Incline Top RPG's 2006 - Present: The Decline to the Current Resurgence

[Siveon]

Ah, right, I was thinking of another game. Still - Release Date: 15 Dec, 2015

That's the release date for the newest version. The original came at least a year before that.

It's not about taste though, it's about a well-constructed game. You can't go criticizing horror movies if you don't "like" them as a genre. Though that's your (general you) problem, not a problem of the medium, it's YOU who should change to like stuff, not the other way around, provided that it's well-made. I don't like FPSes, but I like Half-life because it's a well-made game for example.

I'm not saying you don't like RPGs, it's just that the genre is so big you may not find merit when some developers make them a certain way, or "put all their eggs in a single basket". I do, as well as others on the Codex. I'm not sure what you mean by well-constructed, but they're all stable and run pretty well (except NV, I guess, Gamebryo lol), which is good enough for me.

 

[Hoaxmetal]

Fly your autism flag proudly!

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Reading this thread reminds me why I avoid taking part in discussions in this sub-forum anymore: There's no sensible exchange of ideas taking place, just a lot of self-appointed armchair dungeon masters making grandiose declarations about what is what and what is not, with everyone settled in their trenches and refusing to give one inch...and with trench warfare comes a lack of overall perspective.

Yes, the Xbox is the single biggest harbinger of Decline gaming has ever seen. I'm just surprised people aren't catching on that the Decline it wrought started a couple of years before the console was even released - you don't release a console without testing the waters...and then 'tainting' them to eliminate potential rivals like Microsoft is want to do.

No, the Golden Age of RPGs did not last from 1987 to 1994, nor did it last from 1999 to 2003 (or thereabouts). The very concept of "Golden Age" is based on personal bias. Age, interests, tastes, what computer was in the home at the time, nostalgia, etc. You're all arguing what color the Emperor's Clothes are.

What kinda did it for me though, was seeing felipepepe (of all people) stating that games like Legend of Grimrock and Heroine's Quest NOT being considered "classic" because they dared to go back to basics instead of just copying whatever RPG was selling well at the moment? I would think that if you copy a classic design down to an almost miniscule level, you'd end up with a classic game on your hands, yes?

EDIT: Typo.

 

[CryptRat]

I guess it just depends on your favorite sub-genre.

My favored sub-genre (SRPGs) had a renaissance with the KS era: KOTC / Blackguards / Invisible Inc / Telepath Tactics and maybe Banner Saga are all amazing, and there are a lot of promising titles on the way, plus a lot of games I haven't played yet. In comparison, that sub-genre was a barren wasteland on the PC before 2009 except for maybe TOEE if you consider it an SRPG (Gorky 17? nu-PoR? lol).

It's clearly this. The RPGs I generally hate the most are the Action-Dialog RPGs with no party creation, no puzzle, everything resolved through dialog choices and visible quest tree checklists,... (so basically about 100% of the RPGs made by big or middle size studios during the last 15 years). Except a few indies that I was unfortunately not aware of (for example I discovered Avernum/Geneforge when they reached Steam), there were about 0 cRPGs I wanted to play which were made between-let's say-ToEE and Paper Sorcerer. Sometimes I tried : for example I tried NWN, Fallout:NV, Gothic 3 (yes, I know...) and The Witcher but I hated the 4 games.

Recently, however, thery are much more titles than what I have time to play, which is great.

What kinda did it for me though, was seeing felipepepe (of all people) stating that games like Legend of Grimrock and Heroine's Quest NOT being considered "classic" because they dared to go back to basics instead of just copying whatever RPG was selling well at the moment? I would think that if you copy a classic design down to an almost miniscule level, you'd end up with a classic game on your hands, yes?

The funny fact is that Legend of Grimorck 2 and Heroine's Quest are games I loved while I didn't like most of games felipepepe think were the best recent ones (but KOTC is awesome).

 

[Lacrymas]

I'm not saying you don't like RPGs, it's just that the genre is so big you may not find merit when some developers make them a certain way, or "put all their eggs in a single basket". I do, as well as others on the Codex. I'm not sure what you mean by well-constructed, but they're all stable and run pretty well (except NV, I guess, Gamebryo lol), which is good enough for me.

