Community RPG Codex People's Awards: Best RPGs

[laclongquan]

Nah~ Outside of a few nostalgic fags, no one care about it. There's no silent majority who care about them at all.

 

[Broseph]

If it was a group effort we could do it. I'd suggest an RPG Codex Top 10 Pre-Fallout RPGs list be voted upon and then we can call on some oldfags to write summaries for the winners.

 

[Jaesun]

A DOS/Apple/Amiga/Atari/Commodore pre 1995 list would be good.

EDIT: Why the magic number of 1995?

 

[Tigranes]

I'd like to learn more about pre-95 games and how to play them. I'm still in my 20's so I was a bit young for them, especially because I was in Asia. I know most of their names now but only from the Codex; some of them I picked up and enjoyed straight away, but most of the time it's not as smooth sailing, even if I suspect they'll all be great given enough time to crack them open.

Of course, with a couple of them, I already know what the problem is (ROA: stop dying every 10 minutes, Darklands: learn how to combat), but...

 

[Lady_Error]

How about pre-Fallout, eg. 1997?

 

[Marquess Cornwallis]

I think it's a good idea, provided the initiative is planned out well and doesn't end up contradicting what it originally set out to do (Jaesun's latest list was originally conceived as pretty much the opposite of what it was ultimately used as - it was to provide a really wide and colourful selection of games from a wider pool of favourites rather than a strict top ten; this resulted in some confusion). I'd also suggest whoever organizes the voting demand that all voters provide comments on their selections -- that way there will (hopefully) be a strong pool of write-ups to choose from for the resulting list; it might also scare away people who don't really care much about (or didn't even actually play) the DOS/pre-DOS era titles.

 

[Jaesun]

Yes that was basically my intention. To provide a Top 50 list of cRPG's that we recommend you play. Basically a supplement to the List of must play cRPG's.

EDIT: In hindsight I could have specified Turn-Based, but that would have Excluded Darklands, and Planescape etc...

 

[tuluse]

We should do this guys, it would be cool.

I have a proposal. Instead of doing games of the decade, the codex should have half-and-half lists. '85-'95, '95-'05, and soon '05'-'15. If you do one each year, that would actually work out perfectly (and cover all the kickstarters). I think this covers the different eras of computer gaming quite well, and would give an interesting historical perspective.

If you weirdos want to list games from before '85, that's your problem.

 

[Broseph]

The '05-'15 list will be almost completely barren except for the last few years.

 

[felipepepe]

Again, I would suggest doing it by means of a council of bros, but I think the by-year thing is very flawed, since some years have like 3-4 great titles, and some none (i.e., 1992: Darklands, Wizardry VII, Ultima VII, Ultima Underworld...).

Perhaps the 5-by-5 years works best. Also, focus more on the text & review than ranking them, people here seem to only bother at "X is higher than Y", I haven't seen a single comment onany of the texts (asides from DU's).

 

[villain of the story]

Jaesun asaked why the magic number of 1995 and indeed. Why the magic number of any year, then? The goal would be excluding relatively "modern" games like Fallout well known to every Codexer and introducing them to other less known but good RPGs. So I'm laying out the plan: To go back, year by year, starting with 1997. I probably should make a new thread about this.

Again, I would suggest doing it by means of a council of bros, but I think the by-year thing is very flawed, since some years have like 3-4 great titles, and some none (i.e., 1992: Darklands, Wizardry VII, Ultima VII, Ultima Underworld...).

Perhaps the 5-by-5 years works best. Also, focus more on the text & review than ranking them, people here seem to only bother at "X is higher than Y", I haven't seen a single comment onany of the texts (asides from DU's).

Once we compile a list of games, we can then group them in multiple-year stages based on the amount and maybe the traits of the games instead of forcing an arbitrary period to group games beforehand.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

JarlFrank Good job on explaining that this game is retardedly overrated on this forum, Im sure no one noticed by now.

 

[JarlFrank]

Arcanum cannot be overrated.

Also, I agree that a list of best DOS RPGs would be pretty cool. Let's do this.

 

[Marsal]

Arcanum cannot be overrated.

Also, I agree that a list of best DOS RPGs would be pretty cool. Let's do this.

1. Fallout

 

[Mrowak]

Replacing some of the heinously overrated "Fallout and BG were my first crpgs!" games, first BG, Arcanum

Yes, Arcanum's position should be filled with another RPG and Arcanum be put several places higher.
Like #1, as it deserves.

