What old (pre-1995) cRPGs stand the test of time?

[DavidBVal]

I'd say the tolerance for slow-paced games is also much lower now. There is some truth to tolerance of frustration, but it really boils down to people just not wanting or being able to invest as deeply into an RPG as previous generations. So while I still play Icewind Dale and may have to try a boss battle 10 or more times before beating it (because I suck at RPGs ), that is not a type of scenario that is really going to fly today. Even Dark Souls isn't going to kill you that much, as that game is based around dying but then quickly developing a strategy based on your first mistakes. In general you aren't going to run into these insane-level challenges or many obstacles at all in today's RPGs, unless you're playing on a higher difficulty level or some weird obscure RPG like Elminage Gothic. And even at that Elminage removes a lot of the difficutly by allowing you to save anywhere.

This is just an observation, by the way, not a judgement.

Yeah this is a psychological trend that is not just about RPGs. In the era of instant gratification and massive availability of new content, people feels entitled of having all they want, and fast, then switch to something else. This has translated into all media in the entertainment industry, and videogames are not an exception. Back when we were kids and we had 3 games on our computer, we had to keep playing them until we beat them, or quit playing, because getting new games wasn't insta-magic like it is now. there was one new Ultima or one new M&M or Wizardry after many months, and until then you kept trying. Maybe if we had been given the option to, instead, play 637 new "freeish" RPGs each week, we would have never beaten some of those "long investment required" games out there.

I'm sorry to keep pissing on your well thought out and informative points, I must seem like such a nitpick artist, but... aren't all the kings of popamole crap gaming all the hour-munching time sinks that demand people play them for 1,000 hours, and that's before they start modding them...

Just a point to consider while you evaluate your next work of genius.

If you are denying nowadays people split their time among MORE games than they used to in the 80s-90s, you are delusional. I see it in my kids and their friends every day (16-19), they switch from one thing to the next every week. The fact some people spend a long time in a game doesn't prove anything, and isn't new either; I don't even want to imagine how long I played some games like MM3 back in the no-walkthrough era, or in playing gold box+dabbling with FRUA, but it must be insane, maaaany hundreds of hours. What is new is the hour counters, and profiles that show how much you have played.

 

[anvi]

Yeah this is a psychological trend that is not just about RPGs. In the era of instant gratification and massive availability of new content, people feels entitled of having all they want, and fast, then switch to something else.

And sex on first date. That part I like.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I'd say the tolerance for slow-paced games is also much lower now. There is some truth to tolerance of frustration, but it really boils down to people just not wanting or being able to invest as deeply into an RPG as previous generations. So while I still play Icewind Dale and may have to try a boss battle 10 or more times before beating it (because I suck at RPGs ), that is not a type of scenario that is really going to fly today. Even Dark Souls isn't going to kill you that much, as that game is based around dying but then quickly developing a strategy based on your first mistakes. In general you aren't going to run into these insane-level challenges or many obstacles at all in today's RPGs, unless you're playing on a higher difficulty level or some weird obscure RPG like Elminage Gothic. And even at that Elminage removes a lot of the difficutly by allowing you to save anywhere.

This is just an observation, by the way, not a judgement.

Yeah this is a psychological trend that is not just about RPGs. In the era of instant gratification and massive availability of new content, people feels entitled of having all they want, and fast, then switch to something else. This has translated into all media in the entertainment industry, and videogames are not an exception. Back when we were kids and we had 3 games on our computer, we had to keep playing them until we beat them, or quit playing, because getting new games wasn't insta-magic like it is now. there was one new Ultima or one new M&M or Wizardry after many months, and until then you kept trying. Maybe if we had been given the option to, instead, play 637 new "freeish" RPGs each week, we would have never beaten some of those "long investment required" games out there.

I'm sorry to keep pissing on your well thought out and informative points, I must seem like such a nitpick artist, but... aren't all the kings of popamole crap gaming all the hour-munching time sinks that demand people play them for 1,000 hours, and that's before they start modding them...

