Dungeon Hack
United States
DreamForge Entertainment (developer); Strategic Simulations, Inc. (publisher)
Released 1993 for DOS, 1995 for PC-98
Date Started: 7 April 2024
Date Ended: 29 April 2024
Total Hours: 26 (multiple characters, three wins)
Difficulty: Completely customizable. I guess 3.0/5 for the average.
Final Rating: 33
Ranking at time of posting: 356/521 (68%)
Summary:
An interesting attempt to blend the first-person, Dungeon Master-inspired interface of the Eye of the Beholder series (particularly III) with the randomization of NetHack. The result is a quick, fun, replayable game that offers whatever degree of challenge the player wants. As with the Beholder series, Dungeons & Dragons rules don't work wonderfully with this type of gameplay, and the developers could have tried harder to integrate some kind of story or role-playing, but otherwise if this was your only 1993 game, you'd get a lot of mileage out of it.
******
At this point, I've won three games of
Dungeon Hack, penetrated to Level 5 with a fourth, finished the first or second level of another half dozen, and watched several people play it on YouTube. (In particular, I enjoyed
a series by a delightful YouTuber named Kikoskia, who invents monologues and dialogues for his characters.) I think I have a handle on it. And yet part of me wants to keep trying different combinations.
When I wrapped up last time, I had started a new game with a fighter/thief. He had a lot of fun killing most enemies with one shot from
his bow, although not much fun picking up arrows afterwards. I forgot that I had enabled permadeath for his character,
though, so I didn't take the care that I should have, and he died
towards the end of Level 2.
My second win came with a pure fighter character. I wanted to see how quickly I could win if I set all the settings to easy, eliminated keys and secret doors, set the levels to minimum, and just blasted through them, always taking the stairway as soon as I found it. It took about two hours, and it was fun for its sheer momentum. I enjoyed some wall decorations that I didn't see the first time, some new enemies (particularly were-rats, otyughs, and chimeras), and a new final boss, whose name I don't know because you can't get into the list of slain creatures once you've killed the final boss.
|
Some kind of demon?
|
Even with things set to "easy," I had a tough time without cleric spells. I had to rest for literal weeks at a couple of points to restore health, and I made heavy use of those slot machines when I found them. On the other hand, I liked that the lack of spells meant I could always see the area automap (which gets taken over by the spellbook when you open it).
|
Where do you see the orb, exactly?
|
The only real trouble I had was on the last level. One of the enemies was "living mucks," horrible creatures that steal your weapons when you hit them. I had to reload a couple of times, but fortunately I was able to kill most of the mucks with a couple of wands and amulets I had found.
|
Now, only at the end, does the sword live up to its name.
|
My third win was with one of the default characters, Yahlir Smoothtongue, the bard, with all the settings on "moderate." This creates a dungeon of 18 levels, all the sliders in the middle, everything else turned on except for multi-leveled puzzles and permadeath. The character was challenging. Mage spells are a bit underpowered at the default setting, and there isn't enough for a thief or bard to do with thief skills to justify the character.
|
For my third outing, I went with a prepackaged character. I wanted to make sure there weren't any story or plot elements specific to him. There were not.
|
It took me longer to win this game than the one that occupied most of my entries (I wasted way too much time this past weekend), but having covered the mechanics and gameplay experience in those earlier entries, I didn't have a lot to say. Unlike my fighter win, I didn't go down immediately upon discovering a new level, but I also didn't insist on mapping the entirety of each level, nor did I return to earlier levels if I fell down a pit. I wrote a long summary of the experience and decided it was too long for this section, so I put it at the end of the entry.
Between the character classes and settings, the game supports an amazingly wide difficulty range. Any cleric, whether single-classed or multi-classed, has a much easier game than anybody else. The "Create Food and Water" spell eliminates even the most punishing settings for the food meters; "Water Breathing" obviates the water level; and healing spells mean that you don't have to rest for literal days to restore health.
|
That must have been boring.
|
In the end, while Dungeon Hack offers a fun experience, it's a little better in concept than in gameplay. I would have liked to see a few additional elements:
- Some kind of story woven into the randomization of the dungeon. I know it's hard, but the authors could have written a dozen or so narratives giving each dungeon a background, then delivered it a few paragraphs at a time as the player transitioned levels (or via scrolls). Or they could have offered a "campaign" with several dungeons strung together with a story.
- Non-combat encounters, including the occasional NPC, both of which could make use of the character alignment and "charisma" statistic.
- An economy and the occasional store. This could be done with a "top level" like Moria or Angband or a store embedded in the dungeon, like NetHack.
- Less predictable dungeon design, with levels varying in size and shape.
|
Was it necessary for every level to be the same size, and with twisty corridors? Why not some huge, open levels?
|
- More than two enemy types per level.
- The ability to move on to a new dungeon with the same character.
- The ability to have more than one character. Even two would have been fine.
I suppose in other words, I would like to see a version of this game that better resembles the roguelike elements that the game tries to evoke with the Hack part of its name. Another way Dungeon Hack could have been a truly good game is if it had featured a campaign mode with custom-designed dungeons and a story in addition to the randomization options.
|
A cool picture of a chimera, even if its presence doesn't make a lot of sense ecologically.
|
The game raises a lot of questions about the role of randomization in our enjoyment of CRPGs. Normally, I think that modern commercial titles randomize too little. I feel that if they're going to make us wait 15 years between major releases in a series, developers should give us as much randomization as they can to enhance replayability. Certainly, some aspects of the plot have to occur in specific locations with specific NPCs and enemies and with specific objects. But a lot could be randomized without affecting the basic outline of most games, including (often) the starting location, which side quests are available, which NPCs give you various side quests, where NPCs can be found, what rewards you get for completing quests, what monsters you find in various locations, and the actual layout of those locations, to include what doors are locked, what floors are trapped, and where you find certain enemies and treasures.
This all sounds good to me, but then a game comes along like Starfield, which actually does much of this, and I complain that the randomized parts are flat and unrealistic. So maybe I don't know what I'm looking for.
Finally, let me say that I never got sick of all the creative ways that the authors developed to represent the simple concept of keys in locks, nor the different types of visual imagery that you can click on to get your character's take. Even though the nature of the randomization means that there's no thematic consistency to these doors or visuals, there was still such a cool variety that I enjoyed them anyway. I also enjoyed the process of slamming keys into locks even though there was nothing remotely challenging about it.
|
Opening a door by putting a gem into a tiger's eye. |
|
|
|
|
|
Or a jewel in a demon's forehead.
|
|
Or an agate weighing down a scale.
|
|
This is legitimately tragic.
|
|
Seriously: none of those keys work in this lock?
|
In contrast, the "hint" scrolls really did nothing for me, I suppose partly because they deal with the strengths and weaknesses that have already been part of the D&D bestiary for a few dozen games, and party because the game doesn't give you that many tactics for dealing with enemies resistant to certain types of attacks or spells.
|
This would be more useful if the game gave me more than one offensive spell per level.
|
Here's what I can offer for the GIMLET:
- 1 point for the game world. It has a skeleton of a framing story, but there's no thematic consistency to the dungeon nor any internal story. I was disappointed that the quest-giver didn't have any kind of twist.
- 4 points for character creation and development. It has the usual strengths and weaknesses of second-edition AD&D, the primary strengths being that different classes face very different games, and the primary weakness being that you don't get many options when leveling up. While (in this game) class makes a big difference for difficulty and combat reasons, it makes no difference for role-playing reasons. Neither do gender, race, or alignment.
|
698 options! I would have loved this as a kid.
|
- 0 points for no NPC interaction.
