Decline What killed off oldschool RPGs?

[Giauz Ragnacock]

The indie marketplace just isn't ready to make games with 10 novels worth of text, 1000 different spell effects, 100 different classes and variants, a chain of hundreds of feats and special abilities, and then to make it all challenging, and then to make it all pretty as a picture on top of it. And then to turn around and refine all of that in order to make it all fun to play. If you really want a game that ticks all of those boxes for you and doesn't cut corners, you're looking at 10 million. And if you want to make use of a team of top quality people (instead of just having one big name "involved"), and so have a chance at producing a top quality game (a good team has a chance at producing a top quality game, but no guarantee; a poor quality team has no chance at all), then start moving that money bar sharply up.

The indie market favors game types that DON'T require huge amounts of upfront programming and tweaking and playtesting. It favors games where the core dynamic is simple, easily programmable, and the small handful of devs can get it all done and then spend their time refining rather than implementing. Which doesn't mean that one can't make an rpg on an indie budget, rather it means that the indie budget does not give favorable odds on making a successful rpg. Which is why most indie rpgs crash and burn.

Do we need top quality games? I think if indies could get some group cohesion to gain traction based on nice-looking '80s era crpgs' graphical quality (obviously applied more evenly now that there is enough memory for not every damn hallway and entrance looking like the last 20) and other types of games, then new programmers would have more reasonable expectations for making their own indie games (just like the intrepid early PC users on those far less powerful machines).

 

[YES!]

The indie marketplace just isn't ready to make games with 10 novels worth of text, 1000 different spell effects, 100 different classes and variants, a chain of hundreds of feats and special abilities, and then to make it all challenging, and then to make it all pretty as a picture on top of it. And then to turn around and refine all of that in order to make it all fun to play. If you really want a game that ticks all of those boxes for you and doesn't cut corners, you're looking at 10 million. And if you want to make use of a team of top quality people (instead of just having one big name "involved"), and so have a chance at producing a top quality game (a good team has a chance at producing a top quality game, but no guarantee; a poor quality team has no chance at all), then start moving that money bar sharply up.

The indie market favors game types that DON'T require huge amounts of upfront programming and tweaking and playtesting. It favors games where the core dynamic is simple, easily programmable, and the small handful of devs can get it all done and then spend their time refining rather than implementing. Which doesn't mean that one can't make an rpg on an indie budget, rather it means that the indie budget does not give favorable odds on making a successful rpg. Which is why most indie rpgs crash and burn.

Do we need top quality games? I think if indies could get some group cohesion to gain traction based on nice-looking '80s era crpgs' graphical quality (obviously applied more evenly now that there is enough memory for not every damn hallway and entrance looking like the last 20) and other types of games, then new programmers would have more reasonable expectations for making their own indie games (just like the intrepid early PC users on those far less powerful machines).

I'm replying to the quote of Telengard, because his first sentence is mind blowingly retarded. Only indies are making games with deep rpg systems and challenge. You have that completely backwards. Just because you don't play the real crpgs that come out doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you guys are on the wrong fucking site.

I'll say it again for the slow - Only indy developers, and non-AAA games are making games with complex rpg systems and challenge. In fact, the closer you get to AAA the further you get from complex rpg systems and challenge.

This is so obvious is should go without saying.

 

[Nael]

A drop in freely available Ritalin and Adderall.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

A drop in freely available Ritalin and Adderall.

Where you living? These pills really exploded after the renaissance. Pretty sure they’re still as readily available as skittles.

But maybe the opioid epidemic is providing a powerful countervailing force because it’s hard to play real RPGs if you’re nodding off every fifteen minutes.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

As for the guys who like it Goldbox or Realms of Arkania style- fpp with overhead for combat, we got what?

Well, Lords of Xulima was Realms of Arkania in reverse, if that counts.

It obviously doesn't, by virtue of being in reverse.
But it has barbarians so I'll let it slide.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

I don't know about anybody else, but I really hate "colour coded" items that tell you of their quality/power at a glance. It's like looking for the green numbers = good, red numbers = bad dipshittery most RPGs adhere to these days.

And don't get me started on the RPGs today that have this pulsating erection when it comes to making you into an epic'd out knight fresh from the badass factory by level 3. If you're making an RPG and have this compulsive thought that to keep interest for the player is littering them in weapons/armour that have colouring labels which come from a twink leprechaun's asshole then you're making an RPG for the wrong audience.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Decline-enablers such as graphics whores and storyfags don't help either though.

