Old cRPGs aren't that cool

[Beans00]

I've also yet to see better dialogues, overall atmosphere than Arcanum and Fallout.

PS:T, MotB, Bloodlines etc. Arcanum dialogs are occasionally pretty bad, same as with many fed ex quests.

Sometimes I *wish* PST to never be produced.

These LARPers are a worse blight for RPGs than FPS kids and consoletards taken together.

"Roleplay" some on my dick, suckers!

why are you here.

Are you going to post this opinion in every thread now?

motb dialogue was shit
bloodlines was ok
fallout >pst slightly

 

[xuerebx]

That's not it. We consider the olden times "gold" because all we remember are the good and great games. We remember Realms of Arkania or Fallout but forget about shitty RPGs released at the same time.

There were good games then and there are now, there were shitty games then and there are now. If the balance has shifted is a matter of opinion, I don't think it's realistic to tally "good releases per year", but the no matter what the shift isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is, that much is true.

Yep, perfectly my opinion.

I like some older games, I like some newer games. I disliked some older games, and I also dislike some newer games. I don't see older games as better, neither are newer games really. Just different. Some have become worse (to my tastes), while others have become closer to my tastes.

 

[Jaesun]

Beans is one of the worst trolls ever.

 

[Saxon1974]

I have played the vast majority of CRPG's from approx 1983 to now and I definitly disagree with this thread.

I think its true that there were good games and bad in the past, but not as many bad ones as there are now.

Based on gameplay alone, there were way more good RPG's coming out in the past then now.

Graphics and flash became the most important factor around 1996 to 1997 in my opinion and good games have dwindled ever since then.

 

[Raapys]

From someone who didn't get to play most of the classic RPGs until the later years, at a time when many of them were considered abandonware, I'd have to disagree. Discovering games like Fallout( though I get a demo of it back in the days which I loved ) and PS:T was just hevan. Even the dungeon crawlers, i.e. M&M, RoA, Wizardry, DF, etc., were almost as fun.

I've actually found this to be true of just about all genres. The early to mid- 90's simply produced so many more quality games than this millenia has done so far.

 

[Erebus]

Arcanum trumps anything released after 2003, without discussion.

What's with Codexers and Arcanum, seriously ? It wasn't a bad game, but it had plenty of flaws and, in my opinion, failed by a large margin to live up to its potential.

As for old vs recent games, I think the nostalgia factor plays a big (obviously subjective) role.

 

[desocupado]

Disagree completely with the OP. The game that trumps fallout and jagged alliance 2 is still to be produced. Those games had a soul, games today are just "apply a coat of paint (bloom, hdl lightning, MORE BLOOM, etc) and resell the same game".

What improvement do you see in oblivion over morrowind? And what about the bioware rpgs? In fact, oblivion was a downgrade in some points compared to morrowind.

Oh, but it has bloom.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

And anyone who thinks TWitcher (a crappy action-adventure with excellent story/dialogues) is a better RPG than TOEE must never ever be allowed near a single-player RPG again. TOEE is an *ESSENCE* of a computer RPG. An ultimate manifestation of 100% RPG gameplay.

I think most Codexers would love a game with TOEE's combat and Witcher's story and C&C, along with Bloodlines/PS:T quality dialogs. I know I would.

Oh, and on topic, C&C has gotten better, combat/dialog/story has all gotten worse.

 

[denizsi]

Fallout, blah blah and more... they aren't better than new games.

Which new games Fallout isn't better than? In what ways? You should elaborate.

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

Better in what ways?

Can you give me the interactivity of Ultimas in any "new" game?

Depth of character system in Darklands or Daggerfall in any "new" game?

The feel of satisfaction when you beat impossible odds in such games in any "new" game? (To answer that, you first need to find any "new" game that considers "challenge" a game feature).

Quality of branching narrative in Fallout and Arcanum in any "new" game?

Tactical depth and quality of combat in JA2 in any "new" game?

What gets some times better is only interface and graphics. Everything else still tries and sometimes succeeds to live up to something of the past, except that the new generations don't know that.

Take Fallout. It outdid many older games, but even that still lost certain other things. The magic with Fallout was that it never made you feel about the things you lost to older games.