- 4 points for encounters and foes. The D&D bestiary is pretty good, but their strengths and weaknesses are not necessarily highlighted in a game with such limited mechanics. The non-combat encounters like doors and keys are about as good as we can expect from randomization.
|
Ghouls=paralysis is one of the first lessons a D&D player learns.
|
- 3 points for magic and combat. It definitely loses something without a party.
- 5 points for equipment. You can find, use, wield, and wear a decent selection of stuff, and it is randomized while still allowing for a set of artifact gear. Was that so hard? I wouldn't have minded other ways to identify the stuff.
- 1 point for the economy. Sure, I'll give it a point for the individual coins you find and use in the healing machines.
|
The extent of the "economy."
|
- 2 points for a randomly-generated main quest in which you never even see the quest object. There are no side-quests, choices, or role-playing options.
- 6 points for graphics, sound, and interface. I thought the sound in Eye of the Beholder III was a "cacophonous horror show." I don't remember that at all. In Dungeon Hack, the sound, graphics, and controls are all "fine." There's nice keyboard/mouse redundancy, solid monster animations, and fun touches like decorations on the wall. The intro and outro are well-animated and the voice acting is okay. The automap is great. This is about the highest score that a tiled game composed of "textures" can get. Music fans will want to lop off points for the lack thereof.
|
You know graphics are evolving when dungeons start to have decorations.
|
- 7 points for gameplay. This is really where it shines. It's hard to complain about difficulty, length, or pacing when all of those settings are entirely customizable.
That gives us a final score of 33. Ouch. It doesn't even make my "recommended" threshold. I can't think of a good reason to justify bonus points. I can reconcile the low score by saying that it's a fun game but not necessarily a good example of an RPG specifically.
|
The ad does a good job of highlighting the game's strengths.
|
That goddamned Spear of Destiny ad greets me again as I consult the February 1994 Computer Gaming World for Scorpia's take on Dungeon Hack. My heart is warmed from the opening paragraph:
Every once in a while, even the most dedicated role-players long for something simple. They long for a game that doesn't require months of playing time, reams of notes, pages of hand-drawn maps; a game where they can just go out and let loose with some primordial bloodlust hack-n-slash, never mind any convoluted plots or story lines.
Scorpia's writing doesn't always do it for me, but that perfectly encapsulates what Dungeon Hack is about, minus the extensive customization, but she gets to that, too. She praises how the found treasures are customized for each class, the auto-map, and the overall brisk pace. Her only major lament is that mages can't cast spells while wearing armor, which I agree is pretty annoying. The mage class is already less powerful here than in traditional D&D games. In the end: "Dungeon Hack delivers what it promises: the chance to create your own, specially-designed, hack-n-slash paradise." The magazine gave it an award later that year for "most replay value."
|
If you're going to base copy protection on keywords from the manual, this is the way to do it. Give the specific heading and help out with the first letter of the word. It's a nice contrast to the way Red Crystal does it.
|
Feeling good about Scorpia's review, I set about trying to find one that would annoy me, and I turned to Sandy Peterson's "Eye of the Monitor" coverage in the May 1994 Dragon. But alas, he offers a relatively fair three-star review. He understands the game's reference to roguelikes, which I don't think Scorpia had any experience with. He highlights most of the same strengths and weaknesses. He has a minor complaint about how basic the puzzles are, while acknowledging it's hard to randomize puzzles. Late in the review is a line I could have written: "I feared it would turn out to be a sad collection of barely-acceptable maps, and it turned out much better than my expectations." I also note that he advises players to just follow the right wall, which is exactly how I played it.
Well, despite not having an Amiga release, surely the Brits will give me the rage porn I'm looking for. I turn to the February 1994 PC Zone, where the anonymous reviewer gives a rating of 62% despite having played only one level of the game (specifically, he played the first level twice, one on easy difficulty, one on hard). It's fair to say that he misses the point of the game entirely, and he makes comments about mechanics that don't exist. For instance, he claims to have gotten back-stabbed and he suggests that you can stun-lock enemies during their attack animations. I promise you that is not the case. And then he insults me directly by saying that "only a sad, limited and unimaginative person" would enjoy the game. You're supposed to have another comma there, jackass. It's literally called the "Oxford comma." You think it was named after Oxford, Alabama?
|
Just a reminder that underwater levels are never not stupid.
|
Reviews got worse heading east. The German
PC Player gave it 49% and the
PC Joker gave it 29%. Modern reviews are similarly all over the place. In 2015,
Paste contributor Ian Williams put it on his
Top 10 list of
D&D video games. Somewhere in the middle is Cory "Dingo" Brock's
2017 Hardcore Gaming 101 verdict: "Though not groundbreaking . . . a solid adaptation of the traditional roguelike." Digital Antiquarian Jimmy Maher, on the other hand, thought it "pointless" in a
2017 article. Maher also notes that it sold only 27,110 copies, only about half of the sales total of the dismal
Eye of the Beholder III.
It seems to me that it makes a big difference if you rate it in isolation versus rating it as one of many games on your shelf. I'd be disappointed if it was the only game I bought in 1993, but it wasn't. Having already played Eye of the Beholder III, Lands of Lore, Abandoned Places 2, and Dungeon Master II in the same year, it's easier to be okay with a game that just lets you charge in and kill orcs.
|
This is a high kill count for 6 hours of gaming.
|
Dungeon Hack has an interesting developmental history. It follows the departure of Westwood Studios (Eye of the Beholder I and II) from cooperation with SSI and the D&D license. SSI had developed Eye of the Beholder III in-house, recreating the engine from the first two games, then gave the programming and assets over to DreamForge for Dungeon Hack. DreamForge, meanwhile, was the re-named Event Horizon Software. We saw their work on DarkSpyre (1990), Dusk of the Gods (1991), The Summoning (1992), and Veil of Darkness (1993), all of which used variants of the same engine, originally designed to replicate Dungeon Master gameplay from a top-down perspective. Now they were asked to develop a game that used a Dungeon Master-derived interface but without any of the puzzles that the team clearly prized. I wonder how they felt about that.
Regardless of sales, SSI must have been happy with the team's work, as DreamForge went on to develop Menzoberranzan (1994), Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession (1994), and Ravenloft: Stone Prophet (1995) for the publisher, none of which I have any knowledge of. Westwood did some good work with the two Beholder games, but in my opinion, DreamForge has the more impressive pre-SSI résumé, so I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
****
My third winning game:
This was using the default bard, Yahlir Smoothtongue. I know I'm not consistent about tense in this narrative. I didn't feel like re-editing the whole thing when I was done.
Level 1:
I started the game with a short sword, leather armor, boots, spellbook,
and two rations. Yahlir was at Level 4. Enemies were hobgoblins and
orcs, with a ghoul as a boss. I found Gauntlets of Hill Giant Strength
and a short sword +1.
|
The character at the outset of the adventure.
|
Level 2:
Troglodytes and ghouls, with a carrion crawler boss. Got held a few
times, but I found a Scroll of Protection from Petrification on the same
level and used it instead of hoarding it. Went to bard Level 5. A magic
book that I unwisely didn't identify caused me to lose an experience
level. Found a Wand of Curing, a Sword of Slaying Shambling Mounds +1 (I
didn't realize they got so specific!), a Dart +3, and a Ring of
Regeneration, which was a godsend.
