Friday, February 19, 2016

Game 211: Vengeance of Excalibur (1991)

Neither the title, nor the graphics, nor the sentiment seem very Arthurian.
    
Vengeance of Excalibur
United States
Synergistic Software (developer and publisher)
Released 1991 for DOS, 1992 for Amiga and Atari ST
Date Started: 14 February 2016
        
Oh, let's begin by taking a look at a long passage from T. H. White's The Once and Future King. It is early in Arthur's reign--he has only weeks before pulled the sword from the stone--and the young Arthur is fighting an early war against some rebelling kings led by Lot and Uriens. He has been enjoying the battles, thinking them more as sport than combat. Merlin disapproves.

"Have you thought seriously about the state of your country...or are you going to go on all your life being like Uther Pendragon? After all, you are King of the place."

"I have not thought very much."

"No. Then let me do some thinking with you. Suppose we think about your Gaelic friend, Sir Bruce Sans Pitié."

"That fellow!"

"Exactly. And why do you say it like that."

"He is a swine. He goes murdering maidens--and as soon as a real knight turns up to rescue them, he gallops off for all he is worth. He breeds special fast horses so that nobody can catch him, and he stabs people in the back. He's a marauder. I would kill him at once if I could catch him."

"Well," said Merlyn, "I don't think he is very different from the others. What is all this chivalry, anyway? It simply means being rich enough to have a castle and a suit of armor, and then, when you have them, you make the Saxon people do what you like. The only risk you run is getting a few bruises if you happen to come across another knight. Look at that tilt you saw between Pellinore and Grummore, when you were small. It's this armor that does it. All the barons can slice the poor people about as much as they want, and it is a day's work to hurt each other, and the result is that the country is devastated. Might is Right, that's the motto. Bruce Sans Pitié is only an example of the general situation. Look at Lot and Nentres and Uriens and all that Gaelic crew, fighting against you for the Kingdom. Pulling swords out of stones is not legal proof of paternity, I admit, but the kings of the Old Ones are not fighting you about that. They have rebelled, although you are their feudal sovereign, simply because the throne is insecure. England's difficulty, we used to say, is Ireland's opportunity. This is their chance to pay off racial scores, and to have some blood-letting as sport, and to make a bit of money in ransoms. Their turbulence does not cost them anything themselves because they are dressed in armor--and you seem to enjoy it too. But look at the country. Look at the barns burnt, and dead men's legs sticking out of ponds, and horses with swelled bellies by the roadside, and mills falling down, and money buried, and nobody daring to walk abroad with gold or ornaments on their clothes. That is chivalry nowadays. That is the Uther Pendragon touch. And then you talk about a battle being fun!"

"I was thinking of myself."

"I know."

"I ought to have thought of the people who had no armor."

"Quite."

"Might isn't Right, is it, Merlyn?"

This is a pivotal passage in White's version of the tale, starting Arthur along the line of thinking that will eventually lead to the Round Table. I bring it up for a couple of reasons. First, the villain of Vengeance of Excalibur, or at least the first act, is given as Sir Breuse Sans Pitié, or roughly "Sir Bruce the Pitiless." He's an interesting character. He shows up out of nowhere in a series of French Arthurian texts starting in the late 1100s and is shared among so many that there's probably an origin story somewhere that we haven't found. He really is as bad as Arthur characterizes him in the passage; depending on the source, he's said to ambush other knights, rape peasants, and kill maidens for no reason. If some king is in rebellion against Arthur for selfish reasons, you can be sure Breuse (alternately Bereuse, Brehu, Breunis, Breusso, Breuz) is on his list of retainers. Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur is full of scenes in which some knight--Lancelot, Palamedes, Tristan, Dinadan, you name it--comes across Breuse trampling some hapless knight with his horse and then making a swift getaway as soon as he is challenged. I think some source has Lancelot eventually kill him for stealing a shield, but he's still alive by the end of Malory's version, having frustrated every attempt to stop his nonsense once and for all. Thus, I suppose it's not impossible that he could have shown up to plague Constantine, although he would have been pretty old at the time.

