Realms of Arkania

[sheek]

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=888

Has anyone played these games?

I got Blades of Destiny on a cheap shareware compilation CD in the late 90's. Took a while before I played because I thought it would be a cheap piece of crap but it's a pretty amazing RPG when you get into it.

Startrail is part II, slightly updated gameplay and a new story. I've got Shadows Over Riva but never got round to playing it - what I know is that it's got an actual 3D first person perspective.

Massive amounts of detail. Realism went down to getting feet infections for not wearing boots/catching a cold while questing if you didn't invest in blankets. Character generation which included psychological traits (Acrophobia/Avarice/Superstition) to balance out your high attributes.

The story was pretty good as well. I liked the game world, probably because it's German and therefore different to the usual pseudo-Tolkien/medieval fantasy setting. There were hundreds of NPCs you could talk to in any town you could go into each house/building and never know what encounter you'd get. Taverns where you could meet random NPCs with a bit of local gossip until you got so drunk you're kicked out...

The only drawback is that graphics and combat sucked.

I never played Daggerfall (dled from Underdogs then by mistake deleted) but from what I hear it's meant to be similar. There are a lot of old school RPG series that people rave about (Ultima, Forgotten Realms, Betrayal at Krondor etc) that I don't get what the deal is but I never hear about Arkania.

I think this is exactly the kind of stuff that 'modern RPGs' are missing and I'm surprised that this series has not been picked up. With a Morrowind type engine and the rest of the game untouched I bet it would become a classic.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's a great series with well done tactical TB battles. Star Trail is definitely a must-play game.

 

[sheek]

It's a great series with well done tactical TB battles.

The tactical battles were one of the weak points for me. You have to walk in straight lines to go anywhere which is ridiculous. Also turn based combat destroys 'immersion'. Although I guess it beats the first-person real time crap they had in some of the TSRs (Dungeon
Hack, Beholder) of the same era.

Star Trail is definitely a must-play game.

You think it's better than Blades?

[edit: era not area]

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also turn based combat destroys 'immersion'.

And you were doing so well...

You think it's better than Blades?

Yes. Star Trail is the strongest, Shadows over Riva is the weakest.

 

[sheek]

Also turn based combat destroys 'immersion'.

And you were doing so well...

So what are the advantages of turn based? Only one I can think of is that you can control many different characters independently. It depends what kind of game you want. The disadvantage is that it's unrealistic and not much fun (in my opinion)

 

[Relien]

So what are the advantages of turn based? Only one I can think of is that you can control many different characters independently. It depends what kind of game you want. The disadvantage is that it's unrealistic and not much fun (in my opinion)

What kind of battle system do you prefer then?

 

[sheek]

So what are the advantages of turn based? Only one I can think of is that you can control many different characters independently. It depends what kind of game you want. The disadvantage is that it's unrealistic and not much fun (in my opinion)

What kind of battle system do you prefer then?

I like 3D stuff. I'm a big fan of Mount&Blade...

However I agree that it depends what kind of game you're making. For a traditional 'adventure party' RPG some kind of turn based might be unavoidable. I haven't thought about this issue in depth.

edit:
For an Arkania Remake I'd probably go for a 'Return to Krondor' type system. (3D but turn based)

 

[Elwro]

Iirc Shadows over Riva is the only one in which arrows don't fly in straight lines only :D The series is good, and the last part is a fine game but with some potentially game-stopping bugs; we've had discussions about it some time ago.
The last part also has good music.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Excellent music, actually.

Shadows over Riva is good, but I'll second that it's not as good as Star Trail. I haven't played the first part though, Blades of Destiny.

 

[EvilManagedCare]

Also turn based combat destroys 'immersion'.

You are obviously a masochist to say that here.

Realms of Arkania is my favorite, possibly above Magic Candle from so long ago. All the details and stats made it feel like Pen and Paper. The random events were kind of cute at first, but if you failed to have 2 or three sets of certain items, the game became painful real quick-like.

Blade of Destiny was a fun part of the series, but that constant PC speaker beep when a window popped up may have been the worst design decision EVAR!!!!11111

 

[Jora]

For an Arkania Remake I'd probably go for a 'Return to Krondor' type system. (3D but turn based)

With more tactical options it could be fun. The combat system in RtK is a bit limited.