Level 3: Shadows
and "sheet ghouls," which I've never heard of. Boss was a "shade
wizard," which I've also never heard of. Got back to bard Level 5 early
on, then Level 6. Found a pair of Drow Boots, Amulet of Magic Missiles
(which I exhausted on this level), Ring of Might, Ring of Provocation
(?), Libram of Gainful Conjuration (a book that causes instant death),
short bow (but no arrows), holy symbol (why?), shield +1. The game
really does a good job of giving help to weaker characters through
magic items.
|
A pair of sheet ghouls comes round a bend.
|
Level 4: Gargoyles
(who have a terrifying yowl) and wights, with a ghost warrior boss. Hit
bard Level 7, then lost it again to a wight, then gained it back and
another. Level featured a "slow zone" in which I moved sluggishly. That
sucked. Found Bracers of Archery, Wand of Acid, Book of Vile Darkness,
and Book of Exalted Deeds. You'd think the latter would do something
positive, but it caused me to lose a level (I reloaded for this one).
The game sure does want me to lose levels.
|
Not a good time to be slowing down.
|
Level 5: Minotaurs and nothing else.
I don't know why they get their own level, but this is the second time.
Got tricked by a spinner at one point; I didn't even know they existed
in this game. Found a long sword +1. Not an exciting level. I should
mention that I have a Level 3 spell slot by this point, but I have not
found a Level 3 spell scroll.
|
This is what I feel like when I'm chopping wood.
|
Level 6: Mummies
and wyverns with an otyugh boss. A Potion of Confusion messed me up for
a while. Leveled up twice to Bard 11. Absolutely absurd number of keys
and secret doors. Found Amulet of Magic Resistance and a parchment that
mapped the level.
|
I exhaust my spells on a wyvern.
|
Level 7: Sword wraiths--who move fast--and
banshees. Lack of decent armor is starting to become a real problem. I
find the stairs early on this one, take them, and never meet the boss.
|
I think this is a sword wraith. I'm losing the alignment between my images and my narrative.
|
Level 8:
Medusas and shambling mounds in polished blue corridors. Yay, I think, I
finally get to use my Sword of Slaying Shambling Mounds! Except it
doesn't seem to perform any better than a regular sword. I find an Ioun
Stone of Nourishment early on the level, which I suppose cuts back the
rate of food consumption. This hasn't been much of a problem, and if you
equip an Ioun stone, you have to watch the thing whiz by periodically
like a gnat. I didn't keep it. Another slow zone doesn't help, but I
persist and hit Bard 13. I finally find leather armor +1, which is
better than nothing. It takes me forever to find the stairs behind a
secret door.
|
An ioun stone goes whizzing around my head.
|
Level 9:
The stairs deposit me in a corridor with a death knight directly in
front of me, who roasts me with a fireball. I get killed nearly
instantly. After two reloads, I use a Scroll of Protection from Magic,
which keeps me alive long enough to kill the death knight. The second
enemy is spirit nagas. Lots of teleporters on this level. I find Bracers of Protection +3, and it's a tough call whether to equip them
over the Gauntlets of Hill Giant Strength. Also a Ring of Free Action.
Level 10: Ettins
and greater feyrs. The feyrs are particularly problematic because I
have no way to see invisibility. I just have to fire spells and toss
darts down the corridors and hope for the best. I hit Bard 15, which
means I'm now losing out on 3 Level 3 spell slots and 2 Level 5s, as
I've found no scrolls for those. For Level 4, I just have "Ice Storm."
This level has dark areas where you have to feel your way and watch the
automap for objects, doors, and switches. An undead beast blocks the way
to the next level. I found a Robe of the Archmagi when he dies, which
allows me to cast my spells and has a better AC than the leather +1. I
like win-win scenarios. I also hit Bard 16 when he dies. Tabletop
players would love this leveling pace.
|
These are probably the hardest enemies in the dungeon.
|
Level 11: Slithermorphs
and more death knights with a chimera chaser. A "Cone of Cold" scroll
finally gives me a Level 5 spell. Slithermorphs are all but impossible
to hit with spells in their goo form.
|
Maybe don't yell for the entire dungeon to hear while you're blind.
|
Level 12: Bone
nagas and wyverns, with an ogre slug boss. Funny how I'm getting
repeats. I find a Helm of Underwater Action, which alleviates my fears a
bit about the upcoming water level. I hit Bard 17. Now I have no Level 6
spells, either.
Level 13: Spirit
nagas and "watch ghosts," which is a new one. They can cast "Shocking
Hands" and some other spells, I think. I find an Ioun Stone of +1 Saves,
which I feel compelled to put on. I find the stairs before the boss. At
long last, there's a bardic instrument by the stairs: a set of pipes. I
identify them, and they're called Pipes of Feign Imagery. That doesn't
sound good, so I discard them.
|
This guy's doing more than watching.
|
Level 14: Medusas
are back, along with Tlincalis, which can poison, and I still don't
have a way to cure that unless I'm near one of those healing vending
machines. I find a Ring of Wizardry that doubles my Level 3 spells,
which would be great if I had any. I run into a floor trap for the first
time and hit Bard 19.
|
The first and only floor trap of the 18-level dungeon.
|
Level 15: Hags
and more bone nagas. At the end of the level, I finally get "Haste," a
Level 3 spell. I hit Bard 20, the highest level. I find an Ioun Stone of
Air, which I suspect I'll need on the water level. It occurs to me I
haven't noticed a boss enemy in a while. Maybe they stop generating at
some point. I keep finding Scrolls of Protection from Dragon's Breath
and thus expecting a dragon, but nothing so far.
Level 16: Still
no water level, which surprises me. I meet grave mists and flesh golems
in rough blue corridors. There are a lot of the bastards, and "Haste"
is a real help in combat. One of the golems finally drops a single
arrow, but I figure it's too late for me to pick up archery.
|
Fighting a flesh golem just as I exit a "hunger" area.
|
Level 17: Finally,
the water level. I wonder how people handle it if they're not clerics
and haven't discovered the right magic objects. It looks like any other
level, but with bubbles. Somehow, my spellbook, food, etc. are
unaffected. Enemies are water elementals and water weirds. Elementals
are hard to hit, but they die fast to "Magic Missile." It's like we're
regressing in enemy power. I find a set of thieves' tools, but I guess
bards can't use them. Wondering how the game is going to explain a dry
level beneath a water level, I head down.
|
As a bard, aren't I supposed to be part thief?
|
Level 18: I
arrive on the level and am immediately attacked by giant scorpions
called "scaladars." They take virtually no damage from my weapons or
cold-based spells, so I arm myself with an Amulet of Fireball and a Wand
of Acid and hope they'll hold out. With them are plain old minotaurs;
again, a weird regression. My hopes were in vain; there were a billion
of the bastards on the level. I had to retreat to the healing machine
about 20 times (fortunately, I had plenty of coins) and rest repeatedly
to restore "Magic Missile," the only spell that seemed to hurt the
scaladars.
The final enemy was a lich, I think. He killed me twice before I nailed him with enough spells around a corner to kill him.
|
Fighting my third final boss.
|
I
didn't like hitting max character level with so many dungeon levels to go. You apparently need a multi-classed character for any dungeon layout with more than 14 levels.
You'd have to play a triple-classed character to make a 25-level dungeon
worth it.
Most of those books are class and/or alignment specific. At this point I think they gave half a level of experience, at least for Gainful Conjuration (neutral arcane casters).
ReplyDeleteAh, that makes more sense. You'd think they could just not work for the wrong class, not kill you.