Just a point to consider while you evaluate your next work of genius.

If you are denying nowadays people split their time among MORE games than they used to in the 80s-90s, you are delusional. I see it in my kids and their friends every day (16-19), they switch from one thing to the next every week. The fact some people spend a long time in a game doesn't prove anything, and isn't new either; I don't even want to imagine how long I played some games like MM3 back in the no-walkthrough era, or in playing gold box+dabbling with FRUA, but it must be insane, maaaany hundreds of hours. What is new is the hour counters, and profiles that show how much you have played.

Oh right, you want to try and prove the point now rather than concede. Okie dokes:

You have a funny idea of proof if your entire argument is: I played games for endless hours in the 80s therefore everyone must have, whereas nowadays some people spend endless hours on games but they are just rare individuals.

QED right there my man, can't see a problem or loophole in this angle of debate at all.

 

[DavidBVal]

You have a funny idea of proof if your entire argument is: I played games for endless hours in the 80s therefore everyone must have, whereas nowadays some people spend endless hours on games but they are just rare individuals.

Oh for fuck's sake... I don't need to "prove my point" to you, nor I'm trying to; statistical data doesn't exist and there's no way to prove anything about gamer habits now vs the 80s. All we have is our experience, deductions and opinions. You disagree with my opinions because I didn't "prove" them? You claim people is "playing 1000 hours" in our days; don't you feel like finding "proof" for that? Care to point me to people other than Celerity with 1000 hours in single-player games? are they a significative number of players?

This is a no-brainer, really. A huge chunk of current videogame players are casual gamers, that fact alone must have a huge impact on gaming habits averages, and by extension on game design. Plus the bombardment of new titles/expansions/steam sales etc must be a "distracting" factor which likely has an impact too. In the 80s it was a bunch of nerds with a handful of games every year and nothing else to do than explore every corner of every map. It's not so hard to see why players were ready to go through frustration more easily than now.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

 

[DragoFireheart]

Ok, but which of these games have bloom?

None?

Leagues ahead of most modern day games.

 

[Atlet]

Up, because this is the best thread. Please, read the first posts.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Of course if you consider all the very old (pre 1980) CRPGs, of fucking course most will be bad and will have aged badly. 90% of everything is crud.

But the games that were great in 1985-1995 are still great today IMO. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for the 1975-1984 CRPGs, none of which I personally played back then.

But I played many of the CRPGs released from 1985 to 1995 - and replayed many of them -, and generally they do stand the test of time IMO.

CRPGs I enjoyed back then, and enjoyed when I replayed them:
The Bard's Tale
Dungeon Master
Gold Box games
Might and Magic 2
Chaos Strikes Back
Wizardry: Bane of the Cosmic Forge
Ultima Underworld

CRPGs I enjoyed back then, not quite as fun when I replayed them:
Ultima IV
Phantasie III
BattleTech: tCHI
Eye of the Beholder
The Bard's Tale II: The Destiny Knight

CRPGs I enjoyed more when replaying:
Dragon Wars
Black Crypt
Ultima Underworld 2

CRPGs I enjoyed when I played them for the first time the past five years:
Wizardry 1-5, 7
Phantasie
Might and Magic I
Ultima V
Demon's Winter
The Magic Candle
Knights of Legend
The Dark Heart of Uukrul
Disciples of Steel
Might&Magic 3-5
Darklands
The Legacy: Realm of Terror
Betrayal at Krondor
Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos
Dark Sun: Shattered Lands
Nahlakh
The Aethra Chronicles
X-COM (remake)
Jagged Alliance
Anvil of Dawn

CRPGs that needed an unoffical patch or a remake to be enjoyable:
The Bard's Tale III: The Thief of Fate
Ultima VI

Conclusion: old crud is still crud, but the classics have in general stood the test of time.

You made a good point.

