| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
*...data insufficient...unable to compute...error...* 
Well, that is difficult things to say, or to compare recent CRPGs with the past, for example during 1980s. If we say older CRPGs is better, are we denying that future CRPGs won't better anymore? We also need to remember the genre keep evolving, not static but dynamic in nature. If we have a fixed definition of "good CRPGs", of course we will reluctant to accept anything new in the genre. Also, what is good for old CRPGs player not necessarily good for new CRPGs player. Since i am still pretty new in this genre (my interest in CRPGs was provoked by BG1), i can't give a wider view on this issue. However i'm positive that the genre would move toward better. If certain old elements in CRPGs is dying out, then it's because of changes in new player's taste, or what developers THINK is popular at recent time, and we'll naturally losing the old elements.
Is CRPGs genre dying? Don't think so. Not in near future. Heck, if you think the genre's future is in bad shape, then just look at adventure games, the genre's community were crying of it demising for years. Yet, Microid already decided to make Syberia 2 because of popularity and demands of it after Syberia 1, while Post Mortem was scheduled to be released early next year.
_________________
 |
Mon Nov 18, 2002 4:23 am |
|
|
Annelid
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 15 Jul 2001
Posts: 39
Location: Florida |
I miss ultima 4 to 7.5 |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 8:40 am |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Remus
Well, that is difficult things to say, or to compare recent CRPGs with the past, for example during 1980s. If we say older CRPGs is better, are we denying that future CRPGs won't better anymore?
Not at all. Nobody is trying to claim that CRPG cannot get any better - that is obviously not true. Saying that older CRPGs were better doesn't preclude improvement - it merely is saying that the current crop of CRPGs don't add anything of significance to the genre.
quote:
We also need to remember the genre keep evolving, not static but dynamic in nature.
That change is inevitable (in CRPG development as in all things) is apparent. However, there are sizeable differences between evolving (as we tend to mean evolve - that is towards the better), devolving (change toward the worse) or simply changing (without any real regard for rhyme or reason for change - change for change sake). Some changes are necessary for evolutionary differences in the genre to take place - some changes are simply nice to have and some changes are for the worse - this is the way of change in general.
To simply equate change (any change) with evolution and the desired dynamic nature of evolutionary change is bad.
quote:
If we have a fixed definition of "good CRPGs", of course we will reluctant to accept anything new in the genre.
That is true - however we do NOT have a fixed definition of "good CRPG". In fact, we don't have ANY definition that is well agreed upon. This is part of the problem. Evolutionary change implies a plan - something that guides the implementation of change into the greater whole. Since we do NOT have an agreed upon definition, there can be no plan. Thus I am afraid that most of the change in the genre I see is "change for change" sake or random in nature as developers hop around hoping to find something that will sell.
quote:
Also, what is good for old CRPGs player not necessarily good for new CRPGs player.
Is this really true? If so, then it is also true that what is good literature is not the same for old and new readers. Does that mean that the literature of Shakespeare is not as good as the literature coming out of authors today?
quote:
However i'm positive that the genre would move toward better.
I agree with the sentiment - but I don't see it happening. It is certainly true that the graphics and animations are getting better - but I submit that the graphics do NOT make a CRPG better - only prettier.
quote:
If certain old elements in CRPGs is dying out, then it's because of changes in new player's taste, or what developers THINK is popular at recent time, and we'll naturally losing the old elements.
What old elements do you think are dying out?
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 2:53 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
Okay, my two cents:
Part of the reason some of the older CRPGs seem so much better is that for those of us that have been playing for a decade or so there is a certain amount of "Been there, done that" coming into play.
RTS games are running into this problem big time. Set up base, gather resources, build army rush other guy. Same basic formula. Just prettier graphics, slicker interfaces and marginally better AI routines.
CRPGs have the some of the same problems. The first time your intrepid band saves the world (or destroys it ... depending) it is a real blast. The seventy second time its not quite a cool. CRPGs have some big advantages in that the worlds are different, writing can turn an OK game into a great one and exploration is half the fun. But there is still that voice in the back of your head say "its just a fed ex quest"
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:58 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Part of the reason some of the older CRPGs seem so much better is that for those of us that have been playing for a decade or so there is a certain amount of "Been there, done that" coming into play.
...
But there is still that voice in the back of your head say "its just a fed ex quest"
You are correct. This is why I have said and still say that the CRPGs of today are not any better - just prettier. They haven't improved on the basics that make a good/fun gaming experience.
