those better left burned is both distasteful and wrong, because one man's treasure is another man's trash and vice versa. And neither is really right or wrong.

The only objective quality games have is sales and to a lesser degree (because it's much harder to pin down in exact numbers) influence.
So Obliviion is no worse than Fallout 1 then? It's all subjective, right?
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
I remember 4 years ago CRPGaddict cried that if Trump wins, he'd have to get a real job. How come he's still running his blog?
 

Desiderius

Found your egg, Robinett, you sneaky bastard
Patron
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
14,131
Insert Title Here Pathfinder: Wrath
Same with Super 70s Sports Guy. He finally figured out that educators have no feel for Trump one way or another so decided to stick to what he knew. Rs have been on a stupid jihad against teachers since forever so that biases them.

Addict isn’t there yet.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,786
Ok, I try to keep it simple for you guys. There are basically two ways I can form an opinion on games. I play them all (while technically possible, unlike the CRPGAddict I have a life and not autism). Or I trust someone else opinion. In the second case, do I trust some randos on the internet because they say so (see quotes of randos below) or do I trust a guy who plays all these games, records while he plays and gives in-depth description? I very often disagree with the CRPGAddict's opinion on games, but I can do that because he puts them out there. As much as I like for example best of lists (like the Codex one), I don't take it for gospel until I actuall played the games. Or I read in-depth reviews like some of the Codex ones, where I can see pro and cons and get a good sense of the game.

Simply reading about his comments in here would show anyone with half a brain that even if he played twice all the cRPG released and to be released in the next 100 years, he still wouldn't have a clue about what makes a good cRPG.

you don't really have anything better that substanceless accusations, have you?

But it's not like all these shitty 80's games are terrible in an unique way, they're pretty much similar in their terribleness.

So you played them all, or you played maybe a couple and extrapolated? Am I to trust that? haha fuck no

It's not like making grindy barely functional dungeon crawlers with no story or sense of direction

Oh fuck, a newfaq who can't play dungeon crawlers, opinion automatically dismissed

The one who started appealing to authority wasn't me but the guy saying his idol CRPGaddict is not only an authority on games, but the ULTIMATE authority.

A rando who suffers from reading comprehension, but hey, what else is knew. I have enough stuff I find irksome with CRPGAddicts review, but that's the thing, I can read them and evaluate his opinions on those games. And because he played games so few others have played and reviewed, for at least those he is an authority.

So Oblivion is no worse than Fallout 1 then? It's all subjective, right?

Yes, it is to the people who enjoy Oblivion more than Fallout 1. I'm not one of them, but I don't dismiss their opinion just because I disagree with it. I think Thief is a terrible game, because I utterly despite stealth gameplay, but I if there are people who enjoy them, then from their POV they are great games. It really is subjective.
 

newtmonkey

Arcane
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
1,725
Location
Goblin Lair
I'd rather read the opinions of the CRPGAddict, who has played (and enjoyed) the classics, than a large portion of the posters on the Codex, who are here solely to shitpost and have not played a game made prior to 1997—if they have substantially played any games at all.

I think CRPGAddict has a very good clue about what makes a good CRPG, as here are his highest rated games thus far.
1. Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny
2. Ultima VI: The False Prophet
3. Pool of Radiance
4. Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss
5. The Dark Heart of Uukrul
6. Might and Magic: Book One - Secret of the Inner Sanctum
7. Curse of the Azure Bonds
8. Wizardry: Crusaders of the Dark Savant
9. Might and Magic: Book Two - Gates to Another World
10. Disciples of Steel

Sure, maybe these ancient dinosaurs have nothing on Codex darlings Dragon Age: Origins and Disco Elysium, but they have something to offer.
:troll:
 

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