DeleteAlthough rarely implemented in computer games, first and second edition D&D are full of "gotcha" items, such as the Necklace of Strangulation (which looks like a beneficial magical necklace but instead it kills you), or the Rug of Smothering (which looks like the famous Flying Carpet except that, again, it kills you).
DeleteBasically, every broad class of item has a cursed variations that maims or kills your character (although often your teammates can do something about it, or just resurrect you afterwards).
Of course, that's the same line of thought that gave us the Mimic (a chest that kills you), Piercer (a stalactite that kills you), Cloaker (a cloak that kills you), and several other innocent-looking monsters. At least Mimics got to be famous in numerous computer games.
I'm curious how the Libram actually works in this game. It doesn't kill you in 1e, but it does 5-20 damage (which might have been enough to kill you outright), knocks you unconscious, and prevents you from gaining experience until you've atoned with the help of a cleric. Losing XP sounds right for the Book of Exalted Deeds (which is only usable for good clerics). I don't think there's a book for bards at all.
DeleteOh, and of course there's no way of identifying any of these books without reading them, reading "even a line" of them causes the negative effect, and in some cases you can get the effect just by handling them (the Book of Exalted Deeds can force thieves to abandon their class and assassins to kill themselves!). And the very existence of these books is unknown to players, since it's in the DMG.
It is hard to overstate how much 1e loved giving the DM tools to absolutely ruin players' lives.
Specifically, the book knocks you unconscious for 5--20 TURNS, which is an average of two hours. It's fair to say that lying unconcious for two hours, alone, in a dungeon with respawning monsters is lethal.
DeleteDungeon Hack was 2nd Edition Ad&d, though. I haven't played it in a while and I don't have enough experience with that particular book to know if they put every iteration into the game, but bards were treated as neutral priests, so lost 20-80,000 xp
Delete@Radiant: D&D had both the stalactite that killed you (piercers) and the stalacmite that killed you (groped). Atlas/Dark Sun even had the oasis that killed you. (Dune Trapper).
DeleteThe reason why it kills you instead of just not working, is that the wizards who created those librams...did not have a "live and let live" policy toward people whom they considered morally wrong.
DeleteThis is probably why they changed Identify to be so much weaker in 2nd edition: Everyone knew to cast it right away, which made cursed items pointless, so they weakened it so you could have cursed items again. I don't get the hostile DM/player interactions from back then to be honest. However, I know cursed items were a recommended way to deal with PCs that got too powerful back in the day.
DeleteI think my favorite ridiculous gotcha item is the bag of devouring. Looks like a bag of holding, but it eats/destroys whatever you put in it. You probably don't notice until you reach in for something and it bites you.
DeleteCurious. Did you attempt a pure Mage run? Given the challenges you've already noted, I'm curious how it may alter the experience...
ReplyDeleteSeriously - it's so masochistic it's not worth it.
DeleteA balanced game this was not.
The lack of perfect balance actually adds to the replayability of this game.
DeleteBut mages aren't the hardest class in this game. Limited spell slots are a problem for mages in a solo game, but vampiric touch is so overpowered it makes up for it. I'd say the thief is probably the hardest one.
"Just a reminder that water le els are never not stupid".
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that "Anvil of Dawn" could be an exemption to that rule.
As a sidenote, the art used for that "Dungeon Hack" ad seems to be the art of the Dungeons & Dragons "Red Box" with the red dragon replaced by some kind of demon.
That's true, the fighter figure is indeed the same, even if they changed much of the surroundings. I must know because I did a hand-drawn parody of that artwork for the album cover of a band.
DeleteDunno about Anvil yet, but I thought Shadowcaster's was a good exception to the rule. And not a RPG, but the Core Design Tomb Raider games did their water sections very well.
DeleteThe Dungeon Hack cover is a mash-up as per https://twitter.com/Dungeonbuster/status/1531427570230644736
Delete"The illustration used for the ad and packaging was a combo created from the art of two artists -- the illustration used for the "red box" cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic by Larry Elmore, and a Dragonlance piece by Jeff Easley."
The underwater level in AoD is underwater in name only though. As far as I remember, there aren't any special mechanics to it being underwater.
DeleteI thought Wizardry 8's underwater level was well done
DeleteGiven the habit of re-using stock art in D&D and D&D-licensed products around this time, I'm surprised they went to the effort of mashing together two pieces.
DeleteIt really is amazing how much effort companies put in to avoiding the creation of original artwork. Were graphic artists charging that much?
DeleteWell, I don't know how common this is in CRPGs; but in the land of tabletop RPGs, TSR (the company owning D&D at the time Dungeon Hack and EOB3 were made) was notorious for re-using art whenever possible. Their cardgame knockoff of Magic: the Gathering also has a LOT of re-used art.
DeleteI suppose in the pre-internet days, people were much less likely to find out about asset re-use.
The 1995 Japanese PC-98 version did use a completely different cover art, more anime/JRPG-style. Don't know if that one was original or also reused or rather copied from elsewhere / cobbled together from existing parts.
DeleteAs a sign of increasing globalization, according to mobygames the same year apparently saw a "Slash value release CD-ROM version" for South Africa.
You can also see signs of the transition from discs to CD-ROM in the early to mid-nineties already from this ad in the January 1994 CGW which besides DH promoted CD-versions of the first Dark Sun game and the EoB trilogy.
"Maybe I don't know what I'm looking for."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty certain you're looking for possibility space. This doesn't just matter for replayability. Well done, randomization can give you the feeling you're exploring uncharted space, as not even the developer charted out this specific journey. A functional economy plays into this, as it gives us a wide variety of possible tools with which to approach undetermined challenges.
"I complain that the randomized parts are flat and unrealistic"
Yes, that's what happens when randomization only covers the "exploration" part without also providing meaningful content to discover. This is understandable in terms of developer budget, as it would (say) require the resources for two games, of which a player would only see half in a single playthrough. However, most people are perfectly satisfied with something like Lands of Lore, which has no randomization, no economy, and a possibility space of basically 1 - and they do not even finish such a game, so there's little reason for a developer to spend additional effort.
I can say, though - if the Xeen games had randomized dungeons, monsters and quests, I'd probably be replaying them to this day.
Nice blog, Architect.
DeleteMaybe "possibility space which is also thematically meaningful"? For example, locations become more meaningful when you find interconnected notes and diary entries which describe what happened to the place, with references to other places and events in the game world. As far as I understand, this is missing from Starfield's procedurally generated locations.
"require the resources for two games, of which a player would only see half in a single playthrough."
Generally, the goal of procedural generation is not that the player should be served a different slice of predefined (and merely differently arranged) content for each playthrough, but that the interplay between the procedurally generated levels and the game's systems should create new and surprising situations to appear in each playthrough.
(I think that Dungeon Hack has few of these systemic interactions, and the combats are mostly encountered in a linear fashion, not least due to the narrow corridors, which means that they rarely interact, so the possibility space is small.)
When it comes to things such as notes or quests which give each place some thematic meaning, the straightforward approach is to create a stockpile of them manually and then for each playthrough, procedurally place some of them in the generated levels, clustered by topic. You're right that this thematic content can then be exhausted too soon while the generated levels themselves might otherwise still feel fresh.
One solution then is to procedurally generate the quests and lore, too. That's still a mostly unexplored game design space. The game Unexplored, for example, does a good job at the distribution of adventurer logs with hints for a specific puzzle or boss battle over multiple floors. (The procedurally generated puzzles are more complex, too, but always of a few specific types.)