If we look closely at what (I suspect) most role players really want (forgetting the pretty graphics, sound, etc.) in a game is to be able to play that game (first) once with a sense of awe and (secondly) more than once with the game providing a significantly different experience than the first. In other words, we want to play the game as a warrior, then as a mage, then as a thief - and the game "play" differently in significant ways - the games don't do this - even those with "lots" of character building options because the quests are all the same and (in the vast majority of cases) must be solved the same by a warrior, mage and thief. Further, the skill set that is required for the bulk of the game are really the same for the different classes (yes a warrior usually has more weapon options than a thief or mage - but they all play the same). Even worse for a game that pretends to be a role playing game - the game differences between playing as a "good" vs an "evil" aligned character are most often nil (at best).
For CRPGs to seriously advance the developers must address these issues - different classes must play significantly differently, alignment must matter in serious ways, NPCs must NOT seem like wooden characters. None of these things have significantly (if at all) improved since the very beginning of CRPGs. Prettier yes - substantive change, no.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 7:32 pm |
|
|
aj142
Village Dweller
Joined: 27 Oct 2002
Posts: 18
Location: LA |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
umm what planet are you from? Of course they are getting better. Must i make a comparison? Okeys how about compare Ultima 1 with Morrowind. Which one is better? Its easy. Figure it out  BTW just because someone posted it, doesnt mean its true 
I totally disagree unless one wishes to judge a game based upon more modern graphics (then of course Morrowind will beat any 20 year old game hands down). In many ways I far preferred Ultima I. It satisfied me in ways that Morrowind (and other modern games as well) do not. Morrowind pretends to be ground breaking - Ultima I WAS and didn't have to pretend at all.
Games are visual media, and therefore highly improved graphics has to be a part of game development... however, I agree that it shouldn't come at the expense of the gameplay - much like CGI effects in movies now... they have to find a balance.
It's been said many times that Ultima I was a groundbreaking game. I've also heard the same said about Xenogears. Did you ever play that? |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 8:38 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by aj142
Games are visual media, and therefore highly improved graphics has to be a part of game development... however, I agree that it shouldn't come at the expense of the gameplay - much like CGI effects in movies now... they have to find a balance.
Correct. Good graphics does not make a CPRG good - bad graphics can spoil an otherwise good CRPG. Good CGI (or CGI at all) does not make a good movie - bad CGI (or none where there should be some) can spoil an otherwise good movie.
There is little doubt that we do not want to (and likely cannot) go back to "old style" graphics any more than we can go back to old style film technology.
quote:
It's been said many times that Ultima I was a groundbreaking game. I've also heard the same said about Xenogears. Did you ever play that?
Nope.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 8:46 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
clip from: http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=317
(because I'm lazy  )
... Let's look back on games 15 years ago and games today. 15 years ago (give or take) the original Pool of Radiance was released. Utilizing the 'new' AD&D rules, it 'revolutionalized' the genre, according to its box. OK… Graphics aside (as you cannot judge them fairly to today's games, obviously), let's deconstruct this revolutionary game.
You fought. You fought, and fought, and fought. You also got to read descriptive bits (well written) and follow a straight line of a story (not badly written). Did you get a say in the matter? No. Dialogue trees? No. Multiple endings? No. Did anyone care about these things? Evidently not... it was played and loved by many.
How would such a game fare today? Well, for the answer to that one doesn't need to look any further than the success of Diablo, Diablo II, and Dungeon Siege. So I believe if it looked nice and played smoothly it would still be competitive.
But now you have those who say that games like Diablo II aren't 'really' Roleplaying games. Then the question must be asked... what was or is?...
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 8:55 pm |
|
|
Lanael
City Guard
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 147
Location: lyon - France |
Say that DIABLO or THIEF or Gothic or whatever are or aren't RPGs is a question about point of view, about definition.
Before talking about RPG you have to define the term !
And then when you'll be agree on a unique definition, you can say which ones are or aren't RPGs.
I'm personally a fan of the 3D-realtime-solo-action-aventure-"handle objects"-"talk to npc"-"walk everywhere" type. ( cybercon III, gothic, ultima IX, arx, outcast, thief, deus ex, ultima underworld, system shock )
I think a term for that kind of games is missing.
The most important is that genre evolve and lives since years. |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 9:38 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
Graphics aside (as you cannot judge them fairly to today's games, obviously), let's deconstruct this revolutionary game.
You fought. You fought, and fought, and fought. You also got to read descriptive bits (well written) and follow a straight line of a story (not badly written). Did you get a say in the matter? No. Dialogue trees? No. Multiple endings? No. Did anyone care about these things? Evidently not... it was played and loved by many.
Let me make an analogy to cars. I'm sure when the first cars came around, people were thrilled. They were considered "revolutionary" at the time. Are they revolutionary today? No, but cars have significantly improved. And they're not only prettier, they've also improved in many other ways (speed, safety, etc). Now, comparing, say, Diablo 2 to the original Pool of Radiance, what are Diablo's improvements, aside from graphics? There's nothing, IMHO, to consider Diablo a "revolutionary" game today, whereas there were plenty of reasons to consider Pool of Radiance a revolutionary game back then.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:05 pm |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
Games weren't better in the old days ( Id actually say they were a lot worse) but we were easier to impress. I loved Bard's Tale in its day - If youd throw that gameplay at me again today, I would throw it right back at you.