The Witcher tried to present C&C as if it was something new, which was not, even if it was a noble idea in the current state of mainstream game design. I haven't played MotB yet but opinions I've read leads me to the conclusion it only brings some of the good old fun back, and does it good. Nothing "new", or "better". Oblivion (in case you happen to use it as an argument support)? A pale and failed imitation of Ultima 7. I don't know, what else is new and good? I'm sure it sucks up to the old games in some way, and odds are that it outright sucks.

Take any "new" game, and it's sure to be missing a ton of features that were in old games. I had rope arrows in Thief 1 & 2, not in 3, because 3 was "supposed to be next-gen". Climbing in many old games, like Wasteland, Daggerfall, Gothic 1 & 2, which introduced many gameplay opportuinites, but was lost to "next-generations".

To give credit where due, there were a TON of games released back then, and most of them DID indeed SUCK, but there still were more good games than we get today, and those good old games are yet to be outdone in any meaningful way.

We have Fallout 3 today but in past we had Temple of the Elemental Evil for example.

What kind of comparison is that, other than a fucked up one? ToEE = TB combat simulator, probably one of the best, while mediocre on everything else as opposed to F3 that's mediocre on everything except for combat, which just sucks?

I think we consider older games better than new just because we had lower standards in past

Here's what I think happened: Masses were stupid, and bought lots of shitty games back then. Industry took note, and responded. Masses are still stupid, and this time, industry is there to exploit them with full capability, catering only to them. Well, mostly. The likes of TW, MotB and SoZ are definitely encouraging.

I am not telling you to love Oblivion now, I'm just trying to tell we're exaggerating in admiring old cRPG games.

Well, when new games are leaving a lot to be admired in the old games, I don't think it's exaggerating at all. If your new girl friend said "I only do missionary", wouldn't you miss all kinds of kinky stuff you did with your ex? Or is that just nostalgy speaking? And just think of the horror when you find out that girls aren't into any of that shit anymore.

 

[Fenril]

Yeah pc games, pc rpgs, past and future.

There is always relativity when you add nostalgia and the games are first played at a younger age with different expectations.

That still does not change the fact that RPG games have gotten less challenging, less complex, less open ended,less feature rich, less deep in terms of characters and story, and despite new gen graphics in alot of cases less immersive. The kind of immersion that does not rely solely on graphics at least.

Taken individually the "good old" games people around this forum appreciate are probably not that good in retrospective, however the collective experience from playing a slew of those "old crpgs" for example makes them alot more critic regarding recent rpg efforts, and in my opinion with good reason.

Its not about making title versus title comparisons, its a general impression of degradation regarding certain aspects of an rpg, and a great sense of frustration regarding the ambition level and originality of recent rpg games.

Recent RPG titles should be more ambitious, more complex and more deep, they should take the best features from "good" old games and EXPAND upon them in the new titles, instead they take a good feature here and there and sometimes only to dumb it down to the point where it is almost redundant.

Developers should strive to innovate but with the way the industry is set up for game production in general....what happens is precisely the opposite.

The massive budgets, the massive efforts needed to present a title that does not look "dated", the game company people and the investors that dont care shit about gaming or games, just figures, marketing and profits, all this works against what old school rpg gamers would like to see in new titles.

The reason for this is that in the old days companies took more risks and had a different mindset regarding game production, they approached game production as doing something creative in a genre they liked if not loved, and they worked to deliver an interesting product to like minded people.

Now today's games with their huge production values and teams are just a product created with profit in mind and little else.

The fact is the old school minded criticisms do make sense, like for example in the FO3 case.

They do make sense for both the old school minded critics and the developers for certain, not so much for the newer gamer generation. So alongside with the way the game industry works today there is a generation clash with new game consumers as well.

So the "hardcore" old school minded gamers whine and criticize, because doing this is better than simply accepting the way things are and sucking it up and taking it like little whores, and because if enough noise is made here and there something might change.

 

[Livonya]

Take any "new" game, and it's sure to be missing a ton of features that were in old games. I had rope arrows in Thief 1 & 2, not in 3, because 3 was "supposed to be next-gen". Climbing in many old games, like Wasteland, Daggerfall, Gothic 1 & 2, which introduced many gameplay opportuinites, but was lost to "next-generations".

I think this is a pretty good explanation.

