Monday, March 15, 2010

Good Enough

Early in Casablanca, there's a scene of a turboprop landing on an airstrip. It is the plane bringing Nazi villain Major Strasser into the film. Cinematography and special effects being what they were in 1942, the shot is manifestly of a small model plane suspended with wires. You can't help but notice it. You might even titter involuntarily.

If a director re-made Casabalanca today (I know, heaven forfend, but bear with me), he might shoot it in black and white. He might use some of the same corny dialog. He might keep the same period music. But he would clearly not shoot the plane scene with a cheap balsa wood model. In a remake, the shot of the plane landing, if it was not a real shot of a real airplane landing, would sure look like one. And yet--here's the key--the fact that in the 1942 film the shot looks fake and unsophisticated in no way detracts from your enjoyment of the film. You recognize and accept it as a necessary limitation of the time.

The earliest thing we can call a film is generally thought to be a 24-frame assemblage of pictures of a racehorse named Sallie Gardner, shot by Eadweard Muybridge in 1878. The earliest surviving motion picture was shot in 1888 in England and is called Roundhay Garden Scene. It lasts all of two seconds. The first copyrighted film in the United States is the five-second Fred Ott's Sneeze from 1894. These films, and hundreds of others from this era, are interesting curios to students of film history, but none of them will inspire you to curl up in front of the television with your partner and some Chinese food. Neither the technique nor the technology, neither the art nor the science, were sufficiently advanced for these films to be truly "entertaining" in the modern sense.

And yet, at some point, completely without fanfare, suddenly they were. We can argue and debate exactly when that point occurs. I might go with Birth of a Nation (1915), but I could understand if you want to make a case for the sound era--let's say 42nd Street (1933) or It Happened One Night (1934). Certainly, I think we would all agree, that by the Wizard of Oz (1938), film craft had advanced to the level that even today, three-quarters of a century later, you would not hesitate to watch a film from the era, or to recommend it to others. The art and science of film-making didn't stop at that point--it has continued to evolve steadily year after year since then, but at some point it was "good enough" to create art that is timeless.


Love Me Tonight (1932). Not just "good enough"; sublime.


The same is true of music. The earliest recordings are faint, scratchy horrors that utterly mask the talent of the artists. But at some point it became "good enough." Tell me that Louis Armstrong's "West End Blues" or Coleman Hawkins's "Body and Soul" would sound any better in a modern recording studio, and I will call you a fool.

This, then, is my theory: any art or entertainment form will eventually evolve to a point in which it is "good enough." After that point, no matter that it continues to evolve, its creations become timeless--accessible to modern audiences, entertaining, and moving, despite their age and lack of technical sophistication.

When do we hit this point with CRPGs? I haven't decided yet, but I'm beginning to suspect that, for me at least, it's with The Bard's Tale, on which I hope to blog later this week*. But then, I'm something of an archaeologist of CRPGs, maybe a little like the film historian delighted at Fred Ott's Sneeze. Where would you put the "good enough" point for CRPGs? Ultima Underworld? One of the "Gold Box" games? Daggerfall? Surely not as late as Baldur's Gate? Post your answer in the comments--or disagree with my theory if you must.

Good enough for me

*I'm on the road this week and will, alas, have limited time for gaming and blogging. This is too bad because I was really getting in to The Bard's Tale before I left.

57 comments:

  1. Your lack of faith^H^H^H^H^H updates is disturbing, commander.

    This is a great blog post though - part of what has been so compelling and interesting has been your viewing of the games or the genre from a particular perspective. This is a great example.

    You could probably write professionally - I mean novels, not technical/business junk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Andrew, and sorry about the updates. I just came back from a week-long international trip on which I had no time for gaming. Tomorrow, it's back to The Bard's Tale.

    I appreciate the compliment, and I do write professionally, but not fiction. I suck at it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm reading through your blog, and I really enjoy your commentary.

    The first CRPGs were games like dnd, Moria and Oubliette. But they weren't commercial games--they were played on University mainframe computers.

    When did CRPGs become "good enough"? I can't pinpoint it to a single game, but the earliest example is probably "Wizardry I". Akalabeth and the original Temple of Apshai may have been the first ones, but Wizardry I is the most influential CRPG of them all. Wizardry, and it's many variations still have a huge following in Japan. In fact, there are iPhone apps that come from Japan which are basically direct copies of Wizardry, but they're called "Sorcerer" -- #1 and #2 respectively.