I loved Ultima Underworld to death - but its been done, i played it, I tempts me to say, "yeah Arx (or any other game) has some cool interactive gimmics, but UWII already had that". We have become hard to please.
Nostalgia confuses the view of many people (especially the more bitter ones among you, you know who you are )
Games like NWN, Arx, Divine Divinity, Gothic or Morrowind were impossible a few years ago, rank among my best gaming experiences in 14 years of gaming and I for one am thankful for what we get these days - I think it's been one of the best years in CRPG history and the next few years will be a lot harder - until the next boom. |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:29 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by GhanBuriGhan
Games like NWN, Arx, Divine Divinity, Gothic or Morrowind were impossible a few years ago, rank among my best gaming experiences in 14 years of gaming
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that CRPGs today are far better than those of yesterday - and you name a few to apparently make a point. But you say nothing about what makes them better - only a vague notion that they were impossible a few years ago. So let's see you get more specific so we might have something to discuss.
I will start by picking one - NWN (could be DD or Gothic or Morrowind - doesn't really matter as the basics are the same). First - one must ignore the graphical differences - if that is what you mean by they couldn't be done years ago then you are right. I couldn't care less because as has been said already - the graphics/animation doesn't make the game a good CRPG.
So what does NWN have to offer? The vast majority of your time is spent doing what? Killing something to gain experience. How is that different than virtually any game of yore? Is the killing experience any different or any more fun or implemented in a significantly different way? No.
NWN offers quests - ok and these are in no significant way different than the quests of past games. They are given in about the same way and are achieved in the same way.
Storyline is about the same level as the vast majority of other games of the genre - now or times gone by.
So, what is it that you think couldn't be accomplished (or wasn't accomplished) in past games? And how (other than graphics which I give you) is NWN a superior CRPG and thus a superior gaming experience to Ultima I, II, III, IV, V, ... or Wizardry I - VIII, or many other games already mentioned? You should be specific if we are going to discuss anything intelligently.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:42 pm |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
See, its not much fun discussing things with you Joey, you are always so dead serious. I happen to play games for fun, and discuss them for fun, while i somehow canīt shake the feeling that you play them to complain about them
Well, a few things that I like about today's games or that I think are new: Editors: I love them. They allow me to shape my own ideas, and in a small way allow me to live my old dream of being a game designer. Furthermore they greatly extend the life of a game.
I enjoy the good graphics - yes, yes, gameplay is more important but I enjoy good graphics, the vistas over Gothics landscapes, the sunsets in Morrowind - they make me feel I am there, discovering a new world.
First person, sound, mp3 music - the quality achieved today really helps getting sucked in - I never liked DOS midi music, sorry. Multiplayer - I am personally not a huge fan of it, but it has certainly broadened the options and CAN be interesting.
If these technical things go along with a good story and let me explore (no games have given me a beter sense of exploration than Outcast, Gothic, Morrowind) and kill (nothing wrong with combat - its part of the meat of RPGs) and solve quests in style - why should I think them worse than the old ones? Story? I liked the storys in recent games, mostly - in all of gaming history there were few stories that were truly outstanding and the recent games (Gothic, MW) seemed no worse than most of the old games with the exception of maybe a handful of absolute classics. But my personal favorites (Ultima Underworld, Ultima 7, System shock) arent favorites for their stories but because they made me feel "there" - Morrowind, Gothic did that too, I feel actually they did it better better thanks to modern graphics, sound etc.
Many of the old games were quite tedious - Bards Tale? Remember hit messages scrolling over the screen for minutes on end? Modern programs have the advantage of doing these things faster and more elegantly, interfering less with the often cited suspension of disbelief.
Ultimately its not at all about arguments or reasons though - its the simple fact that I feel totally engrossed in todays games, just like I did with my old favorites in their time. Its about having fun. |
|
Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:21 am |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by GhanBuriGhan
See, its not much fun discussing things with you Joey, you are always so dead serious. I happen to play games for fun, and discuss them for fun, while i somehow canīt shake the feeling that you play them to complain about them
Well, there you go. So I won't bother attempting to hold an intelligent discussion with you because I surely hate being so offensive to your sensitive self. I will just let you suck on your soda straw and gaze lovingly at your pretty graphics (oh and listen to your pretty sounds) - heaven forbid that one might actually be able to hold a serious intelligent discussion AND have fun doing so - all at the same time.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:36 am |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
*sigh* see what I mean  |
|
Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:53 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