Secondly, note the appearance of "Saxon" in White's version, which seems a little out of place. (Not to mention "England" and "Ireland.") In most Arthurian sources, the Saxons are ruthless conquerors who Arthur fights, not helpless peasants that he's supposed to protect. But White does a weird thing with the Arthurian story: he moves it ahead in time nearly 700 years so that Arthur and his knights are Normans. Uther Pendragon is said to have conquered Britain, not William I; in fact, William is explicitly named as a fictional character in Arthur's Britain. Although jarring, this isn't uncommon. Throughout the history of Arthurian literature, authors have changed dates and settings to make better use of desired historical themes, whether it's Geoffrey of Monmouth establishing the Normans as the natural inheritors of Arthur's legacy to better bolster the rule of his patrons, Hector Boece making Mordred a hero to suggest a Scottish claim to the English throne, White using the Saxon/Norman conflict as a parable for ethnic violence, or the 2004 film King Arthur using the story to explore the waning influence of Rome in the British Isles.
   
Here, I'm using this caption to explore how little political rhetoric has changed in a thousand years.
   
In the case of Vengeance of Excalibur, I'm guessing, someone at Synergistic had just done a bunch of reading on Al-Andalus--the part of Spain conquered by Muslims in the mid-700s and held until the mid-1000s--and decided they needed to set a game there. If it was 20 years later and Synergistic had the license, it would have been a sequel to Assassin's Creed, but in this case, looking across the properties they owned, they quickly ruled out The Third Courier, Conan, and NY Warriors (brief consideration: "what if they found a portal through space and time?!") and were left with Spirit of Excalibur, never mind that this means moving the game forward 450 years from the date explicitly given in its predecessor, that most of the characters in the game are canonically dead, that the Arthurian period pre-dates the founding of Islam, and that Spain is mentioned maybe 6 times in thousands of Arthurian texts spanning 1,500 years.

The game takes place against a backdrop of Muslim and Christian clashes in Spain and Portugal.
   
Thus, as the game begins, Merlin isn't trapped in a cave for eternity; he's sitting at Constantine's side as an advisor. Lancelot hasn't retired to hermitage to live out his remaining years in penance and grief; he's right at the head of the Round Table. The other knights haven't journeyed to Israel to die in battle against the Saracens. The Holy Grail isn't a metaphorical object untouchable by human hands and drawn into Heaven after the conclusion of the disastrous Grail Quest, nor is Excalibur at the bottom of a lake awaiting the next True King; they're both just sitting in Camelot's treasure vault. King Æthelred the Unready doesn't exist, apparently, and the Saxons never conquered Britain at all.

Apparently, this "shadowmaster" is going to be the big bad of the game.
    
I mention all of this because a couple of commenters indicated they enjoyed my Spirit of Excalibur postings for how I analyzed the game through the lens of my Arthurian expertise. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do that here. We've left Arthurian legend far behind, bringing characters who shouldn't be alive (or even exist together in the same continuity) to a part of the world in which no Arthurian legend is ever set. I've said pretty much all I can say on it. We probably will learn a bit about Islamic Iberia, which is nice because that's something of a gray area for me.

Vengeance of Excalibur uses the same basic engine and approach as its predecessor (which had been previously used in 1988's War in Middle Earth). The game is organized into seven scenarios, each with its own specific objective. You select a small number from among a stable of knights to go to various places and complete quests. As you navigate the scenario, you switch frequently between "map level" and "scene level" and occasionally fight battles with armies rather than just individuals. The graphics and sound are state of the art for the time.

At the map level, I check out the composition of my party on the move.
   
I had a few problems with Spirit of Excalibur, starting with scant RPG elements. The only thing that remotely qualifies the games as RPGs is that your characters can increase their skills through use. That sounds good except that you have so many characters and need them so infrequently that such skill increases are largely unnecessary. Worse, success in later scenarios depends heavily on random things that you do in earlier scenarios, such as visiting some random city to buy a couple of herbs, or sending a particular character in the right direction. Every scenario, no matter how much of the map it uses, takes place on the entire game map, where various things are constantly happening--armies moving, NPCs getting attacked by bandits, raiders looting cities--and it's unclear how much you're supposed to care about them. Very often, you simply have no idea what to do or where to go. I don't know if Synergistic expected players to go through the entire game multiple times, taking notes on things they needed to do in earlier scenarios to complete later ones, but that kind of dynamic doesn't work for someone in my situation.
   