    That being said, Bard's Tale, as beautiful and spectacular as it is, is a Wizardry clone--but a very good one at that. I'm not berating your choice -- Wizardry I's main failing are it's primitive graphics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your comments, ROQ. My problem with "Wizardry" isn't its graphics--I prefer a good story and strong tactics above graphics any day. My problem, rather, is how insanely difficult it is, with its permanent death, no choice of when to save, resurrection spells that fail half the time, and so on. I like my games challenging but not infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would say the turning point was 1983 with the release of Ultima III and ROGUE. Granted other RPGs were not as good as either of those games during that year, but starting from then on you had games like Questron, Moebius (yes the floating head thing was weird, but it was a lot of fun), Bard's tale, Might and Magic and the awesome Starflight.

    It's might be nostalgia speaking since you will have to get over the graphics to play most of these games, but graphics aside these games will last from their content alone.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Skavenhorde. I really liked this posting and I'm glad people are still reading it five months later.

    Is "Starflight" really that good? It's the next game on my list and I'm frankly not loving "Shard of Spring." Maybe I should just move on.

    When I originally wrote this posting, I was thinking "The Bard's Tale" was going to be my "good enough" point, but I ultimately decided I didn't like it much. For me, the real point was "Might and Magic."

    ReplyDelete
  7. For me, "good enough" is precisely at Ultima Underworld II and Ultima VII, which was when I first started playing RPGs. (sadly it was also the point where the series jumped the shark shortly afterwards)

    I actually haven't ever gotten into many earlier PC RPGs, though I have played quite a few classic console RPGs (usually remakes) I missed the first time around. The issue I have is primarily one of user interface. The console RPGs were forced to have simple user interfaces due to controller limitations. Even Ultima VI is nearly impenetrable for me, but the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are just fine.

    UW2 and U7 can both be played entirely using the mouse, and UW2 in particular is designed so that everything can be done with context-sensitive right and left clicks, although the verb buttons from UW1 are still there as well. Anything that involves typing? Well... I'll try it but I really feel games should use as few buttons as possible, and typing requires thirty eight buttons, minimum, more with punctuation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe it's just because I grew up in the era, but I find the keyboard-based interface EASIER than a mouse-based interface. Granted, there's a learning curve at the beginning, but once you learn the commands, you can fly through the game on the keyboard.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've been scratching my "retrogaming" itch lately (it happens to me at least once a year) and one thing I've found in replaying Ultima IV and Castle Wolfenstein is that I really miss games that made vigorous use of keyboard control. I love mouse control, too, but somehow it oddly seems like PC games began eroding in sophistication once you could do everything with a mouse.

    Great blog! I'm posting here because I'm reading it from the beginning :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Keyboarding is just faster. I like the use of the mouse in games like Oblivion, for precision in where you look and aim, but to access my inventory, move forward and backward, save the game, rest, pick something up, and so on, I'd much rather just use the keyboard. That's one of the reasons I didn't fully get in to Le Maitre des Ames.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would say that Alternate Reality was the turning point, at least for me personally. It was the first game to combine successfully story, game play and graphics into an interesting stew. If it is art or not, I do not know. Who cares, as long as it is fun.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would say that video gaming was already at the Birth of a Nation stage by the mid 70s; so even the earliest CRPGs are past the turning point, although they were still the equivalent of silent movies, only accessible to someone familiar with this archaic art form. As for the earliest classic RPG, I'd have to go with Ultima I.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JJ and Ben, thanks for your contributions to this older posting. Everyone's got his or her own "Good Enough" point, I guess. For me, I think it turned out to be "Ultima IV," but "Might & Magic" is a close backup.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear CRPG Addict: That's cool. I really like Ultima IV and I used to play Ultima VI a great deal but I have found, despite the intricate game world that there is no replaying these games with the same level of fun as the first go around.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree. Fortunately, after over a decade, I had forgotten enough that it was still fun.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wholeheartily agree that the keyboard is better for CRPGs, in fact it is one of the main reasons I don't play newer games. I really never got used to the mouse interface.

    For me, The Bard's Tale is an easy place to start, since it was my first CRPG and to this day remains my favorite and the one I've gone back to replay the most times. However, I think I would go back even further to Ultima III. I remember going back to that game several times since first playing it (not replaying it though, for some reason I was never able to finish it... I must have missed something important near the beginning of the game.) Before Ultima III you had Wizardry, which I think was there from a technical perspective (bad line graphics and all) but they still needed to figure out the problems with easy and irreversible death. Sword Of Fargoal came out in 1982 and is a game which I think easily stands on its own today, however not as a CRPG even though I think it qualifies as one (hopefully that makes sense to someone.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think the mouse is a necessary evil for 3D gaming.

