I miss the old RPG style.

[zefiris]

Well one of the problems is that when we got better processing power we became able to do things real time.

Ultima Underworld says hi.

For the love of god. read quotes before you. Ultima Underworld has nowhere near what is being talked about here.

It just matches some numbers with a timer. Not the same thing.

Oh my god, you're serious aren't you XD

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Thanks I will check out the ones I haven't tried already. NWN2 I found rather disappointing after the first one, gameplay-wise, though I can't argue about the customisation. And I'll point you, as well as the OP, in the direction of the forthcoming Shadowrun Kickstarter game, which has raised about four and a half times its target from people eager to play it - proving there is still a serious market for such games.

You might want to just skip the OC to NWN 2 (which isn't anything special) and just get to the good part, the MotB expansion.

Here's some good modules too.

http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=nwn2modulesenglish.Detail&id=466

http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=nwn2modulesenglish.Detail&id=454

'Conan' modules (scroll down to NWN2 english modules) http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=User.EntriesListing&id=13323

I don't own the game, but maybe I'll give it another go some time. One thing I did like about it was the move from 3rd edition to 3.5. Rangers don't suck anymore! Thanks for the pointers.

 

[Xiroh86]

I completely agree with the OP. Modern RPG's just aren't as rich as they used to be.

I can honestly admit that the best RPG experiences I have ever had were with Final Fantasy 8 and Earthbound, and I didn't even get to Earthbound till about 5 years ago.

But, to provide insight into this; I feel that modern RPGs are much more worried about creating a world versus creating a character.

Bethesda is a major player in this department. In creating a character that is essentially just a blank slate for the player to project themself upon, you lose the ability to feel for the character you play as, which means the story becomes less compelling.

The same thing can be said about film: a movie with great characters, specifically a great protagonist and antagonist, is always going to me much more memorable than one that lacks that. Why do you think the Die Hard movies are making a comeback?

Many may turn around and claim that Bioware is the exception to that statement, but when you think about it, you aren't creating Shepard, you are just creating his/her appearance. Same goes for Dragon Age. Therefore you are still just playing a pre-created character, that has a couple of choices throughout the journey.

I feel like I rambled more than I made a point. Maybe someone can get my point of view.

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

As a long time (old) World of Darkness player, I understand what you're saying but I feel I should also add that Bloodlines, relative to the game it's based on, is pretty much the epitome of everything you say is wrong with modern RPGs.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game and it's the best realization in visual media of a setting I grew up loving and spent many fun hours immersed in through tabletop, but the combat is totally action oriented. See, combat in VtM is not really the focus of the game, and as such it's incredibly simple and stripped down. So trying to build a tactical combat system based on it would be pretty dull in a cRPG. For this reason, they (correctly I feel) made it an action game, and although it's not terribly well realized in that regard there's no mistaking it for the other games on your list.

Also in story terms, a lot of the characters are blatant stereotypes of their respective clans, the whole story is incredibly linear and is actually quite predictable in a lot of places. Again, this is probably a good thing for simplicity's sake, but it would have been nice to see a few characters which weren't just word-by-word descriptions of their clans from the core rulebook. It also takes one of the worst things from Redemption, which is the insane character progression. By the end of the game you can still pretty much be good at anything that matters, and that's something which is both completely out of kilter with the setting and also not very RPGish.

I mean, yeah, there are some fantastic moments and some memorable characters, and the skill system at least attempts to realize the diversity of characters possible in the tabletop game. But it's not a 'classic' RPG at all.

I mean, some of the games you're talking about actually use THACO. What the fuck is THACO? That's using a needlessly obtuse system for no good reason.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well one of the problems is that when we got better processing power we became able to do things real time.

Yea, that's why they never had action gameplay in real time back then. Oh wait, they did.

Not the extend you are talking about. We didn't have the calculating power to simulate the AI of 5 darkspawn at the same time while calculated the dmg according to their set place and power.

Yeah we had action games. Just nowhere near what you are suggesting.

Uh... unless your definition of "old RPG" excludes Fallout, real-time gameplay wasn't a problem when that generation of CRPGs was being made.

My definition of action RPG excludes fallout....

I dont find that to be so strange.

See bolded text. When Fallout came out, they had been making ARPGs for about a decade.

The WoW mode of combat was a result of limitations and resulting design decisions. So was a lot of your old combat.