The industry thinks that the player has to see everything happen in the 3d engine in order to have that feature.

Older games relied on text to do what they couldn't do with their graphics.

This allowed a lot more options.

But now we have to see and hear everything, which means that the experiences we are allowed are very low.

The NPCs in JA2 had real personalities, but their personalites didn't interfere with the damn game.

The biggest problem with RPGs these days are the graphics and audio files. They simply limit the creativity of the games themselves.

And half the time the audio file NPCs are crappy as the actors are just not that great or when they recorded the lines they didn't have the context to know how to do the line.

Right now I am doing the OC of NWN2 and I am constantly hearing NPCs that are doing their interactive cut scenes with no continuity in tone. Each sentence exists by itself, and when they are combined the NPCs sound bizarre as they go from a somber sad line to a frantic excited line in the same cut scene. Ugh.

When audio files work it is great, but a lot of times they don't work.

Mostly all they do is limit the options that the player will get.

I would prefer to have maybe 1 or 2 well done spoken audio files and then just leave the rest as text.

Blah, blah, blah...

I just can't help but feel like the games are going backwards rather than forwards.

- Livonya

 

[Longshanks]

Yeah, old cRPGs aren't that good, and those who still play them are just pretending to like them .

You do understand that different people have different tastes? Blanket claiming that "older games were not that good", giving only three examples with no justification (well, other than your naive comments on Icewind Dale, a game few if any would claim as great, but many see as a good even very good game for what it is - a dungeon crawler, meaning that the lack of C&C, simplicity of story and plentiful combat are not game breaking, and in fact expected).

All I can say is, my favourite RPGs include: Fallouts, PST, Arcanum, Vampire: Bloodlines. Age has nothing to do with it, Bloodlines is only 4 years old, Arcanum 7. Whether a particular person likes them or not, it is a fact that games like Arcanum and Fallout (character driven, C&C heavy games, even throw in TBC to make it more clear) are just not made any more. If these are the type of RPGs one wanted made, and built upon, then their opinion that the standard of current RPGs is weak, would be understandable.

So, whether old games, or certain particular ones, are better than new games is debatable. What is not debatable, is that there are certainly significant differences between these games. Given this difference, it is perfectly natural for some people to enjoy the older games better than the new, as is the reverse.

Subjectivity aside, there are a couple of reasons why it's possible there were more good RPGs in the past:
(1) there were more being made, and a greater variety.
(2) games were not as mainstream as now, had lower budgets, and therefore did not have as many compromises forced upon them.

There are also a couple of reasons why RPGs may, in general, be better now than in the past:
(1) bigger budget and dev team.
(2) greater history to draw from.

 

[Carceri]

The reason for this is that in the old days companies took more risks and had a different mindset regarding game production, they approached game production as doing something creative in a genre they liked if not loved, and they worked to deliver an interesting product to like minded people.

Now today's games with their huge production values and teams are just a product created with profit in mind and little else.

Very good stuff in your post Fenril. People tend to miss the fact that the gaming industry changed into a Hollywood type of business. Generic, nothing too intellectually stimulating, but with pretty shiny little colors, not too intense but not too soft either, less nudity but compensates with violence to keep you focused ,generally entertaining when you have some time to kill regardless of sex, age and nationality, easy to acquire, preferably labeled as limited, deluxe, special features, director's cut, extra content or some random bonus and plenty for everyone of course, it is actually just ok and psychologically satisfying to a certain degree, therefore the moment you are about to lay your imbecile smiling head on the pillow you have already forgotten all about it so you could dream happily ever after with satiated feeling but not quite catching the essence of it.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I've got to disagree with the OP, but it's a pretty stupid debate. Whether or not you think old RPGs are better will depend entirely on what you prefer in an RPG. Some like one character, some like a party. Some like tactical combat, some like action combat. Some like challenge, some like absurdly easy games. Some like adventure as the focus, some like hot chatting as the focus, etc.

One thing I don't think can be debated though is that there are major quantifiable differences between old RPGs and the majority of the RPGs released today. These differences are in the philosophy of how they were designed, not just the limits of hardware. These differences are real and favoring older RPGs is not just nostalgia, but a reflection of valuing different things in an RPG.

That's not it. We consider the olden times "gold" because all we remember are the good and great games. We remember Realms of Arkania or Fallout but forget about shitty RPGs released at the same time.