    Reading all of these blog posts and subsequent comments really has me hoping that the new zeal for indie game development is going to turn out some new classically-minded cRPGs. It almost seems inevitable...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Manolis 13 MnEmpJuly 9, 2011 at 4:25 AM

    As I take "good enough" point = playable today and not being a masochist, then I'd go to with Ultima IV as that point.. A milestone.. Unfortunately I haven;t played M&M 1 or 2 so dunno about them.. And sorry hehe, BT1-3 were GREAT for their time, but not at all playable today, even though the magic great atmosphere they have still emits energy for a 10 minute play (combined with some Blind Guardian hehe)..

    Again, i'm amazed by this blog and still going through it chronologically :D

    ReplyDelete
  19. For me, "good enough" starts, unsurprisingly, with the first CRPG I ever played past first few minutes, which was "Betryal At Krondor". Althought if asked to be completely frank, I'd even name the first Fallout. My reasoning: it got rid of horrible first-person perspective, which I find unplayable (my reason for not playing all of Elder Scrolls and most modern CRPGs), and presented very simply controlled, yet quite tactical combat system, as well as huge dialog trees.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A lot of people have strong feelings about first-person versus iconographic perspectives. I go back and forth. When I'm playing an iconographic game, I often think how good it would be in the first-person, but the reverse happens when I'm playing a first-person game. I think the Gold Box games struck the perfect balance: first-person exploration, iconographic combat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ultima IV on the SMS is an amazing port (and one of two CRPGs to get a really good port to 8-bit consoles); the only significant change it makes is... to make the dungeons tile-based like the rest of the game; yet visibility is low enough that navigation is still a challenge. (This definitely wasn't a technical limitation either; Phantasy Star had much more technically demanding 1st-person dungeons than Ultima IV, probably nearly on the level of Dungeon Master.)

      Delete
    2. That's a very interesting change.
      I generally don't like console versions of games made originally for computers, but I'd try it this time just to see those tile based dungeons

      Delete
  21. Third person is fine when you control a party, but for single character, open 3D games I hate behind-the-ass-camera. From a role playing POV it's more immersive when you *are* the character, instead of a pupper master controlling the character.
    And the use of sound, not just your sight, to detect enemies is a game play element that is largely lost with a 3rd person view.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have no problem with the idea of either view but I tend to get motion sick in some 1st person games, which is why I largely don't play FPS. If an RPG plays like a FPS where I have to whip the camera around quickly I get blown out of any immersion by the fact that my stomach is in knots and my head hurts.

    It is an odd phenomena for me in that I never get motion sick by real life movement (car, plane, roller-coaster or boat). Something in my brain thinks I should feel a balance shift (inner ear) when my eyes tell it I am moving. If I don't feel that because I am actually not moving but instead sitting in a chair playing a game then I experience problems.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Petrus, I agree with that particular camera angle. Judging by YouTube videos, it appears that almost everyone else plays Skyrim from the third-person perspective, and I can't stand it. How do you AIM, for god's sake?

    UbAh, I actually experience the same thing if I don't face the computer or television straight on. I've tried playing X-box games while lying down on the couch, and it makes me a bit ill. It sounds like you have the problem no matter which way you sit, though, which for me would be a tragedy. Have you tried taking some Dramamine or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOW! This discussion has really opened my eyes. I cannot even IMAGINE playing the Elder Scrolls game in third-person perspective. As you say, how do you aim? No, SERIOUSLY. HOW DO YOU AIM? I suppose it might make sense for console gamers to play in third-person, because they do not have The Perfect Controls for aiming anyway, but if anyone on a PC plays in third-person for anything more than a quick screenshot, I just cannot understand (this goes for any single-player game, naturally).

      Delete
    2. Quarex: If the game has platforming in it then switching to third person for the jumping usually makes it a fair bit easier, since you get perspective.

      Mouse beast controller for aiming, easily, but the analog stick is superior to WASD for movement, so both are compromises. There is a device coming out that is a left handed analog stick for computers, so mouse + analog stick.

      Delete
    3. As someone who finds first-person views to be incredibly disorienting... I don't understand how one plays Skyrim in 3rd-person either. In theory it should be a godsend to people like me but...