I've been a "graphics whore" since 1986, but that never stopped me from playing CRPGs. I don't think the issue today is so much an emphasis on top-notch graphics but rather a mass of people who want to play games that are labeled "RPGs" but really just offer cinematic cut-scenes (occasionally with a small amount of interactivity) while the player presses the "awesome button" to progress through what passes as gameplay. Most computer games called RPGs are made for people who don't like RPG gameplay.

 

[Daedalos]

Because RPG devs don't put the effort into RPGs that they used to..

People being satisfied, happy and content in their above average middle class lifestyles.

And the pursuit of money.

Nothing brings out creativity in people, as dark times in their lives, whatever it is. Most of the good writing/story and gameplay from crpgs come from people who had troubling and lifechanging shit to go through whilst making said games.

This is not always the case obviously, but in a lot of times it is. Movies, music, games, doesn't matter, you need to experience hard shit in your life, to be able to communicate and translate that into a piece of art.

Another fact is, that modern kids and gamers in general aren't that into RPGs let alone hardcore cRPGS. That's just times changing, and the world becoming ever more popamole and conform.

cRPG gamers are the vast VAST minority and young people don't want to invest too much time into any one given thing, but is quickly ready to jump to the next thing. This is jobs, gaming, relationships, doesnt matter, because this and newer generations want to experience it all, without any of the sacrifice.

 

[Lilura]

^ that water cycle is simple but impressive. I wish more Golden Age RPGs took advantage of Amiga custom chipset. It's copper would have done such effects even better, as early as 1987.

 

[vivec]

Because RPG devs don't put the effort into RPGs that they used to..

People being satisfied, happy and content in their above average middle class lifestyles.

.

Pretty much this. I blame the consumer and the provider both though. People simply expect very little from cRPGs.

 

[Telengard]

The indie marketplace just isn't ready to make games with 10 novels worth of text, 1000 different spell effects, 100 different classes and variants, a chain of hundreds of feats and special abilities, and then to make it all challenging, and then to make it all pretty as a picture on top of it. And then to turn around and refine all of that in order to make it all fun to play. If you really want a game that ticks all of those boxes for you and doesn't cut corners, you're looking at 10 million. And if you want to make use of a team of top quality people (instead of just having one big name "involved"), and so have a chance at producing a top quality game (a good team has a chance at producing a top quality game, but no guarantee; a poor quality team has no chance at all), then start moving that money bar sharply up.

The indie market favors game types that DON'T require huge amounts of upfront programming and tweaking and playtesting. It favors games where the core dynamic is simple, easily programmable, and the small handful of devs can get it all done and then spend their time refining rather than implementing. Which doesn't mean that one can't make an rpg on an indie budget, rather it means that the indie budget does not give favorable odds on making a successful rpg. Which is why most indie rpgs crash and burn.

Do we need top quality games? I think if indies could get some group cohesion to gain traction based on nice-looking '80s era crpgs' graphical quality (obviously applied more evenly now that there is enough memory for not every damn hallway and entrance looking like the last 20) and other types of games, then new programmers would have more reasonable expectations for making their own indie games (just like the intrepid early PC users on those far less powerful machines).

Well, you are overall correct. But the thing to keep in mind about this thread is while the OP's title was about "classic" RPGs, the OP's explanatory post was all about the IE games, with the question du jour being why the indie scene wasn't making more of those types of games. And the IE games were a particular type of top shelf RPG that had a lot of man hours put into their making. So, if someone is trying to remake the feeling of an IE game, but do so on a budget, that budget is itself going to limit those man hours available for polish, not to mention will very likely limit the number and quality of people in the talent pool applied to those hours. So, fewer people on the team, less experience and skills available on the team, no more development time than anyone else gets, and a particular type of RPG that is very labor intensive to make. - It's not that one can't make an RPG under those terms, but it's not a recipe for success. Especially since people might say that they are okay with a discount version of an IE game, but they're really not, not in their heart of hearts.

On the other hand, 80s-style RPGs (blobbers, for instance) are a much, much less labor intensive type. Large grid-based structure, static environments, no enemy animations, few spell animations, few spells, etc. Indie budgets very much favor that type of design. Now, if you can just get the public to buy those types of games instead of pining for more IE games, then we have a winner.

 

[Davaris]

On the other hand, 80s-style RPGs (blobbers, for instance) are a much, much less labor intensive type. Large grid-based structure, static environments, no enemy animations, few spell animations, few spells, etc. Indie budgets very much favor that type of design. Now, if you can just get the public to buy those types of games instead of pining for more IE games, then we have a winner.

