Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord remake now available on Early Access

Lafrontier

Lafrontier
Developer
Joined
Dec 5, 2022
Messages
23
Just so you know I currently am playing through the DOS version on 300 cycles (via DOSBox Staging so thank you for that) just to prove you wrong (or right - dunno yet.) But it's still fucking Wizardry so I'm grinding up my guys on floor 1 currently. Will report back later.
Thanks for that :salute: I don't want to be right or wrong, I don't care; I just wanna know the answer. I'd be a bit sad if the DOS version was screwed, but it is what it is.
It's legit kinda hard to tell since it's Wizardry but so far the levelling does seem a bit bullshit compared to the Apple II version
BK440fa.png

The biggest thing I've noticed though is that hit-point increases are pitiful most of the time. It seems like I'm getting increases of 1 way more often than I'm supposed to. Will report back later

EDIT: I made a backup and here's the same guy getting levelled up. Seems a bit off to me still, but again look at the hit point increase. It's rubbish. And that's a fighter too:
Hq7IOsv.png


I'll see if raising the cycles does anything next

FURTHER EDIT:
Here's the same guy (that's Kyle, the 2nd Fighter) getting levelled up again only this time at 3000 cycles:
nnXKu0z.png

Doesn't seem to have made any difference. And keep in mind I'm reloading a backup. That's Kyle going from level 3-4 each time.

Conclusion: Seems a bit off. Fuck, I'm probably going to have to start up the Apple II version to compare. Wizardry's great but man, the early, EARLY game grinding really kinda blows.

I think the original explanation that it's just random 50% chance to gain, 45% chance to lose makes the most sense, and speed has nothing to do with it. Humans are pattern seeking machines, so we'll try to find patterns in RNG, especially when it's a coinflip this bias is too strong, there is no sense to be made there, it's just chance.

...Although, that being said, it's kind of weird that you're always losing like 3 stats and only gaining 1-2.
-First, there is a 75% chance your attribute will be modified.
-Then, if your age is lower than a random roll up to 130 (that is 0 to 129), then if your attribute is 18 you have an 83.3% chance nothing will happen, if your attribute is less than 18 then you lose 1 attribute point, if your Vitality drops to 2, you are dead.
-If your age is higher than the random roll mentioned in the previous line, then you gain 1 attribute point up to 18 maximum.


This is from the code from the original game that Snafaru went through.

That makes sense. So if you minmax attributes your only real option is to lose stats.
Ah, the trick is to not die (or get aged) and have another character heal your core team iirc. Typically this is a character from an earlier party that got destroyed pretty badly exploring...

It was a good game and I'm glad they are preserving it but I think Demise replaces any itch I have to play Wizardry.
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
13,288
But then minmaxers will resort to hex-editing or trainers if possible. They almost always find a way.
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
13,288
Well, supposedly it is at the cheapest it will ever get for as time goes on, it will increase in cost. What will the final cost be? Who knows?
 

TarBhaal

Novice
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
6
Just so you know I currently am playing through the DOS version on 300 cycles (via DOSBox Staging so thank you for that) just to prove you wrong (or right - dunno yet.) But it's still fucking Wizardry so I'm grinding up my guys on floor 1 currently. Will report back later.
Thanks for that :salute: I don't want to be right or wrong, I don't care; I just wanna know the answer. I'd be a bit sad if the DOS version was screwed, but it is what it is.
It's legit kinda hard to tell since it's Wizardry but so far the levelling does seem a bit bullshit compared to the Apple II version
BK440fa.png

The biggest thing I've noticed though is that hit-point increases are pitiful most of the time. It seems like I'm getting increases of 1 way more often than I'm supposed to. Will report back later

EDIT: I made a backup and here's the same guy getting levelled up. Seems a bit off to me still, but again look at the hit point increase. It's rubbish. And that's a fighter too:
Hq7IOsv.png


I'll see if raising the cycles does anything next

FURTHER EDIT:
Here's the same guy (that's Kyle, the 2nd Fighter) getting levelled up again only this time at 3000 cycles:
nnXKu0z.png

Doesn't seem to have made any difference. And keep in mind I'm reloading a backup. That's Kyle going from level 3-4 each time.

Conclusion: Seems a bit off. Fuck, I'm probably going to have to start up the Apple II version to compare. Wizardry's great but man, the early, EARLY game grinding really kinda blows.

I think the original explanation that it's just random 50% chance to gain, 45% chance to lose makes the most sense, and speed has nothing to do with it. Humans are pattern seeking machines, so we'll try to find patterns in RNG, especially when it's a coinflip this bias is too strong, there is no sense to be made there, it's just chance.