That's the thing - it's not as big as people think, it's a very, very strict genre which doesn't permit deviations. With the eggs in the basket thing I meant that they focus only on one thing - mostly combat. The neglect setting, exploration, narrative, aesthetics, characters etc; and they fail at that single thing, so we get a bland game, simple as that. By well-structured I mean how it combines into a coherent whole.

What kinda did it for me though, was seeing felipepepe (of all people) stating that games like Legend of Grimrock and Heroine's Quest NOT being considered "classic" because they dared to go back to basics instead of just copying whatever RPG was selling well at the moment? I would think that if you copy a classic design down to an almost miniscule level, you'd end up with a classic game on your hands, yes?

No, that would make it derivative. What they need to do is extract the design philosophies (the proper ones, since a lot of devs don't know what made the old games good) and build up on them to create something good and meaningful, not try to reinvent the wheel. LoG was boring and repetitive, so we are back to square one with that.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

No, that would make it derivative. What they need to do is extract the design philosophies (the proper ones, since a lot of devs don't know what made the old games good) and build up on them to create something good and meaningful, not try to reinvent the wheel. LoG was boring and repetitive, so we are back to square one with that.

There's that "armchair dungeon master" thing again that I was talking about.

Legend of Grimrock was a massive success because it wasn't trying to do anything except bring a classic gaming design to modern gaming audiences. LoG had (has?) a large community where people not only created custom dungeons, but custom assets for those custom dungeons. In fact, several modders tried to re-create games like Dungeon Master, Chaos Strikes Back and Eye of the Beholder in the LoG engine. These people weren't looking for something new - they wanted the good ol' classics back in modern packages.

You want "extracting the design philosophies and build upon them to create something good and meaningful", you want Legend of Grimrock 2. And compared to the LoG1 community, the LoG2 community is a pale shadow. The case can be made that they went too far from the classic formula - look where that got them.

And then there's all the games that the indie scene is churning out that aren't doing anything except try to cash in on Legend of Grimrock's success. You can state that LoG was boring and repetetive until you're blue(r) in the face, the facts tell another story.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

First you lament that there's no sensible exchange of ideas then you go on to call anyone who disagrees with your statements an "armchair dungeon master"? Oh the irony.

Your understanding of the word 'classic' is completely off, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Lacrymas should tell us more about what an RPG is.

 

[Sigourn]

I would think that if you copy a classic design down to an almost miniscule level, you'd end up with a classic game on your hands, yes?

I disagree. A classic is a classic because it did a lot of things well, IMO. And make a carbon copy of a classic doesn't give you a classic. Just an uninspired copy of a classic game that nobody will remember because there were dozens of other games that did the same thing, a decade or more ago.

 

[Lacrymas]

Lacrymas should tell us more about what an RPG is.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...es-working-in-rpgs.108406/page-2#post-4505734

This whole conversation between me and Delterius.

 

[felipepepe]

What kinda did it for me though, was seeing felipepepe (of all people) stating that games like Legend of Grimrock and Heroine's Quest NOT being considered "classic" because they dared to go back to basics instead of just copying whatever RPG was selling well at the moment? I would think that if you copy a classic design down to an almost miniscule level, you'd end up with a classic game on your hands, yes?

Hey, I only said they weren't classics - never wrote the "they dared to go back to the basics" part.

LoG is a fine game with a fantastic editor, but presentation aside the campaign was just okay. Sure, it was great to see a dead genre come back like that, but how would you compare it to other RT blobbers? Next to Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, Anvil of Dawn, Lands of Lore, Stone Prophet, etc? My favorite aspect of these games is the exploration, and even B-side blobbers like Brány Skeldalu have better level design than LoG...

You want "extracting the design philosophies and build upon them to create something good and meaningful", you want Legend of Grimrock 2. And compared to the LoG1 community, the LoG2 community is a pale shadow. The case can be made that they went too far from the classic formula - look where that got them.

We had this debate before... LoG was a "happy accident" - it used fancy graphics and a lot of hype to sell modern gamers something they had never seen before - but when they played it, they hated it.

IMHO, that's why Grimrock II sold less than 1/4 of what Grimrock 1 did - all those people who blindly purchased LoG1 and never played more than an hour never came back for LoG2. The actual quality of the game had very little to do with it.

 

[pippin]

We had this debate before... LoG was a "happy accident" - it used fancy graphics and a lot of hype to sell modern gamers something they had never seen before - but when they played it, they hated it.