There were good games then and there are now, there were shitty games then and there are now. If the balance has shifted is a matter of opinion, I don't think it's realistic to tally "good releases per year", but the no matter what the shift isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is, that much is true.

That's true in general, but in the case of RPGs it doesn't tell the full story. Sure, everyone's perceptions of old games are colored by selective memory and nostalgia.

But in the case of traditional party based RPGs (however you want to define that term), there has also been a real shift in the market and the number of them being produced is vanishingly small. It's true that we only remember our favorites, but it doesn't change the fact that "traditional rpgs" however you want to define them, have really dropped off in both percent and absolute terms. What were there, two in 2008?

 

[Longshanks]

There is definitely a difference between the modern and older RPG, and certain types of RPGs are not or are barely made anymore. The OP seems to be happy with the shift and does not miss the discarded elements, which is fine, but it's no less reasonable to have the opposite view. However, the reduced variety and quantity is clear, and indicates an overall weaker RPG industry, whether a particular person prefers the newer games over the older or not.

 

[bhlaab]

The ones based on Dungeons and Dragons are a little bit retarded, but Fallout still rules and will always rule

 

[Alex]

You really can't blame this on PST, mondblut. It may have been exactly the type of game that you don't like, but it hardly had any influence on the development of other games (except as an example of what not to do).

I love PST. Even though, as stated in another thread, as soon as NPCs shut up, the game falls apart. Still, it's an excellent adventure, albeit a terrible RPG.

What I don't like is the effect it had on poor misguided kids who want to go against "mainstream". That dialogue bushes and epyc storys are everything and RPGs aren't about gameplay but about choosing whatever lines seem the least "unappropriate" for some idiotic "identity" a delusional fool made up and mandatorily assigned to a character he controls, despite the fact the software doesn't give a flying fuck about it. When will those fucking "narrativists" give up and go LARP in MMOs? Wake up, the computer doesn't "roleplay" back and never will!

Using smoke and mirrors to draw the player in a story and make it look like his actions matter more than they do is nothing new. The earliest example I know is Ultima 4, but I believe there are even earlier examples. 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.

The reason games have less emphasis on gameplay nowadays and more on appearances is because developers believe (whether correctly or not) that it is what the gamers want.

I don't see how making less emphasis on gameplay and more on story is any better (and this is exactly what PST-bred kids want). Both story and appearance, while enhancing a gaming experience, are NOT essential for an RPG.

And anyone who thinks TWitcher (a crappy action-adventure with excellent story/dialogues) is a better RPG than TOEE must never ever be allowed near a single-player RPG again. TOEE is an *ESSENCE* of a computer RPG. An ultimate manifestation of 100% RPG gameplay.

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. I just love reading, and while you seem find this soke and mirrors a cheap trick, I think it can really add something to the story. Furthermore, I think that there is still a lot that can be done to make stories more interactive. One day, some games will hopefully blur the distinction between gameplay and story.

However, like I said, this is just a question of taste. Maybe there is something about the newer games that I just can`t see . 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), I can`t find the appeal of games that focus on graphics and presentation. But even so, my complaint still stands, there should be a greater variety of games.

There should be story driven rpgs being released alongside dungeon crawlers being released together with sand box games, etc. In that matter, obsidian seems to be the only big company that is not trying to do the same thing over and over again.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Anything made before Ultima VII is shit.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Fallout, blah blah and more... they aren't better than new games.

Which new games Fallout isn't better than? In what ways? You should elaborate.

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

Better in what ways?

Can you give me the interactivity of Ultimas in any "new" game?

Depth of character system in Darklands or Daggerfall in any "new" game?

The feel of satisfaction when you beat impossible odds in such games in any "new" game? (To answer that, you first need to find any "new" game that considers "challenge" a game feature).

Quality of branching narrative in Fallout and Arcanum in any "new" game?

Tactical depth and quality of combat in JA2 in any "new" game?

What gets some times better is only interface and graphics. Everything else still tries and sometimes succeeds to live up to something of the past, except that the new generations don't know that.

Take Fallout. It outdid many older games, but even that still lost certain other things. The magic with Fallout was that it never made you feel about the things you lost to older games.