Only these attributes, which increase slowly based on combats and other events, qualify the game as an RPG.
   
Unfortunately, it appears to me that these problems are even worse in Vengeance than Spirit. Gameplay takes place across the entire Iberian peninsula. You can visit any city in any scenario, even though you don't need to visit 90% of them, and armies both Islamic and Christian are on the move regardless of what you're doing at any given time. Individual soldiers, messengers, gypsies, flagellants, and monks also constantly criss-cross the map, sometimes meeting up with the player's party, sometimes meeting up with each other, sometimes getting slaughtered by large groups of bandits. It sounds like a lot of fun, and it could be, but I find it more frustrating than fun when I have a vague goal like "find a way to cure Nineve!" and I'm set loose on a map with dozens of potential cities to visit and dozens of moving NPCs to talk with, and for one reason or another I might still miss the key thing to do (see below). The manual gives you some help with what you're supposed to accomplish in each scenario, but not much.
   
Some of the actions available when dealing with an NPC.
   
Vengeance lets you import a saved game from Spirit, which I guess potentially gives you more knights to choose from on the adventures. I forgot to check whether it made any difference in the starting skills.
  
If only I could remember who had what at the end of Spirit.
    
The game begins either 1 year after the events of Spirit or 451 years depending on whether you rely on the game's narrative or an actual calendar. Constantine, Arthur's successor, has been happily ruling a united Britain. Then, one night, a mysterious knight shows up at Camelot accompanied by a "shadowy form." When Constantine appeared to greet them, the shadow immediately turned him to stone, and the visitors proceeded to loot the treasury and to subdue and kidnap Nineve. As they left, a maid heard the shadow address the knight as "Sir Breuse."
  
Some poor text-background contrast sets up the backstory.
   
Missing are Arthur's helm and shield, the Gauntlets of Power, Excalibur, and the Holy Grail. Although Merlin takes over the kingdom as regent, he can't stop the ills that follow: plagues of rats, crop failures, foul weather, and a general sickening of the land. Nor can Merlin or Nineve cure the paralyzed king. In a kind-of repeat of the Grail Quest, knights begin to scatter across Europe, looking for a solution, while Baudwin goes to beg aid from the Pope.

Scenario 1 begins as a group of four knights come ashore in Bayonne, France, hot on the trail of Sir Breuse. For some reason, we have to get from there to Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain, which means crossing the Pyrenees and contending with hostile Basques. (Why we didn't just sail to the coast of Galicia is unexplained.) Once we arrive at Santiago, we'll need an army to take the city, which is going to be interesting because our party currently consists of four poor knights.

Much has changed in the last millennium.
   
You begin by choosing the four knights. I went with Lancelot and Bedivere because I think they ended Spirit in the best condition, Palomides because he's my favorite knight, and Amadis because he's supposed to be from Gaul anyway. Since the game doesn't give you any clues as to the knights' statistics or inventory before the game begins, this is as valid a method as any. It turns out Bedivere and Palomides are pretty weak, but Amadis is strong and Lancelot is perhaps the best character in the game.

Selecting the party that I guess I'll have for the entire game.
   
Santiago is far to the west-southwest of the starting area, but you can't just go directly there. Trying to do so means running into a force of hundreds of Basques that four individual knights can't hope to defeat. (If your small party of knights runs into an army, the game doesn't even give you the dignity of trying to fight. It just reports everyone's inevitable death.) There are also wandering parties of rogues that you have to avoid.
   
All these little icons move about the map and interact with each other.
   
Soon after the opening, a messenger found my party and brought a message from Merlin, imploring me to "find an armed band to travel with you." A wandering monk suggested I talk to the pilgrim at Pamplona for the latest news and, after I bribed him with some gold, that I could find "untold riches in the tunnel through the Pyrenees."