      SERIOUSLY, HOW DO YOU AIM?

      Delete
    4. If you're playing with mouse-and-keyboard, it's pretty easy. Tough if you're using controller but AI's pretty slow in reaction so you're good.

      That said, I think the Wiimote is actually a pretty good aiming device. Trumps conventional mouse even. Of course a high-end gaming mouse is still more sensitive but for people with actual military/firearms experience like myself, nothing beats a point-&-shoot gaming paraphernalia.

      Delete
    5. In theory Kenny is right. In practice? Kenny is very wrong. The Wiimote is slow and ungainly and takes tiny motions. I hear it is a lot better if you set up your IR sources father apart, but I've not tried it.

      Delete
    6. Spreading out the IR sources helps massively, and (from your description) you seem to be familiar only with the original Wiimote - once Motion Plus was added (initially as a dongle for the original controller, later integrated into new ones) the precision went way up. It's still not as precise as even a normal mouse, but it isn't particularly bad.

      Delete
    7. Nope, I've only used the Wiimote+. I found it very wobbly and hard to hit exact targets. It was fine with slashes and things, but hitting exactly on a button was still a pain.

      Delete
    8. That's unquestionably a sensor bar problem. Using a third-party bar (or, for that matter, the improved model from the WiiU) will eliminate it.

      Delete
    9. It hasn't felt any different than any other wii I've used. It just still sucks compared to what I expect out of control. It takes me a moment to click on the buttons on screen, as the controller wobbles so much, it isn't a thoughtless excersize like with a mouse.

      Delete
  24. Weirdly, the only game I've ever gotten motion sickness from is Thief 2 - The Metal Age.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'd hate to have to take drugs just to play a game...

    I know this sounds weird coming from the guy who talked about how I love to play games drunk but I just don't like taking pills or drugs besides alcohol. I just had surgery on my nose and stopped taking the Vicodin early because the pain was preferable to the effects of the drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ack, I'm a few years behind the discussion.

    But, for me, Ultima 4. I played almost all of the more famous CRPGs in the Wiki list but the idea of having Karma bite back in your ass in U4 is a main draw of all decent CRPGs nowadays as it gives the illusion that, yes, your actions DO have an impact on the world you play in.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eye of the Beholder 1 (1990) was the start of my CRSP carrier and I played it again in 2005 - it still looks ... ok. Funny thing is that EoB 3 looks worse than the first two parts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My first crpg was bard's tale, but I thoroughly enjoyed Wizardry 1 a few weeks ago. So I'd say Wiz1 is where it started to be good enough. I found akalabeth and U1 awful. Ultima 1 and 2 seem more like a bad zelda clone to me. I also enjoyed Rogue but thats not really a crpg and i'm not even sure which came first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get pretty angsty about this kind of thing, and no personal offense intended, but you would have to maintain chronological accuracy and call the Legend of Zelda a really good Ultima I/II clone instead if you are going to make that kind of comparison.

      Delete
  29. I suspect that, for most people, their answer to your original question will be the first CRPG they played and really enjoyed. So it is for me, with Temple of Apshai. I could also say "dnd," but as I didn't play that until I was twelve and we snuck into the computer lab in the basement of the Lawrence Hall of Science, I don't think I can point to that in good conscience. If I hadn't experienced the Epyx games (Temple of Apshai, Hellfire Warrior) and Rogue beforehand, I don't think I could have appreciated dnd. Also, if I'd played dnd when it was released (I was 4), I wouldn't have appreciated the unintended hilarity of the language: "Your deadly!" and all. But as a pre-teen, it hit the spot for someone who'd played better games since then.

    Temple of Apshai was engrossing; being able to generate a character and explore a graphical dungeon, actual haggling with shopkeepers, randomized combat with monsters that depleted hit points...it was amazing.

    I'm not really sure why Rogue gets such a bad rap, or why there's even debate as to whether it is a CRPG. To me, it's definitely a CRPG, but it came after Temple of Apshai (and I played them in that order, too).