IMHO, that's why Grimrock II sold less than 1/4 of what Grimrock 1 did - all those people who blindly purchased LoG1 and never played more than an hour never came back for LoG2. The actual quality of the game had very little to do with it.

This is the key to LoG1's sucess, as I said. Nobody (of the "new" people) played it because it was a retro thing. In fact, I don't really quite remember it trying to capitalize on the retro aspect, and I'd say that if they did the game wouldn't have been as successful as it was. The people remaking older games in LoG's engine are doing it because they are hardcore fans and because it has Workshop support on Steam, but I don't think they are truly representative of the game's initial audience.

 

[janior]

Legend of Grimrock is shit, real time blobbers are shit.
Except DM ofc.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

First you lament that there's no sensible exchange of ideas then you go on to call anyone who disagrees with your statements an "armchair dungeon master"? Oh the irony.

I'm happy to admit I'm wrong when proven so...except when it came to Legend of Grimrock, I was careful to only state facts.

It sold well.
It had a lively community.
It revived a dead genre.
The sequel did not do as well as the prequel.

But still...if you can prove me wrong with counter facts, go right ahead.

Your understanding of the word 'classic' is completely off, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

Here's another chance for you to prove me wrong: Tell me what the understanding of the word "classic" is. But make sure you read the "arguing about the Emperor's Clothes" bit first.

Hey, I only said they weren't classics - never wrote the "they dared to go back to the basics" part.

Fair enough.

LoG is a fine game with a fantastic editor, but presentation aside the campaign was just okay. Sure, it was great to see a dead genre come back like that, but how would you compare it to other RT blobbers? Next to Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, Anvil of Dawn, Lands of Lore, Stone Prophet, etc? My favorite aspect of these games is the exploration, and even B-side blobbers like Brány Skeldalu have better level design than LoG...

I haven't played Stone Prophet so I won't comment on that, save to say that I didn't consider Strahd's Possession (its prequel) to be a good grid-based RT blobber - it actually worked out better if you disabled the grid and went for free-form movement instead, but then it no longer fits with the other games you mentioned. Stone Prophet may do things differently though.

As for the others - LoG takes the line of evolution that had taken place in RT blobbers (DM > EotB > LoL > Anvil of Dawn) finds the end of it and picks up from there, except they scaled the environment back a bit on purpose to make it feel closer to Dungeon Master, while also adopting its spell system. The only place where they actually made some forward progress (besides modern-day graphics and audio) was in monster AI - monsters now sidestep more and charge at the player instead of just advancing one square at a time while possibly firing projectiles. Also the publicly available editor, can't forget that.

We had this debate before... LoG was a "happy accident" - it used fancy graphics and a lot of hype to sell modern gamers something they had never seen before - but when they played it, they hated it.

Fair enough, but I wasn't even thinking about the modern-day games when I brought up the sales aspect - there were plenty of happy people here and elsewhere to realize that this game was doing well.

IMHO, that's why Grimrock II sold less than 1/4 of what Grimrock 1 did - all those people who blindly purchased LoG1 and never played more than an hour never came back for LoG2. The actual quality of the game had very little to do with it.

To be honest I didn't know the difference was that much. That's gotta hurt a bit. It's gonna hurt the "me-too" devs following in Grimrock's wake even more. :/

 

[Lacrymas]

It sold well.
It had a lively community.
It revived a dead genre.
The sequel did not do as well as the prequel.

But still...if you can prove me wrong with counter facts, go right ahead.

This just proves it was popular, not that it was good. Argumentum ad populum and all that. Unless that was what you were going for? The second and third points are linked -> it has/had a lively community because it revived a dead genre. It's just not a very popular one, so whoever bought it on a whim didn't like it and didn't buy the sequel (which is better by your own admission?).

Tell me what the understanding of the word "classic" is.

A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style; something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality; of the first or highest quality, class, or rank

Being generic and derivative usually doesn't count as an outstanding example.

 

[octavius]

No, the Golden Age of RPGs did not last from 1987 to 1994, nor did it last from 1999 to 2003 (or thereabouts). The very concept of "Golden Age" is based on personal bias. Age, interests, tastes, what computer was in the home at the time, nostalgia, etc. You're all arguing what color the Emperor's Clothes are.