The only thing nearby that qualified as a "armed band" was a group of 40 knights led by Sir Roland. He agreed to join me for 5 gold pieces per week, which was just about what I had. While he wasn't enough to defeat the 500 Basques waiting along the road to the west, he was enough to defeat a couple of smaller parties to the south.
   
Thankfully, Roland was cheap.
   
Army combat in Vengeance is just about the same as in Spirit. Multiple groups of allies and enemies clash on a battlefield where you can issue some basic orders to particular units or knights (e.g., to "withdraw" if their hit points drop too low), but for the most part you're better off letting the game fight for you automatically. I won both battles with Basques handily.
    
Watching the action on the battlefield.
    
A few steps south of the second battle, I ran into an NPC named Diego Garcia who I haven't been able to tie to any historical figure. He offered to show me his "secret path" through the mountains if I would agree to give him an unspecified reward when he later showed up to claim it. Lacking other viable options, I agreed. He told me of a series of caves inhabited by "robber dwarves."
   
Oh no! Not "all the dwarfs!"
    
Spirit of Excalibur had offered a few indoor areas of a room or two each, but the dwarf caves were the first time in this series that I've seen anything resembling a traditional RPG dungeon. There were maybe a dozen screens to traverse before the exit. As I entered, a dwarf warned me not to steal any treasure. I could go on about how dwarves really have no place in this setting, but that ship already sailed in the last game with dragons, demons, and the use of the Grail as a weapon.

Trying to role-play the noble Lancelot, I ignored piles of treasure and headed right for the exit to Pamplona, even though some kind of wolf spirit warned me I was leaving a lot behind.

A talking wolf! Seize him! We'll sell him to a carnival and buy an army!
   
In Pamplona, I got some intelligence about Santiago de Compostela, where a Moorish force is hiding Breuse. Knowing that I would need my own army to take the city, I began scouting for one. I met a "Don Jaime" on the road who offered his services, as did Duke Lupo of Leon, but both wanted hundreds of gold pieces and I had like two.
   
And then there were guys like this.
    
After futilely trying to find another solution, I concluded that the only option was to reload and loot the dwarf caverns this time. It did the job. Among the multiple treasure piles, I found more than 400 gold pieces, but man was it a blow to serious role-playing. If there was another way to raise money that I could have explored, someone chime in.
   
Lancelot closes his eyes and thinks of England.
   
The dwarves, unhappy that I was stealing their treasure, attacked on several screens. This re-introduced me to the engine's approach to individual combat. The party leader automatically attacks--you can select "reckless," "normal," and "cautious" approaches--but you can substitute him with another character at any point. Other than that, the game just fights for you.
  
At least we're honorable enough not to all gang up on the dwarf.
   
The results of individual combat often seem arbitrary. I would have a dwarf cut down three of my knights in a row, reload, and have him die without doing any damage to a single character in the next battle. In any event, the victorious knight generally increases by 1 combat point for each successful fight (from a starting base of 15 or 20).

Incidentally, full-party death is accompanied by a grisly scene of slaughtered corpses. The end-game text notes that Camelot is eventually conquered, England a "wasteland," Iberia "bathed in blood," and eventually "darkness covers the Earth." So I guess the stakes are quite high.
   
    
With the money, I hired Duke Lupo and his army of 700 soldiers and 100 knights. I took them west to Santiago and conquered the Moorish force without many problems. Once the city was liberated, I was able to enter the church, where someone named Domingo told me that his master, Bartholomew, was hiding until Breuse was dealt with.
   
This time, I'm the "pitiless" one!
   
Breuse was in the second enterable building in Santiago. I killed him in one-on-one combat, only to have him boast that what I killed wasn't really him but "a spectre that [his] master created to delay [me]." Whether it was him or not, he left behind the Gauntlets of Power and a bird. Taking the gauntlets ended the first scenario.
   
   
The second scenario opened with Bartholomew offering me 600 gold pieces for a church bell that the Moors had stolen and "taken south." (Historical note: the Muslim general Almanzor, discussed below, was hated by Christian kingdoms for stealing cathedral bells and melting them down to make lanterns for the Great Mosque of Cordoba.) He also offered the opinion that the bird I'd just acquired was "no ordinary bird." Well, the manual explained explicitly that the bird was Nineve and the objective of the second scenario was to restore her to human form, then find the stolen bell. As I was trying to figure things out, Lupo kept demanding 100 gold pieces every week, so I told him to go home.
   