    For first-person perspective CRPGs, I'd have to go with Dungeons of Daggorath. You'd like that, at least in theory (since it was never ported to PC): all the attack commands were typed, as abbreviated versions of the actions you wanted to perform. On entering a dungeon, for example, you had to pull out a torch and light it, choosing which hand would hold it. This would be accomplished with p l t , u l t (which corresponded to "pull left torch" and "use left torch," respectively. The really amazing thing about Dungeons of Daggorath was that the game was first-person perspective and played in real time. So the monsters would advance down the corridors toward you (and the quality of the torch would determine how far in front of you was visible) and attack at a speed determined by their level, while you could stack commands as fast as you could type them. Once you got high enough level, you could actually attack as fast as you could type the commands. The torch would burn out as you stood there, waffling, and eventually you'd be wandering around in the dark, trying to either find another torch or remember how to get back to the exit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually played a little DoD a few months ago. My wife remembered it from her youth and wanted to give it a try. It was the damndest game: real time, but you type commands. It was crazy. I was going to do a special posting on it, but it kept crashing my computer and I never won it.

      Delete
  30. To answer the original question, it would probably have to be the early 90s for me. As MadTinkerer said, probably around the time of Ultima 7 or Ultima Underworld. I simply NEED the mouse in PC RPGs. It's probably because I grew up at a time when mouse&keyboard controls were already the norm - I'm 25 and I only started gaming around the time I was 10 or so.

    It doesn't really matter if the controls are FPS-style (WASD + mouse look) or if it's more of a point&click interface, as long as the mouse is involved. The prospect of playing games that require keyboard only controls and, perhaps, typing command just strikes me as tedious. I can get used to it, but it still detracts from the overall enjoyment of the game.

    The strange thing is that I have absolutely no problem with interfaces that require me to type commands (basic example - DOSBox or Linux OSs), but for some reason my brain refuses to accept the connection between "keyboard only" and "gaming and having fun". Maybe it simply was something before my time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny how the era in which we get started influences us. In contrast to you, I get annoyed when I have to use the mouse.

      Delete
    2. One of the fundamental reasons I hate console gaming is the lack of a keyboard. In my mind, the keyboard is intimately associated with the best possible time you can have playing games (not that arcades and the occasional console exception could not be plenty of fun too).

      Not sure about the mouse, though. I certainly do not mind using it, but it does not get me excited. I used to hate it back when Quake came out and suddenly people insisted you should use it for controls--I so fundamentally misunderstood that I was like "do you know how much it would hurt to constantly move the mouse forward to walk?"

      Delete
    3. I relate. We used to have epic Counterstrike battles in my office after work. I got completely owned for weeks until I figured out how to master using the mouse to look and the keyboard for everything else.

      Delete
    4. Well, WASD is a bit weaker then an analog, since you can't get the intermediate directions or slower movement with lighter tapping. Thus I think something like the http://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/g13-advanced-gameboard?crid=26 where you use analog for movement and mouse for aiming might be better for a game with non-tile based movement.

      Delete
    5. @Quarex:

      Rolling the mouse forward actually WAS how you walked around in the shooters before Quake, though, as any Doom player knows. So you didn't misunderstand as much as you thought.

      Delete
  31. I vaguely remember having played Bard'sTale way back when but I still wouldn't count this era "good enough" to go back to now and enjoy it. Probably the first one that would count for this, would be the first one where I saw the sun come up because I just couldn't stop playing and that was some "Buck Rogers something or other" game from the early 90s. I already checked, it looks to be on your list :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I agree. My posting was premature. Might & Magic was probably the pivotal game for me.

      Delete
  32. Great post. And what a wonderful video! Thanks for making me aware of it. I'm a cynical sod but that sort of thing restores even my faith in humanity just a little.

    Unfortunately I think we're all too young, and thus too close to the genesis of the medium, to comment impartially on the question you've raised. Nostalgia has a powerful distorting effect with this sort of thing. Ask anyone which was their favourite pokemon, for example, or Mario Kart, and 80%+ of the time the answer will be the first one they played. I expect I'm younger than most of the grogs on this blog (25), and although I played my share of DOS games in the early-to-mid nineties I frankly shudder to think of playing the likes of Wizardry or Bard's Tale now. (More than happy to *read* about them, of course - thanks to your sterling work on this blog!)

    I think it must be the combination of the extensive time-dedication to play a long-form and complex game like a CRPG, combined with the famously punishing 'old-school' difficulty of insta-/perma-/mega-death and save limitations - and all without the comfort blanket of more modern gaming's prettified graphics, animations and music to grease the wheels, as it were.

    Whereas in turn I will still happily fire up any infinity engine game, and defend their honour to the death against the legions of this frightening new phenomena I'm beginning to encounter now, 'people younger than I am', who might baulk at the idea of, say, a 1024x768 resolution, or playing without a controller, or - God forbid it - the absence of dialogue wheels. My circuitous point here is to lead back to the nostalgia thing.