And? Chess and Go had design decisions based on technological limitations, and they have yet to be surpassed as multiplayer games.

Chess and go was simulated the strategy of warfare.

No, not really. They're abstract strategy games. If chess was designed to simulate medieval warfare, it would feature significantly different movement/capture rules. In a simulationist wargame, you would to move more than one unit per turn, for instance.

have since then simulated it to a much more realistic degree. Surpassed them if you will. That is the whole point of calculating power. Why use it to make Chess and Go when got the calculating power to make Shogun: Total war?

Because Chess and Go are better competitive strategy games in terms of balance, pacing, design, and metagame.

When we got PC's that can calculate the devastation of an atomic weapon to a frighteningly realistic degree then we will use that calculating power. Otherwise we might as well stay with a 8x8 board and some coloured rocks.

 

[Terminate421]

Old RPG's, while well made and carefully crafted, are in the process of the conversion to higher powers. In other words, THE DEVELOPERS ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO BRING THEM TO LIGHT WHERE THEY ARE APPEALING.

Take Fallout, It was definitly great, timeless and enjoyable. Then after the whole problem with interplay, Bethesda brought a stimpak to the franchise and brought it to life with Fallout 3, an Oblivion styled world while STILL keeping the traditional formula; huge world, story, V.A.T.S., dark-witty humor (Though not as much as new vegas).

There wasn't much for character, but its pretty damned difficult to write diverse characters when there is the entire world one must focus on first.

If there is one complaint I hate more in most RPG's is that we should take a step back to this:

Or this:

Thats not roleplaying, thats just following a path and using what weapons/powers you want, wait, that sounds like a- Typical Expectation from a First Person Shooter.

People always bring up the old days, as much as nostalgia is great and we should learn from the past, we should NOT be using it as the main way to the future. We wa-NO, NEED, games to advance in order to make them better: RPG's, FPS's, JRPG's whatever the genre.

So complain all you wish, I don't have anything against you. You have your opinions and I have mine, but take a look at what we have now to what we have then:

2012:

2003:

Notice a difference? And before you drop the "No, they're both horribly written games that are bugged to hell" line, THINK about what we have. There is more than meets the eye.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Well one of the problems is that when we got better processing power we became able to do things real time.

Yea, that's why they never had action gameplay in real time back then. Oh wait, they did.

Not the extend you are talking about. We didn't have the calculating power to simulate the AI of 5 darkspawn at the same time while calculated the dmg according to their set place and power.

Yeah we had action games. Just nowhere near what you are suggesting.

Uh... unless your definition of "old RPG" excludes Fallout, real-time gameplay wasn't a problem when that generation of CRPGs was being made.

My definition of action RPG excludes fallout....

I dont find that to be so strange.

Well one of the problems is that when we got better processing power we became able to do things real time.

Yea, that's why they never had action gameplay in real time back then. Oh wait, they did.

Not the extend you are talking about. We didn't have the calculating power to simulate the AI of 5 darkspawn at the same time while calculated the dmg according to their set place and power.

Yeah we had action games. Just nowhere near what you are suggesting.

The way you made it seem was that all they could back then was turn based combat or something.

They made rpgs like that because they were trying to emulate p&p rpgs/wargames on computer. The modern rpgs are all action game/shooters now because they're trying to appeal to the most ppl possible. And we know there's a ton more action/shooter fans, than traditional rpg fans out there. Eh, it's all about the $$$$$$ obviously.

Dude what does the P&p games have in common?
They are designed to be able to be done on paper. There isn't a lot of calculations going on here because they were designed to be done at a reasonable phase.

When we got more calculating power what do we do with it?
That we can calculate 8 combat turns a second then what does it add?
Nothing.
We got better processing power allowed us to do real what we were forced to make into simple maths.
Look at it from a different perspective where you dont have a bias towards nostalgia.
Guild wars 2 combat VS SWTOR combat. One uses an old system with a target lock and the other is moving towards an action oriented play. The WoW mode of combat was a result of limitations and resulting design decisions. So was a lot of your old combat.

If I want to play an action game, I'll play a fucking action game. There's only like 859545486479650876085975484985956987 of them out there to be played.

Why should all games play similar to each other ? That doesn't make too much sense, does it ?

Its not a question of what is a better game.
It is what is more likely.

A poster before me said it best.

Well one of the problems is that when we got better processing power we became able to do things real time.