   
This is one of those moments I was talking about above. With the vague goal of curing Nineve, I had literally the entire map to explore and no clues where to go. Thus, I consigned myself to having to play the scenario multiple times, trying different places and routes, before figuring out the optimal path. I fanned out my knights and had them basically start hitting every city on the game map, entering every building, talking to every NPC they could find along the way, offering bribes, and so forth. If one of them died, I didn't sweat it--I had a saved game from the beginning of the scenario. It was a faster process than I imagined, since many cities have (Muslim) armies that attack you as soon as they see you, and other cities just won't let you in.
   
How rude.
   
Eventually, in the city of Evora, I met a leper. When I gave him a handful of gold pieces, he told me of a lamp I could take in a nearby hospice. Rubbing the lamp predictably released a djinni who granted me five wishes. There's no obvious "wish" mechanism, but the djinni has a bunch of spells that I assume serve that purpose. I didn't know what any of them did--the manual gives you no indication of spell usage whatsoever--but I saved the game and started with the first one, "Rara Avis." The djinni said that "there's no bird here," and I knew I had the solution.
   
The game gets the whole djinni/djinn plurality right.
   
I dropped the bird on the table, had the djinni cast the spell again, and soon Nineve was standing before me. After shaking off the effects of the transformation, she told me that the Moors had taken Santiago's bell to Alcantara.
  
   
In Alcantara, I had to defeat a couple of "Saracens" in combat, one immediately upon arriving in the city and one inside a nearby chapel. They kept killing Lancelot, so I had Nineve fight them with a barrage of spells, and they dropped quickly.
   
   
Finding the bell was a bit of a puzzle. There was an obvious bell-shaped object in the room being used as a table for candles, but the game wouldn't let me do anything with it. Again, I looked to my companions' spells, and it turns out Nineve has one called "True Sight." Casting it revealed the bell in its true form, and I was able to pick it up.
   
   
At this point, every rogue band in the area made a beeline for my party, and they were much faster than me. They kept slaughtering me before I could get back to Santiago or even any fortified city. I tried leading them into the path of Muslim armies, but they were too smart for that. I guess maybe I should have kept Lupo with the party, but I don't think I would have had enough gold.

Lancelot (white shield with red stripes) tries to avoid rogue armies approaching from the southwest and northwest by leading them into a Muslim army on the road to the northeast. Regrettably, it didn't work.
   
Eventually, I gave up and reloaded from the beginning of the scenario. Now that I knew exactly what to do, it took me only about five minutes to re-visit Evora, the hospice, and Alcantara (as opposed to about three hours on my first attempt). When I received the bell this time, the rogues were much further away on the map, and I was able to make it back to Santiago in safety. I traded the bell to Bartholomew for 600 gold pieces, and the second scenario ended.

The third scenario opens with Bartholomew telling me that Breuse has "escaped with Al-Mansur to the City of Brass in the east of Spain" and that Breuse may have the other treasures with him. "Al-Mansur" is in this case Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir, often stylized as "Almanzor," a general serving Caliph Hisham II. As Hisham was only 10 years old when he inherited the caliphate, Almanzor was his regent and de facto ruler of Islamic Iberia. Anyway, I end this post having just started to explore this scenario.

I guess I won't be raising an army for this one.
 
A few other notes:

  • There is no sound in the game, only music. The music is good, but I don't like listening to music while I play RPGs, so I have the sound off.
  • As you do your own thing, dozens of individual NPCs and armies are wandering around the map. The game notifies you every time someone arrives in a city or gets into a fight. I'm not sure how much I should care about such notifications.
   
I wasn't even involved in this battle.
   