Well... with all due respect for the Arcanum and its devs the fact remains that it was a very broken game, with a handful of neat ideas. The gameplay... it just isn't there... IMO it does not deserve a place in the first 10.

 

[Black]

Vampire 6th while bg 4th. Pop contests at their best.

 

[Lorica]

Perhaps the 5-by-5 years works best. Also, focus more on the text & review than ranking them, people here seem to only bother at "X is higher than Y", I haven't seen a single comment onany of the texts (asides from DU's).

It's just that there's not a lot of substance to the text. I don't take issue with any of the writers, it's just that the format is one paragraph apiece to say what's good about a game without repeating what other people say. It's not constructed to offer much analysis of the games, or even basic information, as I think they rightly assume that everybody on the Codex has a fairly solid understanding of all of the top ten. I think DU's comments are in part a self-effacing joke about the format.

To add some depth, I think at leat 500 words from the same person with a basic features/judgement/influence goal would be best and be less personal (Not that it isn't hilarious to see JarlFrank insisting that Arcanum should be no. 1 on the list). This is especially important if you're trying to give people an "interesting RPGs to check out" list--give 'em a reason to find out more about the game.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Everything pre-Fallout seems like the most interesting one to me.

 

[Darth Roxor]

JarlFrank Good job on explaining that this game is retardedly overrated on this forum, Im sure no one noticed by now.

I, however, struggle to decide which one is the most retardedly overrated: Arcanum or Desu Ex. And I can't reach a conclusion.

 

[JarlFrank]

Well, Deus Ex is highly regarded pretty much everywhere, not only on the 'dex, while Arcanum has a comparatively small fanbase.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yes that was basically my intention. To provide a Top 50 list of cRPG's that we recommend you play. Basically a supplement to the List of must play cRPG's.

EDIT: In hindsight I could have specified Turn-Based, but that would have Excluded Darklands, and Planescape etc...

Better not to implement that sort of restrictions because it only serves as wank fodder for "what is a rpg" asperginations. Just list by year (starting from 1945 to make sure no game gets arbitrarily ignored)

Perhaps the 5-by-5 years works best. Also, focus more on the text & review than ranking them, people here seem to only bother at "X is higher than Y", I haven't seen a single comment onany of the texts (asides from DU's).

It's just that there's not a lot of substance to the text. I don't take issue with any of the writers, it's just that the format is one paragraph apiece to say what's good about a game without repeating what other people say. It's not constructed to offer much analysis of the games, or even basic information, as I think they rightly assume that everybody on the Codex has a fairly solid understanding of all of the top ten. I think DU's comments are in part a self-effacing joke about the format.

To add some depth, I think at leat 500 words from the same person with a basic features/judgement/influence goal would be best and be less personal (Not that it isn't hilarious to see JarlFrank insisting that Arcanum should be no. 1 on the list). This is especially important if you're trying to give people an "interesting RPGs to check out" list--give 'em a reason to find out more about the game.

With the one-paragraph-per-game format, most people still focus on "Why is game x rated higher than game Y" banalshitboringness, what makes you think they're gonna read 500 words per game?

 

[Lorica]

I may be wrong, but if there's not a lot of in depth analysis, they're all games that we've all played before and they follow a claim about being the best CRPGs evar, of course you're going to nitpick about what should go higher or lower.

With a bit more content, there's more to chew over and it'd fit the purpose Jaesun mentioned a bit better, hypothetically--the chance to expose people to great games they might not otherwise know about or know enough about to be interested in.

500 words is pretty arbitrary, but it's about 1 page and enough for a juicy paragraph apiece on each of the three things I mentioned, so I went with it. I think anybody seriously interested in RPGs would be happy to read a well written page about an unknown or unfamiliar CRPG.

 

[Jaesun]

Better not to implement that sort of restrictions because it only serves as wank fodder for "what is a rpg" asperginations. Just list by year (starting from 1945 to make sure no game gets arbitrarily ignored)

Who ever wants to do it can define whatever they want, and then deal with all the retarded trolling. Good luck with that. I'm not going to do it though.

 

[felipepepe]

With the one-paragraph-per-game format, most people still focus on "Why is game x rated higher than game Y" banalshitboringness, what makes you think they're gonna read 500 words per game?

That's the point in not ranking them. Just make it a "Classic RPGs we think you should play" list, listed by date.

I wouldn't bother doing the list, but I'm a 25-years old weaboo, I'm sure there are more monocled gentleman here that know the old classics well.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I hardly even remember voting on this. Funny to see the results.