The logs are assembled with different names and places each time, but otherwise have been manually written and are too limited in number. This specific game doesn't have any real story (it's "retrieve the Amulet of Yendor" again), is rather irreverent and occasionally breaks the fourth wall, so it's not as if these logs create a dense atmosphere. But I think that this approach, expanded a little, could be used to create enough thematic content for a more serious game.
Thank you! I need to update it more often.
DeleteI agree that the term is meant to designate the "space" that is created through the interaction of various system elements. However, the exact setup of those elements will depend on what exactly you expect from your space. The issue is that the more cohesive structure the player expects, be it in terms of narrative or architecture, the more difficult it is to achieve a satisfying result with procedural generation. I think it was JarlFrank who summed it up as "I want to explore a world, not test my build against randomized challenges". And I've toyed around with the procedural generation of lore and quests as well, but haven't been able to come up with a system I like. Thus, right now the idea is to use generation in areas that don't need all that much cohesion (e.g. caves rather than castles) and otherwise go more for the Darklands route.
That approach of a more low-key cohesive structure sounds interesting, though, I'll have to check that out. Is this just general interest or are you working on a project?
I'm just dabbling in this topic; it's very interesting. Do you work on something with procedural generation?
Delete"the more cohesive structure the player expects, be it in terms of narrative or architecture, the more difficult it is to achieve a satisfying result with procedural generation."
Coming from the other direction, if you have manually created a thematically consistent sequence of lore bits (such as logs or dialogues), and you don't have high expectations for the variability of the playthrough, then you could merely shuffle this content sequence a bit (mixing nearby elements only, to prevent the final parts from appearing at the beginning), leave some randomly chosen non-essential elements out, and place the remaining elements in the levels.
For example, the action roguelike Teleglitch has a mostly fixed sequence of carefully designed levels, items, enemies, and terminal logs. Roughly speaking, just the order of the rooms and the layout of each level is shuffled while the number of items and enemies is fixed. It's enough to achieve a decent degree of replayability while keeping the thematic content in a coherent sequence. (Plus, the item scarcity is very finely tuned, which is easily achievable with this approach.) You could use this approach for the whole game like Teleglitch, or only for the thematic content. Maybe something like this is suitable for more cohesive locations like the castles you mentioned.
I am indeed, so thank you for this rich discussion, and for introducing me to these interesting approaches. I would also have been interested in what our host thinks of the issue, given that he voices his appreciation of randomized elements at basically every opportunity, but at this point we probably appear to have gone off the deep end ;-) Well, I presume the topic will come up again eventually.
DeleteAA, sorry I didn't participate in this discussion earlier. I got way behind in comments--am still way behind, in fact--but I read your February blog article on the subject (no way to comment?) I think you have a better grasp of the issues than I do (or did, before reading these comments).
DeleteI suppose what it comes down to is that I'm more excited about random generation of content than random generation of physical space. I like hand-designed worlds. Procedurally-designed ones always seem shallow and unrealistic, and the only time I can get into them is when they're just abstractions in the first place, as in NetHack.
Within those hand-designed spaces, however, I like a certain randomization of content. I'd love to fire up a game like Fallout 3, leave the vault, and find that the people of Megaton have slightly different problems than the last time I visited, or that the supermarket is occupied by mutants this time instead of raiders, or that Moira Brown has the schematics for the railway rifle instead of the Rock-it Launcher. I don't like that you can "solve" all the quests for areas of a game in perpetuity. Why don't the NPCs ever have any new problems 25 hours after you solved their old ones?
I realize that some of what I ask for puts a lot of work on the developers, and I understand your point about many players never experiencing that additional content. I'm willing to pay for it, though. I'll reiterate what I've said multiple times before: we need a halfway point between a fixed, single-player RPG and an MMORPG that's constantly being updated with new content. Call it a single-player persistent universe (SPPU). I pay a monthly fee, and you keep updating the world with new content, but I never have to encounter another player.
"It's literally called the "Oxford comma." You think it was named after Oxford, Alabama?" -- given how much more popular it is in the US than in UK, you would think so. Even the Oxford's own modern style guide says: "Note that there is no comma between the penultimate item in a list and
ReplyDelete‘and’/‘or’, unless required to prevent ambiguity" (https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/University%20of%20Oxford%20Style%20Guide.pdf#page=15.07)
Laughed very heartily at this one. The last time I went to Oxford, Alabama it was about 20 degrees and we nearly froze to death (we are not prepared for such here in humidity land) as we watched our football team play in the quarterfinals of the state playoffs. After a 7-7 tie at the half, the Oxford boys soundly thumped us with 21 unanswered points. A considerable amount in the days of I-formation ball with about 10 total passes in the whole game! My trombone was frozen to my lips by the middle of the fourth quarter... Memories!
DeleteYep, and it's the same in most European languages. In fact, Oxford comma got prominent only recently, after one lover court used it do throw out the deal the prosecution made with the suspect, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling (with Kagan being a surprising voice of reason).
DeleteIt's comforting to know that 'Menzoberranzan' and the two 'Ravenloft' titles are coming up in the not too distant future. I enjoyed them quite a bit back in the day.
ReplyDeleteLevels 5 and 10 are basically gate-keeper levels and are usually more difficult than expected. Level 5 also often has Cockatrices as the main monster. Level 10 and the Greater Feyrs is really tough.
ReplyDeleteMenzo and the 2 Ravenloft games are 1st person, party-based games with free movement on a gridded landscape. A somewhat weird in-between step.
Weird? Weren't M&M 6-8 using the same system?
DeleteNah, the environments in those MM games weren't rigidly gridded -- in Menzo/Ravenloft, the engine allowed you to swap back to step-by-step movement if you preferred, because that's how the maps were actually built.
DeleteLike, here's the automap of a MM6 dungeon:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuser.xmission.com%2F~tnelson%2Fmm6%2Fgameplay%2Fplaces%2FCastleIronfist%2Ftemple-of-baa.html&psig=AOvVaw0CppROSC113MT57B4GoEFh&ust=1714777092441000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCNjLoM2I8IUDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
And here's a Ravenloft map:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/564797-ravenloft-strahds-possession/map/18852-castle-ravenloft-dungeons
Not surprised to see a half-assed review from the PC Zone, given their often stated dislike of "elf games". The entire publication give me a Lads' Mag vibe, and I suspect they were always a little embarrassed to be playing computer games.
ReplyDeleteThe Lads' Mag thing became unfortunately prevalent in UK magazines in the 90s.
DeleteI found them funny when I was 14, but the idea they were written by and for adults is a bit worrying.
DeleteA game guide suggests the Pipes of Feign Imagery would help locate hidden doors. I'm not sure I understand the name of the item, though, which sounds either backward or someone picked the wrong word from a thesaurus.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best procedurally generated game worlds I can think of is the original Diablo. It had just enough randomness to provide a bit of a different challenge each time, wasn't too long overall, and some of the side missions were randomly generated too. The addition of having mini-boss enemies with better loot helps with exploration too.
ReplyDeleteThere are more indie games with interesting takes on this idea, but I think it'll be a very long time before you reach them on this blog!
"The game raises a lot of questions about the role of randomization in our enjoyment of CRPGs. Normally, I think that modern commercial titles randomize too little. I feel that if they're going to make us wait 15 years between major releases in a series, developers should give us as much randomization as they can to enhance replayability. Certainly, some aspects of the plot have to occur in specific locations with specific NPCs and enemies and with specific objects. But a lot could be randomized without affecting the basic outline of most games, including (often) the starting location, which side quests are available, which NPCs give you various side quests, where NPCs can be found, what rewards you get for completing quests, what monsters you find in various locations, and the actual layout of those locations, to include what doors are locked, what floors are trapped, and where you find certain enemies and treasures."