...Although, that being said, it's kind of weird that you're always losing like 3 stats and only gaining 1-2.
-First, there is a 75% chance your attribute will be modified.
-Then, if your age is lower than a random roll up to 130 (that is 0 to 129), then if your attribute is 18 you have an 83.3% chance nothing will happen, if your attribute is less than 18 then you lose 1 attribute point, if your Vitality drops to 2, you are dead.
-If your age is higher than the random roll mentioned in the previous line, then you gain 1 attribute point up to 18 maximum.


This is from the code from the original game that Snafaru went through.

There is also this comment from vogons:

Turbo Pascal you say...

This might be old hat here, but once upon a time I made an attempt to play the DOS version of Wizardry 1 in dosbox. The RNG seemed totally FUBARed. I was going out of my mind, all my characters were constantly losing stats every time they leveled up. I never once successfully raised a dead character. My experience wasn't mapping to any of the blogs or discussion I saw about Wizardry on other platforms. I went looking through what these chances were supposed to be. Even found this old document called the "Wizisystem" I think that exhaustively detailed all the formulas Wizardry uses. At the end of my quest, I found a github repository of someone that had decompiled the pascal code Wizardry was written in for the Apple II, and double checked the formulas myself.

Then I noticed the rand function for Pascal on the Apple II was different from the rand function for Pascal in MSDOS. If memory serves, one returns 0-255, and the other returns 0.0-1.0. Or something like that. I'm more or less convinced whoever ported it to MSDOS fucked this up, as certain RNG outcomes seemed clamped to one end actually playing it.

Makes me wonder if something similar happened here.

I can't verify this, but it seems plausible...
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,273
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
In watching the video they posted, this game is based entirely on the Apple II PASCAL code and converted to C++. And that is now the base code for the game. And then the added integration of UI and animations etc.. to the Unreal engine. No idea if the rand function in C++ is also 0-255.

In your post above it does actually seem possible they did do a fuck up converting this to DOS. Interesting. This could be a good question to actually ask the team about that (the rand function) in this C++ version.

Just to get caught up on history, the actual original game was first released on the Apple II?
 

TarBhaal

Novice
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
6
In watching the video they posted, this game is based entirely on the Apple II PASCAL code and converted to C++. And that is now the base code for the game. And then the added integration of UI and animations etc.. to the Unreal engine. No idea if the rand function in C++ is also 0-255.

In your post above it does actually seem possible they did do a fuck up converting this to DOS. Interesting. This could be a good question to actually ask the team about that (the rand function) in this C++ version.

Just to get caught up on history, the actual original game was first released on the Apple II?
Mobygames says 1981 for Apple II and 1984 for the PC Booter versions.
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
13,288
No one answered my question if you could do the appleii speedrun on this version.
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
13,288
Says you. Apparently, you are ignorant of the AppleII speed run trick. It hardly takes any effort at all to even complete. This game version having the complete AppleII version of Wizardry in it makes it a valid question.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,807
Says you. Apparently, you are ignorant of the AppleII speed run trick. It hardly takes any effort at all to even complete. This game version having the complete AppleII version of Wizardry in it makes it a valid question.
Speedruns in general are retarded, even more so in cRPGs
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
13,288
Eh, maybe initially they seem pointless but for personal challenges with 0 deaths and genuine play, it shows either the game has bugs/cheeses/hidden avenues that can be exploited and maybe should be fixed. And it show the runner knows the game well. Hell, some of these toons have fools pay their patreon/channels just to watch them play. If gaining $$$$ for gaming is retarded then what more can be said?
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,807
Eh, maybe initially they seem pointless but for personal challenges with 0 deaths and genuine play, it shows either the game has bugs/cheeses/hidden avenues that can be exploited and maybe should be fixed

Hell no, speed runners usually find extremely hidden exloits after playing the same game repeatedly, often for years, that's autistic to the nth degree and these "bugs" are usually so rare normal players never encounter them

Hell, some of these toons have fools pay their patreon/channels just to watch them play. If gaining $$$$ for gaming is retarded then what more can be said?

You can earn more from working at McDonalds. If your big plan is to become a speedrunner needing to rely on Patreon bucks, you already failed at life
 

MerchantKing

Learned
Joined
Jun 5, 2023
Messages
1,312
If this turns out to be an accurate reproduction of Wizardry without any added gender nonsense, I might have to actually buy a copy when it goes on sale instead of my usually method of seizing the game on the high seas.
Says you. Apparently, you are ignorant of the AppleII speed run trick. It hardly takes any effort at all to even complete. This game version having the complete AppleII version of Wizardry in it makes it a valid question.
Speedruns in general are retarded, even more so in cRPGs
Speedrunners are often at risk of transvestitism too.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
15,229
Says you. Apparently, you are ignorant of the AppleII speed run trick. It hardly takes any effort at all to even complete. This game version having the complete AppleII version of Wizardry in it makes it a valid question.
Speedruns in general are retarded, even more so in cRPGs
Agreed, but the exceptions are really fun to watch. Generally when a new game comes out if it doesn't have any retarded exploits yet, or for older games when they ban major glitches and the minor ones left don't destroy all the gameplay. Although you also need one more component: a commentator that actually has some charisma and understands what is going on.
 