I agree. But real-time is not inherently superior, and I think it's time developers realised that. Turn-based just fits better in some types of game. Kind of like colour film. It was a great technological advance and thank god for it - but some films are still made in black and white because they are better in black and white.

Thanks, but I do agree with Anthraxus here. If I want to play a game that's full of fast-paced action then I'll play an action game. If I want a game where I get to create the main character and direct his/her traits and abilities myself, then I look to RPGs. And contrary to popular belief, these two things are at least partially at odds with each other.

Its mainly because maths is fun really (to the right people). I didn't really bring into what was the best type of game. I love my turn based strategy for the very reasons you just said.

The thing is when we have the calculating power to calculate the actual trajectory of a set of arrows in Shogun then ofc we are going to use it rather than have a 1-10 roll and 123 is miss.

Yeah I see your point. But fidelity to real-world physics is not the most important thing. Also, I don't find maths fun at all, I just loooove building my own characters, and if a little maths is required for that then so be it.

I do get tired of explaining to people that it's about choices, not about "watching numbers get bigger".

 

[Snotnarok]

I feel the same with JRPGs, they're just bad now. I've seen a few ones that are good but grind doesn't begin to describe them. But PS1 and before had a lot of neat JRPGs

Phantasy Star IV, Breath of Fire 2 & 4, Final Fantasy VI/VII/Tactics, Legend of Legaia, Xenogears, Parasite Eve 1 & 2, Brave Fancer Musashi, The Legend of Dragoon, Beyond Oasis, Landstalker. Are some I can look over and spot on my shelf that I really enjoyed, there's a few awesome GBA JRPGs that match the classic styles along with PSP.

And before you say Tactics and P.E.2 aren't exactly RPGS, shaddap I'm not that genre specific, they're RPGs

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Old RPG's, while well made and carefully crafted, are in the process of the conversion to higher powers. In other words, THE DEVELOPERS ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO BRING THEM TO LIGHT WHERE THEY ARE APPEALING.

Take Fallout, It was definitly great, timeless and enjoyable. Then after the whole problem with interplay, Bethesda brought a stimpak to the franchise and brought it to life with Fallout 3, an Oblivion styled world while STILL keeping the traditional formula; huge world, story, V.A.T.S., dark-witty humor (Though not as much as new vegas).

There wasn't much for character, but its pretty damned difficult to write diverse characters when there is the entire world one must focus on first.

If there is one complaint I hate more in most RPG's is that we should take a step back to this:

Or this:

Thats not roleplaying, thats just following a path and using what weapons/powers you want, wait, that sounds like a- Typical Expectation from a First Person Shooter.

People always bring up the old days, as much as nostalgia is great and we should learn from the past, we should NOT be using it as the main way to the future. We wa-NO, NEED, games to advance in order to make them better: RPG's, FPS's, JRPG's whatever the genre.

So complain all you wish, I don't have anything against you. You have your opinions and I have mine, but take a look at what we have now to what we have then:

2012:

2003:

Notice a difference? And before you drop the "No, they're both horribly written games that are bugged to hell" line, THINK about what we have. There is more than meets the eye.

This post has a lot of pictures and very little substance.

We're not luddites. Of course I'm not against better graphics and more advanced gameplay. What people like myself and the OP dislike in many modern RPGs is the stripping away of complexity in order to make gameplay more accessible for busy professionals and ADHD children. Not because we like maths but because that kind of complexity allows for more choice in terms of character creation.

Instead of comparing a screenshot from Skyrim to a screenshot from Morrowind, compare the games themselves:
In Morrowind there are something like 14 types of weapon to choose from and a great many skills. In Skyrim there are 8 types of weapon and considerably fewer skills. The result of this is that in Skyrim, there are far fewer possible character types for the player to choose from.

Don't get me wrong, Skyrim is a great game and not the best example for my argument (that would be Diablo 3!) But it's certainly a workable example.

 

[OctoH]

I did not find the systems to be that complicated in Bloodlines, but I did like that game.

OT: I do miss the kind of old school KOTOR gameplay. But I honestly can't complain that much about games as long as they were functional and I enjoyed the story.

 

[Terminate421]

snip.

You completely missed the point of my large ass post right?

I said we cannot compensate at this moment. Developers are getting tools down and learning with the tech and stretching it as far as they can go. Accessibility is Key, not "because of maths" but because they do allow easier things to work with. As much as I'd like to see swords and axes having a few different skill sets, I wouldn't mind missing it if it involved losing say...several dungeons or shouts.

