Old cRPGs aren't that cool

[mondblut]

That Crawler=cRPG does not mean that all cRPGs=Crawlers.

True. However, the less a "crawler" an RPG is, the less an RPG it is as well.

I don't see how picking the best tactical option in a combat is the ultimate manifestation of "roleplaying"...

That's because "RP" in RPG stands for "each player controls a single unit with specific abilities".

 

[spectre]

Disagree with the OP and I challenge him: PROVE to me that there is a recent RPG better than Fallout or Fallout 2.

Fallout 3 is like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 put together

Good one.

 

[MetalCraze]

The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer are better than any of the old cRPGs (except PST of course).

W-w-what? TW is a mediocre piece of shit compared to Fallout or Baldur's Gate 2. It doesn't even have a single stat check or non-combat skill and characters are boring (ok BG2 may lose this one) + combat is terrible and quests are ranged from awful to acceptable. MotB can be compared to them however, but TW will not live through a single comparison.

 

[ecliptic]

I'll take the Witcher over BG2 _any_ day.


And Fallout is better than newer games. Any thoughts otherwise just show poor taste.

In reference to my own of course, the only ones of consequence (to me).

 

[mondblut]

I agree that PST may have blinded a few people to other possibilities on the rpg genre, but there are games that reached a much wider audience.

Thing is, they are a stuff of the past. Of course all this "drama above mechanics" started with Garriott, but nowadays nobody is directly influenced by Ultima 4 or 7. PST, on the other hand, still has a tremendous effect on the common mentality of the Prestigious RPGCodex Magazine - including a would-be indie RPG designers of the future hanging around. I, for one, would prefer them to do modern Wizardries and Goldboxes, not the poor imitations of Bloodlines and TWitcher.

Maybe it isn`t any worse. I can`t really appreciate a game simply because of its graphics, but I can appreciate one simply because of its story.

Me either - but not as an RPG. Story is story, gameplay is gameplay.

Maybe just like you can`t find any appeal on a game like Ultima 7 (by the way, I am supposing you can`t, feel free to correct me)

Ultima 7 has a lot of great content as far as exploration, freedom and world interaction goes, but it is appalingly abhorrent in combat and game mechanics.

There should be story driven rpgs being released alongside dungeon crawlers being released together with sand box games, etc.

Yes. Judging by the Codex, however, it seems that even the indie and hardcore gamers are more infatuated with shooters and action adventures as long as they have dialogue trees and "C&C", rather than with RPGs proper.

 

[The Feral Kid]

The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer are better than any of the old cRPGs (except PST of course).

Crawl back into your hole and...die.

 

[Wyrmlord]

That's because "RP" in RPG stands for "each player controls a single unit with specific abilities".

If only...if only Gygax had called his new tabletop game a squad-based wargame...

It would have taken away so much confusion.

It takes one misnomer, one ambiguous word, to change everything.

 

[dagorkan]

No, RPGs would have developed anyway, and you wouldn't be here. You'd be on your "Squad Based Wargame Game" Codex, and not annoying us all the time.

I like X-Com as much as anyone but it is not an RPG.

 

[Wyrmlord]

"Would have developed anyway"?

Someone else started it, independent of Gygax?

That's a genuine question. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. But did someone really?

 

[The Feral Kid]

I'll take the Witcher over BG2 _any_ day.


And Fallout is better than newer games. Any thoughts otherwise just show poor taste.

Not nearly as much as prefering the Witcher to BG 2 showing your poor taste though.

 

[dagorkan]

"Would have developed anyway"?

Someone else started it, independent of Gygax?

That's a genuine question. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. But did someone really?

Yes, games where you roleplay, ie decide on the actions of a character you created in a simulated world would have existed. Adventure gamebooks existed in the late 70s and adding stats and transferring them to PC format was a logical evolution. In fact they are indirectly probably as big an influence on CRPG's as Chainmail/D&D.

Equating roleplaying with 'dropout artists' is a strawman that insecure nerds like to use.

 

[Shannow]

"Would have developed anyway"?

Someone else started it, independent of Gygax?

That's a genuine question. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. But did someone really?

You look like Roshan but your reading comprehension is seriously lacking.

On topic: There were always good and bad games. But instead of getting rid of the weaknesses and further developing the strengths, cRPGs put in more bloom, became easier and tried more for target audience than for soul.
If an AAA game nowadays comes out with shiny graphix, an assload of bugs, bad gameplay and an epic emo story while being backed by a multi-million dollar budget and 50+ employees I judge it by different standards than the buggy 4+ employees "old" game. Not to mention, that our definitions of old games seem to differ. But it's not only that. It's also a difference in preference. Do you care more for graphix or everything else, etc.