ReplyDeleteI find it kind of funny that you don't mention the place where I feel lack of randomization really hurts a game - loot. Not simply quest rewards (which you do mention), but the random treasure you find in chests or on the ground. Many modern games I've played feature a lot of soft "trap" options because the loot is all hand-placed, and (for example) character resources put into Axes are wasted if almost all the good treasure weapons are Swords.
That's a good point. I think that when I was writing the paragraph, I was actually thinking of regular loot when I (for some reason) wrote "rewards you get for completing quests." There's actually a decent reason for many of those to be fixed.
DeleteI was intrigued with your comment "Reviews got worse heading east" so you made me check the French reviews:
ReplyDeleteGeneration 4: 72% [short review]. This is mediocre for the magazine as it effectively rated between 65% and 95% except for really terrible terrible games.
Joystick: 74%. Fun for 2-3 runs, and good to wait between two deeper releases. Joysticks rated on a broader range so 74% is decent.
Tilt: 84%... but Tilt loved everything (typical rating range: 75%-95%). Still a very positive review and they love the Ironman mode
In Italy,
K PC gives it 805/1000. Not sure of their range (700-950 from a quick check?) but in the same magazine Doom receives 930/1000 and Sim City 950/1000. The reviewer notes that to enjoy the game he had to take a Cleric multiclassed - even a Paladin and his "Lay on Hands" did not cut it.
The Games Machine [Italian]: 86% which is quite good for the magazine as it rates between 75% and 95%.
Finally, in Poland, the magazine Secret Service gave it a whooping 90% so the "going East" rule does not verify. As you say, ratings are all over the place.
let me check the Spanish canon, because I remember it was a bit cold in Micromania
Delete[time passes]
There it is, number 70, score 73 which was fairly low. Done by the guy who was more into crpgs (who gave a stellar score to Shadowlands, favourite game of the crpg players of the magazine for long for some reason). He makes the same points in just a couple of sentences of opinion: good if you don't have any other crpg around because it is a bit dumb. Which is very much the same thing everyone else said at the time. Given that this was written later than the rest of the world release, I have a suspicion that these guys just copied/translated other reviews.
This magazine was wild. Return to zork has a 93, Man Enough a 89, Protostar a 78. In Extremis, that dumb boring slow Aliens walking thing, 94. And Sam & Max a 94 as well. They just explained the game in several paragraphs and left an opinion in the last few sentences, opinions that did not mean much. They were so bad. At least they were entertaining.
Someone once said to me that the reason why In Extremis got such a high score from those guys is because they never heard of Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. That's certainly believable, since from what I can tell having just glanced at the magazine over the years, they don't spend much effort. For instance, they expressed zero interest in the shareware scene, especially the domestic shareware scene, at a time when a lot of good games out.
DeleteNah, Wolfenstein 3D was really famous at least in Spain - it was one of the chosen games to be pirated EVERYWHERE. With In Extremis I am more and more convinced that they were just translating/copying some British magazines. I understand that there is not enough time in one month to play everything you want to review, but I would say that if you are going to give a high score to a game then you should at least be familiar with the game. Oh well, then Rise of the Robots happened.
DeleteIt's not necessarily referring to Spain in general, just the people working for that magazine. Or the magazine they ripped it off from.
Deleteyeah, thought of that later, while I was chopping courgettes. Sorry, my brain works with a lot of lag.
DeleteThere were two reviews in Czech magazines - rating the game 51% (Excalibur) and 66% (Score). Both magazines were quite hardcore Dungeon Master fans and found the game repetitive, and not innovative (bringing nothing new over EOB3, which in itself they rate poorly).
DeleteThere were two reviews in Czech magazines - rating the game 51% (Excalibur) and 66% (Score). Both magazines were quite hardcore Dungeon Master fans and found the game repetitive, and not innovative (bringing nothing new over EOB3, which in itself they rate poorly).
DeleteTo give a bit of context to the German reviews: You mention the two worst ones out of the five listed in this overview. And I understand numerical ratings were used quite differently among magazines. Where today anything below 80% can almost be regarded as "crap", apparently those ones used the full scale a bit more - e.g. the 49% review you mention to me reads more positive than the British PC Zone one which gave it 62%.
DeleteSo, PC Joker (29%) didn't even see the relationship to Hack and just found it to have no purpose. PC Player's 49% are their reflection of "absolute average", in their view it becomes repetitive and boring after a while.
A slightly better "average" rating also came from the PlayTime mini-review (graphics 70%, sound 62%, fun 55%, no overall score). PC Games (graphics 60%, sound 60%, handling 70%, fun 65%,) viewed it as the pure hack'n'slash version of EoB, lacking conversations and challenging puzzles, with monotony being its biggest drawback (same walls on each level, only two monster types per level). Power Play gave it 69% which in the reviewer's categories translated as "good". Not surprisingly, he was a fan of the original Hack and saw this as a modernized iteration, just misses the shops.
Those three games (Ravenloft, Menzo, etc) were great blobbers which dispensed with the squares and allows you to move around in 360 kinda reminiscent of Ultima Underworld I guess. I remember them fondly.
ReplyDeleteWizardry 8 was a later development of the concept -- a fully 3D engine with blobber mechanics. I wish more games had continued in that vein, although I understand why they didn't.
DeleteI think most of those have a map that's fully square-based, but you can move freely among those squares (like e.g. in the old Wolfenstein, as opposed to Doom and UO which support polygon-based maps). Is that right?
DeleteRealms of Arkania 2 is this weird hybrid where you can use both free and step-based movement. There's one chest however that is only reachable in free movement.
Delete@stepped pyramids - there were are quite a lot of those though: RoA2-3, Albion, Might&Magic6-9, Wizards&Warriors... If the recent blobber revival has taught us anything though it's that going from step-based to 3D just doesn't bring enough to the blobber experience to give up on the speed and elegance of step-based games. Dreamforge themselves apparently made the same conclusion and returned to step-based movement for Anvil of Dawn.
Let me jump in here to recommend them as well. The first Ravenloft is very much on the same style as Shadowcaster (there is a huge difference between games like Albion or Wiz8 where the battles become turn based and games like this one or MM6 where it is "real time" which is another way to say "it's wolfenstein 3d but with monsters), but this one I played it two years ago and I found it very fun. I am very picky with games, but straightforward ones that are fairly clear in their pointers and that introduce the world gradually are definitely some that won't grow ever old.
DeleteMM6 let you switch between real time and a classical blobber combat, it's just that in my years of speaking to people who liked it I haven't seen a single one who played it not like a shooter.
DeleteWhich tells you something about how people prefer to actually play.
Really? I found when I played MM6-8 I'd toggle between the modes pretty frequently, and typically defaulted to turn-based. There were a few exploits that would bias things, though -- getting monsters stuck on the geometry tended to be easier in real-time mode, while once you got Fly, the best way to kill hard baddies outside was to go to turn-based mode and pelt them with spells and ranged weapons, because even when it was their turn to shoot at you, you could swoop down or up to dodge their projectiles.
DeleteMaybe you hung around older people. When it came out, I was 16. Everyone in my class played it as a shooter with archers/mages.
DeleteWasn't one of those three games (Menzo, Ravenloft) more Doom-like? I could have sworn seeing a screenshot of one with a raised platform.
Delete@RG, really, even in dangerous situations? I can see doing that when you can handle them without trouble, but doing that all the time sounds like a good way to end up dead.