In the words of Howard Stark:

"I am held back by the technology of my time, it is up to you to finish what I started"

Developers cannot please both sides. So they pick what they can to provide an enjoyable experience, in this case, graphics and size over substance. What'd be the point of playing Skyrim if there are only like 3 towns? It'd be fun, but alot less bigger than you'd expect.

 

[Kahunaburger]

People always bring up the old days, as much as nostalgia is great and we should learn from the past, we should NOT be using it as the main way to the future. We wa-NO, NEED, games to advance in order to make them better: RPG's, FPS's, JRPG's whatever the genre.

So complain all you wish, I don't have anything against you. You have your opinions and I have mine, but take a look at what we have now to what we have then:

2012:

2003:

Notice a difference? And before you drop the "No, they're both horribly written games that are bugged to hell" line, THINK about what we have. There is more than meets the eye.

Well, uh, Skyrim has better graphics and worse core design. And I guess it has more scripted events. And physics and AI gimmicks it doesn't do anything interesting with. Hey, I know, better pathfinding! And alchemy has a different interface. Truly this is the pinnacle of what RPGs should be.

Re: your core point, I think it's important to remember that "advancement" and "improvement" are not synonyms for "using the latest technology."

 

[DingoDoom]

I disagree, I found Vampire the Masquerade to be lackluster and boring. The ending was ass and the characters really were not that great or memorable in my opinion, in fact, many of them annoyed me and I wanted to kill them. The combat was complete crap and as a vampire, you really didn't feel all that powerful. The skill system was actually very VERY simple.

I don't dislike old school RPG's, but to complain how modern RPGs are dumbing down the game for the masses because it is less complicated is a point I don't agree on. Having a very complex skill system, weapons etc. does not make the game any better than if there were fewer skills/weapons etc. Personally,, I have not seen any of these so called "complex" RPG skill systems at all in any RPG I have played, and I would love to hear an example of it.

I do however agree that some modern RPGs are ridiculously simplified and in a bad way in comparison to its past games(D3 comes to mind).

 

[lord.jeff]

It is like saying "there is no good heavy metal anymore" when you just listen to rap and R&B. Of course you cannot find any good heavy metal anymore. You are not actively looking for it.

Of course, that's still a shift. It used to be you didn't have to look for these games.

That's one of the down sides of innovation and a growing market, more genres to make games in means fewer titles in each genre.

 

[Xiroh86]

Old RPG's, while well made and carefully crafted, are in the process of the conversion to higher powers. In other words, THE DEVELOPERS ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO BRING THEM TO LIGHT WHERE THEY ARE APPEALING.

Take Fallout, It was definitly great, timeless and enjoyable. Then after the whole problem with interplay, Bethesda brought a stimpak to the franchise and brought it to life with Fallout 3, an Oblivion styled world while STILL keeping the traditional formula; huge world, story, V.A.T.S., dark-witty humor (Though not as much as new vegas).

There wasn't much for character, but its pretty damned difficult to write diverse characters when there is the entire world one must focus on first.

If there is one complaint I hate more in most RPG's is that we should take a step back to this:

Or this:

Thats not roleplaying, thats just following a path and using what weapons/powers you want, wait, that sounds like a- Typical Expectation from a First Person Shooter.

People always bring up the old days, as much as nostalgia is great and we should learn from the past, we should NOT be using it as the main way to the future. We wa-NO, NEED, games to advance in order to make them better: RPG's, FPS's, JRPG's whatever the genre.

So complain all you wish, I don't have anything against you. You have your opinions and I have mine, but take a look at what we have now to what we have then:

2012:

2003:

Notice a difference? And before you drop the "No, they're both horribly written games that are bugged to hell" line, THINK about what we have. There is more than meets the eye.

I would argue, as I think many would, that Skyrim is a perfect example of an RPG where "beauty is only skin deep." It's an absolutely gorgeous, and ambitious game, that is just boring as sin. Many of the "blank slate, giant world" games suffer from the same thing; without a character driven story you have to rely on the world to create drama, and it is very difficult to create drama out of trees and mountains.

Without the human/humanoid aspect of your character, you lose so much in terms of story telling. Think of your favorite books, movies, comics....the best stories are those that deal with character developement. You lose that in the "blank slate, giant world" games.