    Maybe in another half a century, when the birth of video games has all but passed out of living memory, there will be people with the sufficient level of interest - but more crucially, detachment - to be able to make these appraisals in the same way that you did so skilfully with the movies.

    Or so's I thinks, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your good points, and for commenting on such an old posting. I really like how this one came together. You're probably right that we'll peg the "good enough" point at the moment we first started playing, but I hope that's not the case for everyone. After all, it's not the case for film or books, so why must it be the case for computer games?

      Delete
    2. What is interesting is that I'm the same age, and would put my 'good enough' mark at about the same place: The mid-late 90s. I'll play Doom once in a while, but not for long, as it is fun but looks terrible. I'll play X-COM as there aren't many similar games, but spend a lot of the time longing for a better UI and graphics. However, with the later Infinity Engine games they hit that 'good enough' point where it just works, and I don't notice it. It looks good, and the controls aren't GREAT, but they are workable enough that I don't notice much.

      Delete
  33. An interesting topic. I was born in 1982, played games from an early age on, on the C64 and Amiga, and already before that on Ataris and systems I can't even remember anymore. One of the earliest games I can recall, is a game called Mercenary, an almost-RPG/adventure game, if I recall correctly. My dad played it with me....anyway... strangely, I would put my "good enough" much later than others here even though I actually played during the 8-bit days! I am playing Baldur's Gate right at the moment and find it a bit clumsy and hard to look at. But I really enjoyed Planescape: Torment a couple of months ago. So on the one hand, maybe my age puts the line a little later than elsewhere, but on the other hand, I can remember reading computer magazines back in late 80s/early 90s refering to The Bard's Tale as THE classic RPG game - on the C64.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There are, admittedly, sub-genres in CRPGs (turn based vs real time, 1st person vs 3rd person, free roam vs grid, graphics vs ASCII).

    Some of them experienced their 'good enough' earlier, some later. I was born in 1986, so I was born late enough to not *know* the early CRPGs. At the point when I had developed mentally enough to experience the games of the era (with the understanding of the foreign language you know as English), I suppose these sub-genres were, as you put it, 'good enough'.

    Having said that, the earliest exposures I had to CRPGs were already at a point when they were already more than adequate. Which is to say, Moria, Dungeon Master, Ultima 5 off the top of my mind. Those, and... well, Nahlakh, although it shares the sub-genre with U5, I feel like it is different enough to stand on its own.

    Oddly enough, I still hold Ultima 5 and Dungeon Master in very high regard compared to modern CRPGs... how did 'good enough' suddenly translate into 'quintessential' in my mind?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was born in 1989 and only really started playing CRPGs with games like the PC version of KOTOR. I have gone back and tried to play some old CRPGs. I would say that good enough for me begins around 1990 with Ultima VI and Wizardry VI. I have beaten and enjoyed both those games within the last 10 years. I have also played and enjoyed Wasteland 1, but I haven't beaten it. Before that they usually feel a bit too obtuse or cruel for me. I have yet to play any of the Gold Box RPGs and need to get them on GOG. A game like Pool of Radiance looks right up my alley. I have somehow never tried Bard's Tale despite having tried freaking Starflight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gold box games are highly recommended. As are many other titles from that era, such as the Quest For Glory series, Ultima III-VII, Eye of the Beholder trilogy and so many others. While perhaps more difficult in SOME cases, that's not always the case. However, the stories within the games makes for really memorably experiences.

      Delete

I welcome all comments about the material in this blog, and I generally do not censor them. However, please follow these rules:

1. Do not link to any commercial entities, including Kickstarter campaigns, unless they're directly relevant to the material in the associated blog posting. (For instance, that GOG is selling the particular game I'm playing is relevant; that Steam is having a sale this week on other games is not.) THIS ALSO INCLUDES USER NAMES THAT LINK TO ADVERTISING.

2. Please avoid profanity and vulgar language. I don't want my blog flagged by too many filters.

3. Please don't comment anonymously. It makes it impossible to tell who's who in a thread. Choose the "Name/URL" option, pick a name for yourself, and just leave the URL blank.

Also, Blogger has a way of "eating" comments, so I highly recommend that you copy your words to the clipboard before submitting, just in case.

NOTE: Spam has gotten so bad lately that I've had to turn on comment moderation for posts older than 10 days. I apologize if it takes a little while for your comment to appear.