KeighnMcDeath

RPG Codex Boomer
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
13,288
Of course they’ve failed at life; they sit on their asses playing games almost every minute of their day. They are either hippos in rut or bony bitches that bewilder one on their ability to even press a button much less lift their arms to a keyboard/mouse or hold a controller.

I really doubt this game is going to be on any large sales in the future unless it colossally flops. That little bit upon launch is the best you’ll see for a bit.
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,287
Location
Terra da Garoa
felipepepe who owns the right's to the Wizardry 1 - 5 scenarios? IIRC that's how this license is set at.
Well, that's what the legal drama is all about... the lawsuit says that the Wizardry IP is actually owned by Andrew Greenberg, who in 1981 signed an exclusive deal with Sir-Tech:

As relevant here, plaintiff entered into a 1981 agreement with Sir-Tech Software, Inc. granting Sir-Tech the exclusive right to manufacture and market a computer game created by [*2]plaintiff and known as "Wizardry." The agreement, which was signed by Sirotek as president of Sir-Tech, also prohibited the disclosure of any Wizardry product information without plaintiff's consent.

Plaintiff commenced the first of these actions in 1992, after Sir-Tech ceased paying it royalties under the agreement, and subsequently added two Canadian successor corporations as defendants after discovering that Sir-Tech had transferred its assets to those corporations in 1998.

In 2001, plaintiff commenced the second of these actions against the principals and officers of the corporate defendants—namely, Sirotek and his two sons, defendants Robert Sirotek and Norman Sirotek—alleging that they had disclosed trade secrets to the Canadian successor corporations.

– Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//3dseries/2010/2010_09323.htm

The Siroteks clearly regret signing a contract that gave him so much power. The lawsuit says that they stopped paying Greenberg, dissolved Sir-Tech US, created a new company in Canada and purchased all the assets - then basically went "we're a different company, that deal doesn't apply and you can't sue us in the New York court lol".

Greenberg even included Bradley in the lawsuit, for creating Wizardry VII without his authorization. AFAIK, it's part of why Bradley left Sir-Tech.

This is why we get Wizardry 8, Wizardry Gold, A TON of Japanese games and remakes of Wizardry 1-5 from 1998-2001. That they sell all these Wizardry games all at once, Greenberg starts a lawsuit and Sir-Tech Canada immediately goes bankrupt is... interesting.

Crooked Bee and I never found out how Japan was left out of all that, my only guess is that they sold permanent rights to develop Wizardry games in Japan, with the consent of Greenberg, before they had their dispute. It's also very weird that Wizardry 6-8 are widely available... my guess is that the "we're a different company, the deal doesn't apply" move actually worked this time, since Sir-Tech went bankrupt. Again, interesting sequence of events.

The last update on this I could find is from 2010, no idea what happened since. But if that's how Greenberg is reacting to the remake, it could be that it's soon removed from sale. He sued Bradley, he could just as well sue Digital Eclipse.

BTW, the court files are quite amusing:

In 1996, Sirotek gave deposition testimony in the first of these actions stating that it was his own "mistake" that plaintiff was "overpaid" pursuant to the 1981 agreement and that plaintiff, whose principal he characterized as "greedy," was not entitled to additional royalties.

I fully agree with Cleve that these people suck at business :lol:
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,353
Location
Ingrija
But if that's how Greenberg is reacting to the remake, it could be that it's soon removed from sale.

Dunno, the second comment sounds like "Oh, it's sir-tech, okay, forget it". "Unauthorized knockoff" suddenly turned into "authorization for the remake".
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,287
Location
Terra da Garoa
But if that's how Greenberg is reacting to the remake, it could be that it's soon removed from sale.

Dunno, the second comment sounds like "Oh, it's sir-tech, okay, forget it". "Unauthorized knockoff" suddenly turned into "authorization for the remake".
Which is weird, because one of the core issues of the lawsuit is that " The agreement, which was signed by Sirotek as president of Sir-Tech, also prohibited the disclosure of any Wizardry product information without plaintiff's consent."

Digital Eclipse said several times their game is based on the original code, so Sir-Tech would need Greenberg's consent. If he doesn't know about it, either he settled with Sir-Tech and cancelled the agreement, or drama is about to start again.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom