Spurned RPGs That are Masterpieces Today

[Harthwain]

sacred

nobody would call that eurojank arpg a masterpiece lmao

The OP's criteria is not written down very well, in my opinion. Change "masterpieces" to "classics" and I would consider Sacred to be a classic. It is certainly not perfect, but it is a charming hack'n'slash.

Coincidentally, a lot of games that we consider classic RPGs today weren't that well received in their time and gained cult following long after their release.

 

[JarlFrank]

Or people just always think that whatever they liked when they were 16 is an unassailable masterpiece and anything released after they turned 25~ is irreparable shit, so the "classics" and the "worst games ever" shift with each new generation of users.

True, I played Arcanum, Morrowind, and BG2 when I was around 12-14, and consider them the best RPGs ever, nothing after even comes close.

But it's a matter of objective quality, not nostalgia

 

[MjKorz]

Or people just always think that whatever they liked when they were 16 is an unassailable masterpiece and anything released after they turned 25~ is irreparable shit, so the "classics" and the "worst games ever" shift with each new generation of users.

True, I played Arcanum, Morrowind, and BG2 when I was around 12-14, and consider them the best RPGs ever, nothing after even comes close.

But it's a matter of objective quality, not nostalgia

When I was a child, I thought BG2 and Morrowind were the best RPGs ever made. When I became a man, I realized that Pillars mog both BG2 and Morrowind into a living death.

 

[Jvegi]

Temple of Elemental Evil was not widely seen as good when it was released, perhaps thanks to the bland start or the amount of bugs. It wasn't even seen as a flawed masterpiece like Bloodlines or Arcanum, and was close in status to Alpha Protocol. But it is now regarded as having probably the best turn-based combat in a non-indie RPG.

And it's still not considered good, couse it ain't.

Combat, which is partly good, is more appreciated nowadays, since we are not kids falsly convinced story is what makes a crpg.

 

[Falksi]

Risen 2 is another. Funny as fuck, great vibe, pirating yarrr!!

Gameplay is wank, but if you play guns it's serviceable enough to get by.

 

[flyingjohn]

When I was a child, I thought BG2 and Morrowind were the best RPGs ever made. When I became a man, I realized that Pillars mog both BG2 and Morrowind into a living death

You didn't grow up. You grew old. And developed worse taste in games it seems.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

PoE > BG2. On the other hand, Morrowind has an entirely different design and style of gameplay hence they're not really comparable.

 

[MerchantKing]

Two Worlds.

 

[Vormulak]

I never played Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader. I think I played the demo and I remember Sarevok's voice actor at the beginning. I don't wanna buy it and then my autism kicks in and I have to complete it over 80 hours or so. But then, there's media I considered crap a decade or more ago that's fantastic by today's standards.

Lionheart sucks even into the first dungeon

 

[MjKorz]

PoE > BG2. On the other hand, Morrowind has an entirely different design and style of gameplay hence they're not really comparable.

But you can easily compare the roleplaying depth of both games regardless of their combat systems or the exploration gameplay aspect. Reality is, Morrowind multi-solution quests are very seldom dependent on your character building choices and mostly involved fed-ex or search&kill gameplay. Of course, there are some exceptions where quests can be completed in alternative ways via improving the character disposition, usually through speechcraft or charm spells, but even in those quests you can just spam the NPC with 10 gold bribes and max out their disposition with no investment into either speechcraft or illusion. In PoE, on the other hand, your character stats like resolve and your character reputations matter much more dramatically when it comes to alternative quest solutions.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

But you can easily compare the roleplaying depth of both games regardless of their combat systems or the exploration gameplay aspect.

Sure, but I think that they provide a different enough kind of experience from each other that they might as well be considered different (sub)genres entirely. We can compare elements of them, but I personally wouldn't rank them against each other as individual games since that depends a lot on personal preference rather than on how good they are as generic 'RPGs'. Same as with comparing a 4X title with a Total War game. Sure, they're both turn-based strategy games yet they've diverged enough in gameplay that they're their own thing which has different criteria for what constitutes a good game within their particular subgenres.

 

[MjKorz]

But you can easily compare the roleplaying depth of both games regardless of their combat systems or the exploration gameplay aspect.

Sure, but I think that they provide a different enough kind of experience from each other that they might as well be considered different (sub)genres entirely. We can compare elements of them, but I personally wouldn't rank them against each other as individual games since that depends a lot on personal preference rather than on how good they are as generic 'RPGs'. Same as with comparing a 4X title with a Total War game. Sure, they're both turn-based strategy games yet they've diverged enough in gameplay that they're their own thing which has different criteria for what constitutes a good game within their particular subgenres.

You're right, Morrowind resonates a lot more with people who value the exploration gameplay aspect so perhaps it's best to be compared strictly with other action RPGs like Gothic and Fallout New Vegas. Still, I did not find Morrowind's roleplaying depth impressive compared to Pillars and that's what I value in a RPG the most.

 

[JarlFrank]

Pillars is just a boring game though. Roleplaying choices don't matter that much when the game around them is a fucking bore.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Pillars is just a boring game though. Roleplaying choices don't matter that much when the game around them is a fucking bore.

I think that it was overall ok and the expansion was an improvement on the base game experience. Meanwhile BG2 was kinda meh narrativewise and ToB was a rushed combat heavy expansion.

 

[kangaxx]

Pillars is just a boring game though. Roleplaying choices don't matter that much when the game around them is a fucking bore.

Another one I never bothered finishing. I got to the DLC area and realised I didn't even know why my character was travelling around the map.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Also, dunno what the consensus on this is, but personally BG1 > BG2 > ToB. BG1 did a wonderful job in portraying a low level adventure while also having good worldbuilding. BG2 has Irenicus, sure, but he's a neat antagonist in a meandering story. And ToB has... an ok ending for the 'trilogy' (& some cool companion tidbits like with Sarevok) and not much else to brag about.

 

[Morgoth]

Lionheart had great vibes, but it was such a broken and unfinished game underneath. Damn shame, and fuck Fargo.

 

[Pikoman]

Arcanum I doubt was considered one of the best ever on release by many as it is(deservedly so) now. Dated visuals for the time and awkward UI are alone enough to probably turn away someone who sees and hears of the game for the first time. Disregarding that, you'd be greeted with a buggy and freezing mess on release. I've replayed it recently and even with the shitton of patches, the game just decided to crash from time to time
Welcome to Troika.
All of their games had problems, but all of them are also classics.

Of course, though Arcanum is a different beast compared to the rest imo, both in regards to quality and buginess. Can't remember many bugs in ToEE, though I'm a bit hazy on the game, but as for patched VtMB I can tell you that I didn't encounter a single bug during my most recent playthrough.

 

[Bastardchops]

• Icewind Dale was almost unanimously considered Baldur's Gate's inferior cousin, but now is considered classic.
• Alpha Brotocol was a janky AA game with shit combat but gets accolades now as peak C&C.
• Arcanum (of Magicka & Steamworks) was considered ugly, dated, and janky upon release, but is now the second coming of Fallout.
• NWN (2002) OC was considered shit when released, but is now considered decent by many.
• Divinity II was panned but is somehow on the RPG Codex top 70 list.
• Wizards and Warriors was considered middling and janky when it came out. Almost forgettable. Yet now it's also on the Top 70 list.

It's amazing to see an actual person living in a bubble.

Nobody outside the RPG bubble think IWD a "classic".
Nobody outside niche Obsidian cultist praise Alpha Protocol.
Nobody but you think Arcanum is "the second coming of Fallout".
NWN OC is still shit, nobody outside of the bubble even remember it.
Nobody plays Divinity 2, and nobody cares what RPC Chudex (internet's known shithole) "tier list".
Nobody knows "Wizards and Warriors", what is that? Dollar store DnD?

It is both amazing and insane that somebody would write this and genuinely believe that it's the truth. You gotta go out of your cumcave bro.

Yeah it's like someone being a Bob Dylan fan and having positive opinions of overlooked albums, and then being like, BUT NOT NON-BOB DYLAN FAN THINKS THESE ALBUMS ARE GOOD.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The one right answer is Dark Messiah (of) Might and Magic

I played this for the first time on PC in probably 2009 or 2010. I unironically enjoyed it. I think it's a lot of fun and has good adventure. This one has always been a recommend by me. I didn't realize people didn't like this one. I think it suffered from bugs and poor performance on release?

 

[Lemming42]

True, I played Arcanum, Morrowind, and BG2 when I was around 12-14, and consider them the best RPGs ever, nothing after even comes close.

Sounds like you grew up in what Roberta Williams terms THE INSTANT GRATIFICATION ERA!!! She said in 1999:

GD: Why do you think that the Adventure game genre has kind of died out?

Roberta: Well, since I've not been in touch with the gaming industry as much as I'd like to, my answer might seem kind of off. Back when I got started, which sounds like ancient history, back then the demographics of people who were into computer games, was totally different, in my opinion, then they are today. Back then, computers were more expensive, which made them more exclusive to people who were maybe at a certain income level, or education level. So the people that played computer games 15 years ago were that type of person. They probably didn't watch television as much, and the instant gratification era hadn't quite grown the way it has lately. I think in the last 5 or 6 years, the demographics have really changed, now this is my opinion, because computers are less expensive so more people can afford them. More "average" people now feel they should own one. There's also the influence of the game consoles as well. So most of these people have gotten used to shoot-em' up kind of games on the consoles. Now they want to get that kind of experience on their computers.

Does this mean that the original crowd still isn't there? Probably not, however, there are much fewer of them. And the numbers for a good selling computer game are much harder to reach now. Something that sold 300,000 copies then, would be a lame selling game today. The other side of it is that adventure games, to do them right, probably have some of the highest production costs around. It doesn't appear that in today's world, that our demographics will change anytime soon. Now I do think that there is some hope on the internet. It's my feeling that a lot of people who were in love with their computers, are now hanging out online.

I love all this kind of stuff where people are living in what you and me believe is a golden age and they're complaining about how shit it is, I've got loads. Gives a feeling of how we're gonna look to kids today who think the 2020s are the peak of gaming. Here's Gabe Newell describing his belief that "the first-person genre" had devolved to lowest common denominator shooting galleries by the time he started developing Half-Life (so 1996 - 1998):

Half-Life in many ways was a reactionary response to the trivialization of the experience of the first-person genre. Many of us had fallen in love with video games because of the phenomenological possibilities of the field and felt like the industry was reducing the experiences to least common denominators rather than exploring those possibilities. Our hope was that building worlds and characters would be more compelling than building shooting galleries.

Another one, Douglas Goodall (speaking in 2005) was hugely disappointed by his work on Morrowind and felt that he was forced to make a mass-market game about "smash[ing] things with a huge axe":

I disagreed with Todd a lot because Todd and I do not like the same kinds of games. This is not his fault or mine. Whether it is more fun to smash things with a huge axe or coax secrets from obfuscated texts is pure opinion. Whether it's better to play against dice or against an intelligent designer is pure opinion. Frankly, most gamers are more like Todd. It is in Bethesda's best interests to appeal to those gamers, instead of making a game that appeals to me. I selfishly didn't want to work on a game that didn't appeal to me, but that wasn't my job. My job was to work on Morrowind, regardless of whether I liked it or not.

 

[Harthwain]

Also, dunno what the consensus on this is, but personally BG1 > BG2 > ToB. BG1 did a wonderful job in portraying a low level adventure while also having good worldbuilding. BG2 has Irenicus, sure, but he's a neat antagonist in a meandering story. And ToB has... an ok ending for the 'trilogy' (& some cool companion tidbits like with Sarevok) and not much else to brag about.

BG2 is an epic adventure. Even the starting dungeon is quite varied. I found it highly enjoyable for what it was, because it managed to mix the concept of living in the Forgotten Realms with dungeon crawling by having a lot of content where you interacted with NPCs in non-combat situations, which helped greatly to punctuate the combat situations.

 

[NecroLord]

True, I played Arcanum, Morrowind, and BG2 when I was around 12-14, and consider them the best RPGs ever, nothing after even comes close.

Sounds like you grew up in what Roberta Williams terms THE INSTANT GRATIFICATION ERA!!! She said in 1999:

GD: Why do you think that the Adventure game genre has kind of died out?

Roberta: Well, since I've not been in touch with the gaming industry as much as I'd like to, my answer might seem kind of off. Back when I got started, which sounds like ancient history, back then the demographics of people who were into computer games, was totally different, in my opinion, then they are today. Back then, computers were more expensive, which made them more exclusive to people who were maybe at a certain income level, or education level. So the people that played computer games 15 years ago were that type of person. They probably didn't watch television as much, and the instant gratification era hadn't quite grown the way it has lately. I think in the last 5 or 6 years, the demographics have really changed, now this is my opinion, because computers are less expensive so more people can afford them. More "average" people now feel they should own one. There's also the influence of the game consoles as well. So most of these people have gotten used to shoot-em' up kind of games on the consoles. Now they want to get that kind of experience on their computers.