  • I'm having a persistent emulator problem. The keyboard stops working if I leave the game (to take notes for my blog, for instance) and return to it. Reloading doesn't solve this; I have to kill the emulator and restart. Most of the game can be controlled from the mouse anyway, but the game occasionally throws a copy protection question at you that requires the keyboard.
  • Like its predecessor, pathfinding in this game is terrible, especially over long distances. But it keeps screwing me even over short ones. I might be trying to avoid an army to the northeast, so I send my party northwest. The game decides that the best way to get to that point in the northwest is to go northeast first, and it runs me right into the army. At that point, I have to wait while the game informs me that each of my characters has died, in turn, and then see the hellish death screen before I can reload.
   
This happens a lot.
    
  • If the game came with a map, I haven't been able to find it. I used Google Maps to find some of the cities I was supposed to visit.

In my final posting on Spirit of Excalibur, I wrote:

Spirit of Excalibur...underwhelms me in just about all of its areas. It manages to combine three genres--adventure, RPG, and strategy--without being good at any of them. The battles are too scripted, with not enough tactics or logistics, to be a good strategy game; there aren't enough puzzles to be a good adventure game; and there isn't enough character development to be a good RPG. The game really has only one narrative line, and the player has to figure out how to best adhere to it, rather than make his own role-playing choices and crafting his own path to the end.
   
So far, it looks like Vengeance didn't learn any lessons from Spirit. The only thing that has really changed between the games is a couple of minor interface improvements.

Here's a nice shot walking into a city. The graphic backdrops are really quite well done.
   
I want to like Vengeance of Excalibur just as I wanted to like its predecessor, but unfortunately both games, while beautiful and original, feature confoundingly different interfaces than the typical RPG, and I simply can't figure out an effective way to navigate the games without feeling like I'm wasting a huge amount of time. I'd really be curious to hear from someone who played the game new and liked it: how did you figure out what you were supposed to do?

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

1984/1985


When I made my first pass through the 1980s, following my "DOS-only" rule and looking only at Wikipedia's list, 1984 didn't even register. I went right from 1983's Ultima III to 1985's Alternate Reality: The City. Later, thanks to the revelation that Wikipedia had only a fraction of RPGs, I discovered a couple of games (Caverns of Zoarre and DND) that I covered quickly in a "backtracking" series, but I still missed two that were available even for DOS: Adventure Construction Set (I had it in the wrong year) and ICON: Quest for the Ring (it wasn't in MobyGames yet). Thus, when I retroactively awarded "Game of the Year" titles in my 1988/1989 transition posting, I left 1984 blank.

Even though I've now gone back and played 17 games from 1984, it's hard not to regard it with the term I used in my 1978-1983 review: a "lost year." The early years gave us Ultima, Wizardry, and a bunch of fun branches like the Robert Clardy series and the Stuart Smith series, culminating in the genre-defining Exodus: Ultima III. 1985 feels strongly like it begins the next era, with The Bard's Tale, Phantasie, and Ultima IV all exploding onto the scene. 1984 is a gully between these landmark years, with a final sputtering of titles that feel like they belong in an earlier era (Dungeons, Dragons, & Other Perils, DND, Out of the Shadows) and knock-offs of Wizardry that don't perform nearly as well (Tyrann, The Standing Stones, Shadowkeep) and introduce elements that deserved to be left on the cutting room floor.

Still, we have to note two major trends that, for better or worse, defined 1984. The first is a quick flare of gamebook adaptations, two from the Fighting Fantasy series (The Citadel of Chaos, The Forest of Doom) and two from the Lone Wolf series (Flight from the Dark, Fire on the Water). It's easy to see why these titles didn't start a popular sub-genre: they were too literal. They offered a lesser experience than reading a paper book, and they failed to use the computer for its advantages.

The "player" reads text on a screen instead of a book (where it presumably wouldn't have been in ALL CAPS) and hits a number instead of flipping pages.
  
Second, we had the advent of the first enduring Japanese RPGs, including The Black Onyx, Dragon Slayer, and Hydlide. Although Onyx took a different approach from the others, together these games ignited the Japanese imagination and helped usher in the explosion of JRPGs later in the 1980s--most of which I'll be unable to play because they were console-only or only in Japanese.

Dragon Slayer and Hydlide are two early entries in the "little guy runs around and charges headlong into enemies" subgenre.
   