Still, some games in your list have a terrible UI, you have to be an astronaut not to get bothered by it.
Some have poorly aged graphics within a reduced exploration window.
On top of this, ther's the insufferable amount of grind necessary while fighting the UI and trying not to become blind from the 3 colors graphics.
And then there's the inventory management.
Early wizardry shenanigans when you can loose attributes while levelling (I can't get over this)
Drowning in a fountain in wizardry 7-

Playing some of these games is harder than competing in an ironman tri-athlon.

On the other hand, some aged better because of serviceable or beautiful graphics, decent UI (good one for the era) and minimal shenanigans, like M&M III, IV & V, Darksun: shattered Lands, UFO: Ennemy unknown...

Other games are perfectly playable but you have to be able to stomach the genre (RT blobbers...)

 

[TheDeveloperDude]

Dungeons of Kairn is a great example of a playable rpg nowadays. Good UI, good grafix (no bloom!), automap etc. But you have to make your maps of the last dungeon. That is a good experience.

 

[Baron Tahn]

Darklands is the one I got back to every now and again, but Might and Magic 3-8 gets an honourable mention too.

Why? Nothing like Darklands was ever made again. It wasn't even finished and its still very enjoyable and one of the best rpgs ever made. Great setting, deep mechanics, prestigious ye olde music. Exploring the mines and stuff is a bit janky but it always was.

Might and Magic just has that sense of meaty epic fun. 10's or 100's of hours, shitloads to find and do, great maps, interesting classes, no bullshit billions of lines of dialogue of trudge through, awesome spells. Only problem is Xeens fkn inventory UI being an epic pain in the ass.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Star Command, SSI, 1988(?). It was available on the Amiga and the PC. The Amiga got a port of the PC version, a straight port with very little bells and whistles. Despite the lack of graphics, the game really hooked me. Back then, I remember there were a few companies I could count on providing me with a good experience - Bullfrog, EA(they hadn't started to suck quite yet and they published for Bullfrog), SSI, MicroProse and a few others.

I was a little taken back with the graphics of Star Command, but you could explore space in your ships, bases on foot, board enemy ships, and so on. Other than the graphics, pretty much everything was a level of complexity I hadn't experienced in a space game at that point and I was hooked.

 

[HappyDaddyWow!]

Ultima IV, despite coming out in 1988, still has one of the best morality systems in any RPG to date. There's virtues that are all raised through your actions in game.

 

[Butter]

Ultima 4 and 5 actually hold up better than 6 and 7. The iconographic presentation asks you to employ your imagination, but it ends up being a lot cleaner and easier to discern objects and interact with the environment.

 

[behold_a_man]

Ultima IV, despite coming out in 1988, still has one of the best morality systems in any RPG to date. There's virtues that are all raised through your actions in game.

I wanted to question your claim: most virtues are obtained by pretty banal actions (like giving away 100 points of health or giving alms to some lowlifes), and the only hard part is having to avoid escaping from combat - which is unfortunate as there's too much of it, it's tedious, trivial, and cannot be automated. Then I realized I saw no other multidimensional (that is, having multiple things factoring separately into the whole system) morality system in any RPG ever, and that any other system I saw was just as bad, if not worse.

 

[thepill]

Legacy of the Ancients and the original Wasteland aren't too shabby.

 

[HappyDaddyWow!]

Ultima IV, despite coming out in 1988, still has one of the best morality systems in any RPG to date. There's virtues that are all raised through your actions in game.

I wanted to question your claim: most virtues are obtained by pretty banal actions (like giving away 100 points of health or giving alms to some lowlifes), and the only hard part is having to avoid escaping from combat - which is unfortunate as there's too much of it, it's tedious, trivial, and cannot be automated. Then I realized I saw no other multidimensional (that is, having multiple things factoring separately into the whole system) morality system in any RPG ever, and that any other system I saw was just as bad, if not worse.

Admittedly raising a lot of the virtues can be pretty tedious or weirdly implemented, but just the fact that it's a complex morality system that is entirely determined by your actions in gameplay (as opposed to dialogue options in quests or whatever) puts it leagues ahead of most RPG morality systems in my mind.