The Witcher tried to present C&C as if it was something new, which was not, even if it was a noble idea in the current state of mainstream game design. I haven't played MotB yet but opinions I've read leads me to the conclusion it only brings some of the good old fun back, and does it good. Nothing "new", or "better". Oblivion (in case you happen to use it as an argument support)? A pale and failed imitation of Ultima 7. I don't know, what else is new and good? I'm sure it sucks up to the old games in some way, and odds are that it outright sucks.

Take any "new" game, and it's sure to be missing a ton of features that were in old games. I had rope arrows in Thief 1 & 2, not in 3, because 3 was "supposed to be next-gen". Climbing in many old games, like Wasteland, Daggerfall, Gothic 1 & 2, which introduced many gameplay opportuinites, but was lost to "next-generations".

To give credit where due, there were a TON of games released back then, and most of them DID indeed SUCK, but there still were more good games than we get today, and those good old games are yet to be outdone in any meaningful way.

We have Fallout 3 today but in past we had Temple of the Elemental Evil for example.

What kind of comparison is that, other than a fucked up one? ToEE = TB combat simulator, probably one of the best, while mediocre on everything else as opposed to F3 that's mediocre on everything except for combat, which just sucks?

I think we consider older games better than new just because we had lower standards in past

Here's what I think happened: Masses were stupid, and bought lots of shitty games back then. Industry took note, and responded. Masses are still stupid, and this time, industry is there to exploit them with full capability, catering only to them. Well, mostly. The likes of TW, MotB and SoZ are definitely encouraging.

I am not telling you to love Oblivion now, I'm just trying to tell we're exaggerating in admiring old cRPG games.

Well, when new games are leaving a lot to be admired in the old games, I don't think it's exaggerating at all. If your new girl friend said "I only do missionary", wouldn't you miss all kinds of kinky stuff you did with your ex? Or is that just nostalgy speaking? And just think of the horror when you find out that girls aren't into any of that shit anymore.

Anyone who wishes to make a post like the OP needs to answer all these questions first. This goes for developers and gaming journalists as well. Even if they try answering it privately to themselves I am certain they will become frustrated and want to stop thinking about it due to how correct it is.

However, again, it should be mandatory for them to answer these questions. Perhaps some of the Obsidian devs (or anyone else that still comes here and has a pair) can try answering them. I doubt they will, but one can always live in hope

 

[Lim-Lim]

Very good stuff in your post Fenril. People tend to miss the fact that the gaming industry changed into a Hollywood type of business. Generic, nothing too intellectually stimulating, but with pretty shiny little colors, not too intense but not too soft either, less nudity but compensates with violence to keep you focused ,generally entertaining when you have some time to kill regardless of sex, age and nationality, easy to acquire, preferably labeled as limited, deluxe, special features, director's cut, extra content or some random bonus and plenty for everyone of course, it is actually just ok and psychologically satisfying to a certain degree, therefore the moment you are about to lay your imbecile smiling head on the pillow you have already forgotten all about it so you could dream happily ever after with satiated feeling but not quite catching the essence of it.

My toughts exactly. Well put and so true.

 

[ushdugery]

And anyone who thinks TWitcher (a crappy action-adventure with excellent story/dialogues) is a better RPG than TOEE must never ever be allowed near a single-player RPG again. TOEE is an *ESSENCE* of a computer RPG. An ultimate manifestation of 100% RPG gameplay.

I don't see how picking the best tactical option in a combat is the ultimate manifestation of "roleplaying". Crpgs were meant to do on computer for one person what you do in real life tabletop gaming, playing a character that isn't you. Combat was often a heavy part of it because that kind of escapism is so drastically different from modern life it is a quickly gravitated to norm. I prefer TOEE to the witcher because I didn't enjoy the translation and writing so the story fell down for me but it still is more of an rpg than TOEE which is basically a tactical squad based game and it rules at that, (really the best truest computer iteration of 3.5 combat there is.) but it's not a well formed roleplaying game unless the role you playing is the role of 6 tactically brilliant dungeon spelunkers.

 

[WanderingThrough2]

I really think you can't overstate the harm that long loading delays and crappy 3D cameras have done to games. It absolutely boggles my mind that these things haven't been fixed.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

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

 

[bhlaab]

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

 

[Serious_Business]

That's right