Yeah, I would have been 17 definitely wasn’t older and wiser! But yeah running and gunning just seemed to lead to death unless the baddies were very easy.
Delete@MorpheusKitami they are almost the same game with a different skin. Anvil of Dawn actually used a different technology - they even dropped the unusual resolution of 320x400 which was almost demo-like and so characteristic of Dreamforge games.
DeleteI played MM6-MM8 in turn-based mode a lot, too. It's the only way to carefully target spells. In the early game, when you're weak, it's much easier to survive in turn-based mode than in FPS mode.
DeleteMM6-7 turn into shooters once you have the endgame weapons. I think MM8 got rid of them.
DeleteThere's some utility to it in the early game, against those priests and mages when you haven't built up any resistances yet. You can dash around a corner, shoot your arrows, and quicky run back. Helped by the bad/nonexisting pathfinding in the game.
Pelting enemies that have no ranged weapons with arrows in turn based mode almost feels like real-time, though.
MM6+7 definitely become easier the farther in you go. The one Dragon dungeon towards the end of 6 was much easier to just backpedal in real time and hold down the attack button (think A) to have everyone spam non-stop ranged attacks than it was to play tactically and cast spells. Worst case scenario, you retreated around a corner, turned on turn based,healed, and went back to real time
DeleteAround the time those games came out, there was also Descent to Undermountain, an Ad&D game shoved into the Descent engine, which might be what you were thinking of, MorpheusKitami, although Menzo and the Ravenloft games were also in a 3d plane, could levitate and shoot dudes from the ceiling. They also had some really interesting NPC's tou could recruit, compared to what had come before in Dungeons and Dragons video games
I'm glad to read that you liked this game. It was always a favorite of mine back in the 90s. Well, looks like it's time to create a cleric/ranger and set forth on another journey... (By the way, I hope your professor job is going well. When you posted about it several years ago, I told you in a comment that university administrators are the worst. I stand by the comment - that's all I will say about that. I trust your experience with them has been better than mine was!)
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that was your experience. I've had no problems with the administrators at my university. There are things I don't like about the job, but it's not the other adults.
DeleteI mean, as long as one of your departmental secretaries isn't fired and investigated by your local equivalent of the RCMP under suspicion of stealing from grad students and embezzlement, you'll have a better time then a lot of people I knew in grad school.
DeleteSee? This is what I mean when I say that Chet was unfair towards Shadowcaster - it has actual 3d combat, uses 3d engine for graphics, has thematic consistency for levels - yet somehow manages to get 2 points less for "graphics, sound, and interface". Same goes for "gameplay", where wizard classes in DH are absolutely NOT fun to play due to nerfed magic, and cleric is ridiculously overpowered - yet somehow this is favourably compared to Shadowcaster, which honestly implements stealth elements, and has actual ability-based puzzles rather than "insert a fancy key into a schmancy lock".
ReplyDeleteIt is a perfect illustration of why around 1994 or so blobbers simply died out - there was an old guard of gamers who loved them because they played loads and loads of them, yet the whole genre with its conventions of spinners, teleports and pressure plates became a thing of its own, while at the same time a relatively modest attempt to change conventions about how a 3D example of an RPG genre should look like scared the blobber-fans away. Yet at the same time Shadowcaster, in the long run, was an extremely influential game because it showed the other way things could be done in the industry, and a lot of the games followed suit, with blobbers becoming a thing of the past.
It's quite helpful to compare these two games as well, because neither one has a deep plot, dialogues, non-combat roleplaying, and so on, and so forth.
There's not necessarily anything about blobbers that wouldn't work in a Wolfenstein-style or Doom-style engine. Bram Stoker's Dracula, contemporary to all these games, does the spinners, teleports and pressure plates in an entirely action environment and is all the cleverer for it. With something like Doom, the only problem is making a spinner that doesn't immediately reveal the jig is up.
DeleteThe bigger issue is that the level design of the Wolfenstein-style games and especially Wolfenstein itself were done by people who didn't play blobbers and didn't understand anything about blobbers. I've noticed a tendency among such games to have level design one could describe as plopped down with little thought. Something that would give any blobber player, used to very tightly designed levels, considerable disappointment on maps that aren't that different. Dungeon design has arguably never recovered.
Anyway, that doesn't really have anything to do with Shadowcaster, it was one of the few non-blobbers to do that sort of level design well. Just an observation that the march of progress isn't always a good one.
There's a lot of games where "actual 3d combat, uses 3d engine for graphics" is to their detriment rather than their advantage, especially in this era. Looking at the Shadowcaster rating, it seems like he thought the controls weren't as good as they could be. I also personally think Dungeon Hack looks a lot better than Shadowcaster.
DeleteAnd about "Gameplay," Chet's gameplay category is about alinearity, replayability including different experiences for different classes, difficulty, and pacing. So there "clerics are overpowered and wizards are nerfed" is probably a positive for Dungeon Hack, because it allows you to customize the difficulty and have different experiences, and it's far more replayable than Shadowcaster which seems like it's pretty much the same experience each time. Can you imagine Chet playing Shadowcaster four times the way he just did with Dungeon Hack?
DeleteThe stealth elements seem like they'd go under "combat" where Shadowcaster did score higher than Dungeon Hack. (Honestly I forget where Chet usually scores puzzles!)
But also I think the ratings reflect that Shadowcaster is more of an action game, and this blog isn't "The Action Game Addict."
@Morpheus I remember hate playing Dracula, and I cannot remember the spinners. Wasn't Hexx the one with all those elements?
Delete@Stepped Pyramid, Dungeon Hack looks good if and only if you look at static screenshots and don't see two frame animations and junky discrete movement, as opposed to very smooth ID engine, and much better sprites. Also, the control scheme of that game was as good as it could get at the time.
DeleteContemporary reviews reflected that; if anything, the failure to go beyond first level of Dungeon Hack is more of a "been there, done that" attitude.
What's more, the whole ordeal reminds me vividly of forum battles of the early 2000's, with the "old guard" (mostly in their late 30es, since you needed to work to afford a PC in early 1990es) romanticizing old offerings with their grids and their parties, and us new guard (people in early 20es who got PCs in high school when they became affordable) being completely underwhelmed by the older offerings, even though we played them extensively.
Part of the reason I am stuck on this blog is that some points raised here remind me that I was wrong. However, this whole Dungeon Hack ordeal reminds me why we were right, particularly about the whole blobber thing, and that the "old guard" truly was starry-eyed about how they loved that "combat waltz" thing even though it had little to do with the idea of RPG in the first place and feels like a clutch for a proper 3D action/RPG, of which Shadowcaster was a herald of things to come.
I don't care about discrete versus smooth movement at all. I wouldn't have given Dungeon Hack a 6 on this myself, in part because of the lack of good animations, but Shadowcaster's animations are just as choppy, and because of the old 3D you're constantly looking at over-zoomed textures.
DeleteI'm not coming to this from an "old guard" perspective at all, because I have never liked realtime blobbers at all, from Dungeon Master on through Grimrock, and I much prefer action RPGs to them. I just don't think it's reasonable to call it "unfair" that Chet rated one over the other. It's his scale.
> I don't care about discrete versus smooth movement at all.
DeleteThis only works if you never played either of the games. Seriously, I can suspend disbelief for static fights if the whole thing was seriously turn-based, but the fact that the core gameplay is real-time maneuvering, it just feels extremely weird.
Dungeon Hack as a peak discrete movement game; Shadow Caster is an early smooth-movement game. The GIMLET awards the gameplay experience, not innovation. There were times in SC I couldn't tell what I was looking at. Also, for the billionth time, the category has three things in it.