The least difficult/labor intensive ones are the ASCII rogulike engines. I haven't looked too deeply into their community, but on the surface they appear to be thriving. I like the attitude they have on Rougelike Radio, where they encourage their devs not to waste a second on art. They also don't seem to mind that they don't get paid, they do it for fun. They are why I'm not concerned if RPGs are popular or not, because they will always be around.

 

[ilitarist]

Because RPG devs don't put the effort into RPGs that they used to..

People being satisfied, happy and content in their above average middle class lifestyles.

And the pursuit of money.

They put more effort than ever. And I think it's part of the problem.

Even when people complain there's not enough content in the game like Dragon Age 2 - you still get much more than you ever did. I mean which classic game had as much dialogue, distinct enemies, models and, ahem, level geometry as Dragon Age 2? Maybe Baldur's Gate had something like that but even that was often repeatable.

I'd say it's more about disrepancy between graphic detail and "mechanical detail" or something. When you have almost photorealistic graphics and animation you expect people to behave realistic, to properly react to everything. Puppets from Gothic 1/2 had a simple AI that made them look adequate for low-poly puppets; Skyrim AI is much more complex but you expect even more from its detailed and complex visuals and sound.

Anyway, I'd argue there's no distinction between oldschool RPG and modern ones. It's a complex of nostalgic traits. I'd like to see someone prove Divinity Original Sin (biggest RPG of last year apart from Grimoire) is not an oldschool RPG.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

as much dialogue

Planescape?

distinct enemies

IE games? Any taffing HacknSlash?

models

Morrowind? NWN?

and, ahem, level geometry as Dragon Age 2

Meaning a geometry that tops this?

Boy, that'd be hard to find.

They put more effort than ever.

 

[Roguey]

I don't think the issue today is so much an emphasis on top-notch graphics but rather a mass of people who want to play games that are labeled "RPGs" but really just offer cinematic cut-scenes (occasionally with a small amount of interactivity) while the player presses the "awesome button" to progress through what passes as gameplay.

Are you from 2010?

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

Zed Duke of Banville :

Most computer games called RPGs are made for people who don't like RPG gameplay.

I wonder if that could be for the same reason the trope Reality is Unrealistic exists? Their mental image of what they want their characters to be able to do doesn't accurately represent the "physics" and possible consequences of their choices that dictate what actually is possible. More action-oriented and linear games give more predictable results, so the player feels like they have more agency in the game world compared to the roll of some dice and C&C story progression. By agency, in this case, I mean direct control in progression as opposed to succeeding some control to unknown factors.

 

[CryptRat]

I'd like to see someone prove Divinity Original Sin (biggest RPG of last year apart from Grimoire) is not an oldschool RPG.

Dialogues choices, modern quest design and difficulty (I'm talking mostly about the non-combat part), and tons of arguable things like the story (the story is typical modern story, but it's not as much true about the way it's presented), the 2+2 characters, itemization, the way numbers grow very big, arguably not modern nor old-school but in no way particularly old-school. I loved the game, in particular since I think turn-based combat is more important that most things and they did it well and the game leaves place to exploration, but it's not particularly old-school. Legend of Grimrock 1 is old-school.

 

[Egosphere]

They put more effort than ever. And I think it's part of the problem.

Even when people complain there's not enough content in the game like Dragon Age 2 - you still get much more than you ever did. I mean which classic game had as much dialogue,

Planescape Torment.

distinct enemies,

Arcanum.

models
.

Incredible. Rpgs in 2018 havemore models than those of 1998. Who could have predicted that?

and, ahem, level geometry as Dragon Age 2?

level geometry? Who gives a flying fook about level geometry?

Anyway, I'd argue there's no distinction between oldschool RPG and modern ones. It's a complex of nostalgic traits.

I am nostalgia free when I say that they do many things a lot better, since I've played several of the very best ones after experiencing modern 'RPGs'

 

[octavius]

On the other hand, 80s-style RPGs (blobbers, for instance) are a much, much less labor intensive type. Large grid-based structure, static environments, no enemy animations, few spell animations, few spells, etc. Indie budgets very much favor that type of design. Now, if you can just get the public to buy those types of games instead of pining for more IE games, then we have a winner.

And one of the strengths of blobbers is that they can have quick and abstract, yet quite tactical combat.
A good blobber combat system should be quicker and easier to code than any top down/isometric system.

 

[DeepOcean]

RPGs are really complex games really dependent on content, right now steam is experiencing a massive explosion on city building, survival, space combat games, general management/building games and 4x games, all games dependent more on systems than content. To make a city building game, you need to make the buildings, code the rules and make the maps then let the player to play how he feels fit, an isometric traditional RPG needs interesting characters, need creative settings, decent writing, quest/level designers... this is ALOT of content.