I don't agree with this.
I was a mature grown man in what I now consider the Golden Age of PC Gaming (1998-2002). And I didn't even play that much computer games back then. I had a job and a girlfriend, and most of my gaming time was spent on Play By (E)Mail games.
To me that period was the objectively best, whendesign was not hamstrung due to the limitations of the X-Box and PS 3.
If my feelings were based on age and nostalgia I would say the Golden Age was when the ZX Spectrum rule Britannia in the mid 80s'. Or even the glory days of the Amiga some years later.

 

[Telengard]

While 'Classic' is often used in arts & entertainment to mean best-of-the-best, it can also mean traditional, simple, and enduring design. This is inherited from architecture, where you have classic design and modern design (and a bunch of others, sure).

No, the Golden Age of RPGs did not last from 1987 to 1994, nor did it last from 1999 to 2003 (or thereabouts). The very concept of "Golden Age" is based on personal bias. Age, interests, tastes, what computer was in the home at the time, nostalgia, etc. You're all arguing what color the Emperor's Clothes are.

What Mr. Barton is identifying in his Golden/Silver Age definition is the ebb and flow of rpg titles released per year. If you graph that sucker, you get peaks (lots of releases) and valleys. For crpgs, there's a large mound right from the beginning that trails down in the early 90s and dies out in the mid 90s, and then another smaller mound around 2000. These are two identifiable sales arcs. Once a sales arc is identified, one can begin discussing relevant themes drawn from that period.

This is a pretty standard approach to critical discussion of large-scale trends. Even if you don't appreciate the names he chose, the method is classic. A less accepted method is to discuss things from a watershed influence basis. For instance, titling FF7 as the Skyrim of its day and discussing FF7's far-reaching influence of decline on all the games that came after. Or, the typical Codex method.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

This just proves it was popular, not that it was good. Argumentum ad populum and all that. Unless that was what you were going for?

Kinda. I left out my personal opinion of the game on purpose and chose to stick to facts instead, because the point I'm making is that bias is tainting the discussion.

What Mr. Barton is identifying in his Golden/Silver Age definition is the ebb and flow of rpg titles released per year. If you graph that sucker, you get peaks (lots of releases) and valleys. For crpgs, there's a large mound right from the beginning that trails down in the early 90s and dies out in the mid 90s, and then another smaller mound around 2000. These are two identifiable sales arcs. Once a sales arc is identified, one can begin discussing relevant themes drawn from that period.

This is a pretty standard approach to critical discussion of large-scale trends. Even if you don't appreciate the names he chose, the method is classic. A less accepted method is to discuss things from a watershed influence basis. For instance, titling FF7 as the Skyrim of its day and discussing FF7's far-reaching influence of decline on all the games that came after. Or, the typical Codex method.

Thanks very much for this, I agree...except for calling it "The Golden Age".

 

[United Nations]

No, that would make it derivative. What they need to do is extract the design philosophies (the proper ones, since a lot of devs don't know what made the old games good) and build up on them to create something good and meaningful, not try to reinvent the wheel. LoG was boring and repetitive, so we are back to square one with that.

There's that "armchair dungeon master" thing again that I was talking about.

Legend of Grimrock was a massive success because it wasn't trying to do anything except bring a classic gaming design to modern gaming audiences. LoG had (has?) a large community where people not only created custom dungeons, but custom assets for those custom dungeons. In fact, several modders tried to re-create games like Dungeon Master, Chaos Strikes Back and Eye of the Beholder in the LoG engine. These people weren't looking for something new - they wanted the good ol' classics back in modern packages.

You want "extracting the design philosophies and build upon them to create something good and meaningful", you want Legend of Grimrock 2. And compared to the LoG1 community, the LoG2 community is a pale shadow. The case can be made that they went too far from the classic formula - look where that got them.

And then there's all the games that the indie scene is churning out that aren't doing anything except try to cash in on Legend of Grimrock's success. You can state that LoG was boring and repetetive until you're blue(r) in the face, the facts tell another story.

I'm pretty sure that the peak of RPG's according to this website was Interplay/Black Isle Studios.

This is why I decided to start a thread that takes up good RPG's when Troika dissolved.

I'm no fan of Troika FYI but I still have yet to play Temple of Elemental Evil.