Deletestepped pyramids and matt w represent my position quite well here, so I guess I don't need to say anything beyond that.
Yeah, I think just as it's easy to look at the annoying inaccessibility of more stat-heavy RPGs with rose-colored glasses, it is very possible to have inaccurate memories of exactly how disorienting and awkward navigation in early free-movement were.
DeleteSpeaking of Menzo and the two Ravenloft games, they're a good test case for where things were at in this era, since they enable free movement by default but are actually grid-based. When first I played them seriously seven or eight years ago, I wound up turning on the option to restrict movement to the grid because it wound up being a notably better gameplay experience. Or try playing Lands of Lore 2 and see how far you get, compared to LoL 1.
Or Amberstar compared to Ambermoon.
Delete@CRPG Addict, I am very surprised by your stance.
Delete> There were times in SC I couldn't tell what I was looking at
This is very surprising to me, since Shadowcaster would be one of the most colorful 3D RPG's of the 90es. It featured high contrast monsters and textures, where dark parts were featured very sparingly, and sprites were actually hand drawn and well done. Either it is your colorblindness kicking in, or something else, but it would get worse before it would get better, when developers will adopt "all the colors of shit" palette in the wake of Quake and Diablo. And, mind it, early 3D models would look uglier.
> Dungeon Hack as a peak discrete movement game
This is also extremely puzzling, since Dungeon Hack neither looked terribly nice (again, just compare it to the Lands of Lore from the same year), nor broke any grounds in terms of how this same discrete movement was used. I could understand the argument that it deserves high "gameplay" grades because of randomization, but this grade puts it higher than everything but Ragnarok: Valhalla, which is a MUCH better game.
However, the biggest problem with Dungeon Hack is the nature of the gameplay: in order to get any fun out of it, you need to already master the core mechanic, the silly combat waltz which had nothing to do AT ALL with roleplaying. The payoff for mastering this mechanic in the game itself is nonexistent; it's like one of those single-player multiplayer shooters from the 2000's where you suppose to have fun by fighting bots in AI-controlled death match, which is, at best, a niche within the niche.
This is precisely what the contemporary reviews from both games got right, by the way. In Dungeon Hack's case, it was hard to recommend to people, because it served a niche within the niche, with little to offer to anyone else, which was perfectly reflected in its underwhelming sales. Gameplay juggernaut it was not.
@Carlos, quick question, how far did you get in Dracula? I'm curious because when I originally played the game myself, I only made it a little past the initial forest and hated the game, but when I replayed it and actually got past that I found it to be solidly designed. Once you get past the forest it very much turns into a DM-style game, but completely action. Then it shines.
Delete@RG, people are just as likely to be distracted by the new shiny thing as they are in romanticizing old things. I'm not really sure what RPGs past Shadowcaster had that was really all that better than DM-clones. Hold down attack button, get into range, attack, back up, hold attack button, repeat until dead isn't more interesting than combat waltzing. If anything, it's just a different kind of combat waltz, one nobody bothered to name. Nor do I see why that of all things turn it into a proper 3D action RPG.
Also, there are many, many reasons why people make fun of game journalists, and not bothering to play something you're being paid to review is one of them.
Looking over a video of Dungeon Hack, since I've never played it, it does actually strike me that it's not a particularly good looking DM-clone. Shadowcaster and Hack are very much in different categories since even though SC doesn't have the best amount of animation, Hack seems to move so slowly that it might as well not have any, but Chet has never cared about graphics so complaining about it is like complaining about the changing of the seasons and the tides of the sea.
@Chet, wait, what? How is DH peak discrete movement when you complain that the movement system isn't always working in a smooth way? Nothing about the way it plays seems to me to be better than how Dungeon Master did it back in '87. Which is arguably a problem with DM-clones, they're all inferior copies in some way and you only play them because you loved the master.
@MK, try Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, or Gothic. And, generally, all games are artificial - but using what started as an exploit to catch an enemy in a sideway animation frame is a really, really strange form of gameplay.
DeleteCome to think of it, the death spell of this whole Dungeon Hack clone bullshit (I'm saying "bullshit" here, because, as evident from the reviews, this whole genre was built around Dungeon Hack mechanics that didn't have much anything to do with RPGs) was Diablo. It was the game that did combat infinitely better, was not limited by D&D mechanics, did away with dragons and gnomes, and was unashamedly randomized. Which is why, perhaps, it was hated so much in certain circles, to the point that some RPG forums explicitly excluded Diablo and its clones from discussions.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well, Diablo did a real time Rogue/Hack which turned out to be a clickfest, and also dropped many rpg ideas very visibly even while you were playing it. I guess for many hardcore crpg gamers (to put a label on it) it was just too frustratingly close to be what they were dreaming about.
DeleteRandomGamer, reactionary takes by old guard are not evidence one way or the other. For example, commercial text adventures were completely replaced by point and click adventures which then died off. Both styles of games have different strengths and weaknesses, which appeal to different people. And some people are happy never to play any of them.
DeleteLikewise, blobbers offer a distinct experience that appeals to some people. Calling it bullshit is rather uncharitable. It is true that the general gaming public has moved away from these styles of games. Probably for a lot of people that form of gameplay aligned closest to their interests at that time, and when more real-time elements became possible, blobbers immediately became uninteresting.
Today IF games and point and clicks are both more numerous than they were during their hayday. Blobbers are quite rare today, so perhaps there just aren't that many fans compared to the effort required in making them. It still doesn't mean it's not a valid position to value them.
Chet: Part of your disappointment with Skyrim's sequels taking so long to come out might be that you played on console? If you play on PC you have entire new lands to explore, mods to redo the combat and magic systems, etc. I think Bethesda has put a lot of time into the modding system instead of putting that time into replayability.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. I honestly have trouble getting into mods. I know some of them are excellent, but excellent fan fiction is still fan fiction.
DeleteThat's a reasonable objection to things like Tamriel Rebuilt or Fallout London, but there's things like Endreal that are entirely independent original creations that happen to use the existing game engine and assets as a blank canvas.
DeleteThat and, it isn't like there is one person behind The Elder Scrolls writing, the same at any large game company. I don't know how it is at Bethesda, but for example, I have seen in a documentary that there is not a single person left at the studio that makes the modern Hitman games that worked on any of the original few. The whole team has gradually changed, Ship of Theseus style.
DeleteAnd if that is the case, why shouldn't I enjoy a story by an enthusiastic fan, it isn't any closer or further from the original creators vision than the current writers.
(That an the point about Enderal; that was eventually released as it's own game on Steam if I recall correctly).
Plus Skyblivion and Skywind are getting close to releases; Those are recreations of older games in the Skyrim engine (And while I enjoy Oblivion's jank, it's level up system was REALLY broken and it's combat very floaty, so I'll appreciate seeing it in Skyrim)
Finally, honestly I don't use new quest mods. But it is amazing how much a few quality of life features or a texture refresh, or some new music can breath life into an old game.
I've occasionally enjoyed a mod that adds new challenges to the game, like the one for Skyrim that causes you to freeze to death. You're right that I was thinking more of quest mods when I wrote the above.
DeleteYou make good points about fans having arguably as much right to the characters as the descendants of the creators. My attitude towards mods (and fan fiction) probably has less to do with any honest differences and more to do with wanting hard lines around things so I don't become overwhelmed with the sheer volume of options available to me.
"Plus Skyblivion and Skywind are getting close to releases." Thousands of gamers roar with laughter.