A good RPG level must have good encounter design, quest design, NPC dialog, good pacing of the content, balanced difficulty and etc... this is more than an indie company can handle and the qualifications necessary to pull those kinds of games well are above than amateurs making their first Unity based games. Creative individuals capable of inventing original settings with original characters being good writers like Avellone, those types of people aren't born every day.

Maybe in the future we will see an increase of simpler, less ambitious RPGs coming from the indie space but I don't expect consistent big releases with frequency any time soon.

 

[Taurist]

I blame the developers to be honest. Post-IE RPG's of the 2000's are a mess of "good for what it is".
The implementation of DND in NWN2 and ToEE is just enormously confusing compared to Baldur's Gate, or KOTC.
Arcane rulesets, buggy janky gameplay, shit quests, unfinished games, all of this was endemic. I think the enourmous success of Dragon Age (1) and PoE kind of proves that the genre needn't have died.

 

[ilitarist]

Meaning a geometry that tops this?

You named a few games that had more of some aspect of it but none that had all of that in one game.

By the way about geometry - none of those oldschool random level generators ever came close to what we have now with games like Unexplored.

Incredible. Rpgs in 2018 havemore models than those of 1998. Who could have predicted that?

I am nostalgia free when I say that they do many things a lot better, since I've played several of the very best ones after experiencing modern 'RPGs'

See, that's what I'm talking about. You take for granted the fact that modern games have more models, more lines of dialogue, more stuff in general. As if it's that easier today to produce that stuff. You regard older games in a way similar to school play - "it's great for what was available to them" or something. Or you don't see that often lack of effort was what made those games better - modern games are often filled with stuff to the point it becomes a blur. Even if you consider older games better it's dumb to think people put more effort in them or that there's some distinction from modern ones.

Also I mentioned level geometry because Dragon Age 2 was blamed for reusing content. It did but it was still a lot of maps in there - more than, say, in Witcher 1, maybe more than Witcher 2.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

You take for granted the fact that modern games have more models, more lines of dialogue, more stuff in general. As if it's that easier today to produce that stuff.

If it weren't, we certainly wouldn't be seeing such lowered barriers of entry, what with all the damn games out in the market today. And Quantity!=Quality.

Or you don't see that often lack of effort was what made those games better - modern games are often filled with stuff to the point it becomes a blur.

Throwing in everything, including the kitchen is by no means a superior effort in comparison to having stuff thrown in that works. All this harping you make of Dragon age 2, DRAGON AGE 2 of all goddamn games, all that dialogue, all that jazz, who the fuck even gives a shit about the game now? Only ME: Andromeda was received more poorly. Why must anyone care about the effort exerted, if the end result still sucked? And if the end result sucked, how is the effort justifiable? In that case, is it not insufficient effort?

Also I mentioned level geometry because Dragon Age 2 was blamed for reusing content. It did but it was still a lot of maps in there

I don't get this, it's obviously quite doable to have a buttfuck load of maps if you're reusing them, ya dumb kobold.

 

[ilitarist]

Dialogues choices, modern quest design and difficulty (I'm talking mostly about the non-combat part), and tons of arguable things like the story (the story is typical modern story, but it's not as much true about the way it's presented), the 2+2 characters, itemization, the way numbers grow very big, arguably not modern nor old-school but in no way particularly old-school. I loved the game, in particular since I think turn-based combat is more important that most things and they did it well and the game leaves place to exploration, but it's not particularly old-school. Legend of Grimrock 1 is old-school.

From your description it looks like oldschool RPG means original story without dialogue. Especially strange with adding Legend of Grimrock as an example of old-school. Does old-school means a simple story, minimum dialogue and lower difficulty? If you mean non-combat difficulty then you mean it's supposed to have hard puzzles? DOS1 had more of those, does this count as more oldschool?

Even if there's a distinction it doesn't matter. Those games wheren't any more enjoyable or thought provoking compared to what we get today. We take a lot of things for granted approaching older games forgiving them for shitty UI and design and imbalances as if, like graphics, it's something that is limited by technology.

 

[ilitarist]

ya dumb kobold.

I was under an impression you're trying to have a conversation up to this point, even when you couldn't understand why am I talking about Dragon Age 2 specifically. Well, in case you'll get dragged into an argument in the future: the thing I did was using a famous bad thing and argued that even while bad it still was exceptional compared to the other class of things, in this case the mythical class of "oldschool games". It's clear that DA2 involved much more effort from a lot of people compared to, say, Fallout 1-2.