 

[Dgaider]

I enjoyed the series... though I think I liked "Blade of Destiny" (the first one) slightly more than "Shadows Over Riva" (the third one), primarily because you do far more traveling in the first game and the traveling system is so excellent. In the third game, you're more or less restricted to the vicinity of Riva (if I recall), though you're pretty free to roam inside that region.

I thought it was the greatest thing to travel around in BoD, with the camping where you assigned camp tasks to each member of your party and how you could stumble across dungeons (all of which were set up individually and had a layout which made sense as to their purpose, as opposed to being a random mish-mash). In fact, I think it played far better as a wandering party game then as a plot-driven game... I'm not sure if I even remember what the plot was, exactly, or if I even got around to finishing it.

Other highlights: having rogues that could steal items from the shops, and even get caught and thrown in jail. Being able to perform in taverns. The combat system was pretty decent, too, though as I recall melee fighters did not fare that well and did not hit very often... mostly they just distracted opponents while your archers and mages did most of the work.

I also remember that some skills and spells were seemingly not implemented... perhaps meant for later versions of the game or something, I don't know.

And "Star Trail" was just terrible. They basically decided the plot was too linear so took out any direction from the game -- it's pretty obvious. You end up wandering the giant forests, diseased and suffering from exposure, wondering what you're supposed to be doing next to advance the plot... because until you do, nothing at all will happen anywhere.

If I could make my impossible fantasy RPG that nobody would buy, it would have Arkania's travel system, Ars Magica's magic system, ToEE's combat, Planescape's dialogue, Fallout's rules, Arcanum's world and BG2's art. That would be niche to the MAX!

Okay, my moment of fanboy gushing is now over. I just had to comment, though... the mention of either Realms of Arkania or Darklands is bound to make me wax nostalgic. How good those games might actually have been is naturally irrelevant compared to my memory of them at the time. :D

 

[Pr()ZaC]

Start with Star Trail.

 

[sheek]

Also turn based combat destroys 'immersion'.

You are obviously a masochist to say that here.

Yeah well... I reconsidered that statement and it's actually not true. What I mean is that the Arkania combat system is not very good. It looked bad (compared to the main game) and that can matter as much as the combat mechanics. However there are very good turn-based games (X-Com etc) which could not be done any other way (the real-time element of Apocalypse sucked).

But I do prefer 3D real time stuff (Morrowind, Arx Fatalis, Gothic, Mount&Blade) in RPGs. Obviously that means you get rid of 'party adventures' - so it's a trade-off for the player to consider: solo RPGs are 'better' done in real time, group adventures are more fitted to turn-based. I tend to prefer solo.

I do not understand why one system would be inherently better than the other.

[By the way I don't even know what RPG means so don't criticize me for using the term. I just know the games I like and they tend to be what are called RPGs]

 

[Jed]

I do not understand why one system would be inherently better than the other.

It's been explained here a million and one times already, but here goes (in short): TB relies on your characters' stats, therefore validating a stat-based game; RT relies on your own reflexes, therefore throwing the whole purpose of a stat-based game out the window.

 

[sheek]

I do not understand why one system would be inherently better than the other.

It's been explained here a million and one times already, but here goes (in short): TB relies on your characters' stats, therefore validating a stat-based game; RT relies on your own reflexes, therefore throwing the whole purpose of a stat-based game out the window.

You can have a mixture. Mount&Blade relies on a mixture of stats and player skill. For example having high archery helps you be able to hit a target. If skill is too low no matter how good you are you'll miss.

And I don't have a problem with getting rid of stats altogether. Like I said I'm not an RPG purist (I think AD&D is retarded). Back when I did 'pen and paper' (social/non-computer) role-playing I ended up 'freeforming' (or whatever it's called). I just want a fun game to play.

 

[Vultok]

I'm not an expert, but it seems to be that turn based combat is much easier to implement well. I think the main reason for this is that you don't have to concentrate on your uber-engine for a turn based game, so you can concentrate on balancing combat mechanics instead. Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to implement a real time combat system that factors in statistics than it is to make an fps. Furthermore, such a system is greatly enhanced by having a killer interface.