Does this mean that the original crowd still isn't there? Probably not, however, there are much fewer of them. And the numbers for a good selling computer game are much harder to reach now. Something that sold 300,000 copies then, would be a lame selling game today. The other side of it is that adventure games, to do them right, probably have some of the highest production costs around. It doesn't appear that in today's world, that our demographics will change anytime soon. Now I do think that there is some hope on the internet. It's my feeling that a lot of people who were in love with their computers, are now hanging out online.

I love all this kind of stuff where people are living in what you and me believe is a golden age and they're complaining about how shit it is, I've got loads. Gives a feeling of how we're gonna look to kids today who think the 2020s are the peak of gaming. Here's Gabe Newell describing his belief that "the first-person genre" had devolved to lowest common denominator shooting galleries by the time he started developing Half-Life (so 1996 - 1998):

Half-Life in many ways was a reactionary response to the trivialization of the experience of the first-person genre. Many of us had fallen in love with video games because of the phenomenological possibilities of the field and felt like the industry was reducing the experiences to least common denominators rather than exploring those possibilities. Our hope was that building worlds and characters would be more compelling than building shooting galleries.

Another one, Douglas Goodall (speaking in 2005) was hugely disappointed by his work on Morrowind and felt that he was forced to make a mass-market game about "smash[ing] things with a huge axe":

I disagreed with Todd a lot because Todd and I do not like the same kinds of games. This is not his fault or mine. Whether it is more fun to smash things with a huge axe or coax secrets from obfuscated texts is pure opinion. Whether it's better to play against dice or against an intelligent designer is pure opinion. Frankly, most gamers are more like Todd. It is in Bethesda's best interests to appeal to those gamers, instead of making a game that appeals to me. I selfishly didn't want to work on a game that didn't appeal to me, but that wasn't my job. My job was to work on Morrowind, regardless of whether I liked it or not.

Julian Lefay said that he didn't quite like Morrowind and said that it wasn't really the game he would've made.

 

[NecroLord]

While we're on the subject, I always thought Morrowind was a grand fantasy adventure and truly an exceptional setting that defies the typical high fantasy standards.

Daggerfall, on the other hand, was more pulp-like Sword and Sorcery.
I wish Elder Scrolls would've stayed true to its Sword and Sorcery roots and not steer completely in the High Fantasy direction.

 

[Lemming42]

Funnily enough, Douglas Goodall felt that Morrowind was too typical of high fantasy! He mostly felt that way because Ken Rolston apparently insisted that the aesthetics and attitudes of each group mirror real-world groups, hence the Empire suddenly taking on the aesthetics of Ancient Rome and the Ashlanders having a vague Native American vibe in both appearance and culture, and how the Bretons became French:

There were quite a few of [Ken Rolston's rules], but since I didn't understand most of them, this is something you ought to ask Ken if you get the chance. The only ones I'm sure I understood were "no betrayal" and "everything must be a metaphor/everything must be based on something."

"No betrayal" meant that key NPCs couldn't turn on the player, lie to the player if they were honest in the past, nor could an NPC steal an item from the player, etc. This is good as a general rule, but it's the kind of rule that begs for exceptions.

"Everything must be a metaphor" is how the quirky Cyrodiil of Daggerfall and the alien Cyrodiil of the Pocket Guide became the Roman Empire, how the Bretons got French names, etc. I felt Tamriel had been moving away from generic fantasy and medieval history with every game until Morrowind. I wanted this trend to continue and resented having to squeeze a Hermaeus Mora-shaped Vvardenfell into a Roman Province-shaped space. I think Ken uses historical examples to make the world more believable. If you just make stuff up, there's a good chance you'll make something wrong and break suspension of disbelief. That's true, but I'd argue that if you use an inappropriate or easily recognized metaphor, you have the same risk. Besides, making stuff up is more fun for both the creators and consumers.

The "every game until Morrowind" comment is really interesting because he can only be talking about Daggerfall, Battlespire, and Redguard. I love Redguard and Battlespire (especially Redguard) and I think he has a point in that sense; they both really do feel unique and like a happy blend between DF's pulp sword and sorcery stuff and Kirkbride's metaphysical stuff, with both aspects kept in balance. If I was inexplicably put in charge of the development of TES VI, I'd have the whole dev team play Redguard and tell them that's the tone and mood I want to recreate.