Typically, the problem with real time rpgs is that the developers/publishers fail to take these things into account so they end up with too many things on their plate. Take Oblivion dropping mounted combat as an obvious example.

You mention Mount & Blade as an example of a well done real time rpg. I agree it's a great game, but it's about the only one of it's kind. By comparison, the combat in Gothic and Morrowind is pretty shitty (partly due to interface issues).

I think my point is that we're really in the infancy of 3d real time combat with any sort of tactical element, particularly in rpg's. In fact, the main industry for this sort of thing is in MMO's, so they're the only ones who really have the opportunity for innovation. What you're looking for simply doesn't exist yet (though I expect it will). But if you want some fun 3d rt rpg combat, M&B is your best bet, followed by DDO (which I think does things a damn sight better than any other crappy level grind). You might also consider System Shock 2 (free at hotu) and Deus Ex (though I never really liked that one).

Edit: If you're not concerned so much about rpg's, why not play some fps's?

 

[Jed]

You can have a mixture. Mount&Blade relies on a mixture of stats and player skill. For example having high archery helps you be able to hit a target. If skill is too low no matter how good you are you'll miss.

Hence the parenthetical "in short" caveat in my answer.

 

[cmagoun]

I'm not an expert, but it seems to be that turn based combat is much easier to implement well. I think the main reason for this is that you don't have to concentrate on your uber-engine for a turn based game, so you can concentrate on balancing combat mechanics instead. Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to implement a real time combat system that factors in statistics than it is to make an fps. Furthermore, such a system is greatly enhanced by having a killer interface.

I am not sure. I would think that though implementing a turn-based system might be easy in terms of coding, I think designing such a system to be interesting is the main challenge. I think most real-time, first-person combat games get a quick boost in excitement because of their speed, immersion and the need for the player to master a physical skill to succeed... at least until you kill your 501st cliff racer.

On the other hand, while it might be easy to write a standard turn-based combat system, I think most of them rely on the D&Desque "move, roll to-hit, roll damage" grind. If done well, you have a fine tactical game (Wizard's Crown or JA). If done poorly, hope there is an "auto-combat" button.

Thanks for the discussion,

 

[Seboss]

I only played the first one "Blade of Destiny" on my trusty Amiga 1200. I had tons of fun with it despite it was a pirate and I didn't have the manual. I couldn't quite figure out how the magic system worked.
I found the Blade eventually but the Orcs never came

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If I could make my impossible fantasy RPG that nobody would buy, it would have Arkania's travel system, Ars Magica's magic system, ToEE's combat, Planescape's dialogue, Fallout's rules, Arcanum's world and BG2's art. That would be niche to the MAX!

But oh so rocking.

 

[Pr()ZaC]

I had tons of fun with it despite it was a pirate and I didn't have the manual.

 

[Antagonist]

If I could make my impossible fantasy RPG that nobody would buy, it would have Arkania's travel system, Ars Magica's magic system, ToEE's combat, Planescape's dialogue, Fallout's rules, Arcanum's world and Planescape's art. That would be niche to the MAX!

Fixed :D

I know that in the end it boils down to different tastes but I found Torment's art far superior compared to that of BG 2. Nevertheless maybe Mr. Gaider should consider switching sides and start making indie RPGs if he is willing to settle for a lower living standard. :wink:

 

[Jed]

Nevertheless maybe Mr. Gaider should consider switching sides and start making indie RPGs if he is willing to settle for a lower living standard. :wink:

Perhaps could team up with Vault Dweller?

 

[Solik]

I enjoyed Star Trail, even though I got nowhere with it (was a bit young, so the lack of direction and this one really dumb puzzle-thing threw me off). I tried to get it running again last year on DOSBox and other emulators, but to no avail -- it constantly crashed. Sad, too -- I loved the overland travel and camping stuff. Combat was pretty awful, though. It didn't seem very tactical to me... it was one of those games where you either were certain to win a battle, certain to lose it, or at the mercy of the RNG.