From among none of these titles will I be selecting my "Game of the Year." Instead, I look to a small number of games that represent none of the three categories already discussed--gamebook adaptations, clones of better games, and early Japanese games. For 1984, instead of looking for a game that defined the year, I'm going to look for one that defied it.

I have three worthy nominees:

1. Stuart Smith's Adventure Construction Set, Rivers of Light module. Rivers of Light is not only one of the best games of 1984; it caps Stuart Smith's career as one of the most iconclastic RPG designers of the early 1980s. His fun, fast-paced, frentic titles, all based in classical mythology roots, with their blurred lines between monster and NPC, deserved greater success. I'd give a lot to see what he would have come up with in the late 1980s and early 1990s if he'd found RPG development more fruitful. I haven't awarded the title to any of his previous games, so this is my last chance. It also deserves the award for introducing the first construction set to a classical RPG, something that certainly influenced later attempts. Finally, it was my top-rated game of the year overall.

With a full set of statistics, skills that increase with use, and a complex inventory, Adventure Construction Set is the least "Smith-like" of the Smith series and most "RPG-like."
     
2. Hack. I gave Game of the Year to NetHack in 1987, but that was before I played Hack and discovered that very little had changed between the editions. By moving this honor to 1984, it not only assigns the elements I liked to their proper era; it allows me to re-allocate 1987 to Dungeon Master.

3. Questron. It's tempting to give the award to the game that started my addiction. Although I complained about 1984 featuring knock-offs of better titles, I think Questron narrowly escapes this designation. The character development and combat are arguably worse than Ultima, but Questron has a much better sense of plot and pacing. Its gambling mini-games are some of the earliest in the RPG market, and of course there's that ending. 

Questron made Ultima both better and worse, but overall was good enough to start  me on the path to addiction.
   
Two other games are worthy of mention. ICON: Quest for the Ring had perhaps the most interesting plot of any game in the early 1980s, and Sword of Kadash set a gold standard for action RPGs. Unfortunately, they both lacked enough classic RPG elements for me to rate them high, and they fail the GOTY test for that reason.
 
While we wait for the verdict, I should note that the average GIMLET score for 1984 is 20.35, a decrease from the average of 1983 (22.94) and even 1982 (21.27) and 1981 (24.44). 1985 is currently at 34.63 (without the non-DOS titles), enhancing the sense of 1984 as a valley between better years. The lowest score I gave was 10, to the ridiculous Dungeons, Dragons & Other Perils; the highest were to my three nominees.

The highest individual category score went to Rivers of Light's game world (7) and Hack's equipment (6). Those were the only scores I gave above 5. The average GIMLET category score was 2.0. In particular, games of this era really needed to work on NPCs. Only one game scored above a 2 in that category and more than half scored 0.

1984 Game of the Year

  
As convenient as it would have been for me to award it to Hack (thus properly recognizing Dungeon Master later) and as satisfying as it would have been to award it to Questron, I have to do the right thing and give it to Stuart Smith. Adventure Construction Set is the culmination of his short but fantastic career, and the only game where he starts to make concessions to more classic RPG mechanics without giving up his unique approach. It is one of the few games of the era to break away from the D&D mold, and its Mesopotamian setting actually doubles as a learning tool. Finally, it's hard not to see Smith's considerable influence on the later Bard's Tale Construction Set and Elder Scrolls Construction Set, among others.

That doesn't mean I won't reconsider Dungeon Master when I make another pass through 1987. That's a weird year to have awarded the title to NetHack--neither the first version nor the best.

Looking Ahead
  
1985 is full of games that I played briefly in those early first months of my blog but did not give their proper due. Coming up, we're going to revisit a lot of them, including Autoduel, Alternate Reality: The City, and Wizard's Crown, probably for better platforms, as well as a host of non-DOS RPGs that I've never heard of.

There will be no suspense on Game of the Year for 1985, alas. I can't possibly imagine a game that would take it away from Ultima IV.

1985 gives us only one Japanese game that makes my list--Dragon Slayer II--and I think even that's only because of a fan translation. We have one French title--Mandragore--but France won't really take off until 1986. Instead, 1985 offers a surprising number of UK games: City of Death, Enigma Force, The Evil Crown, Fairlight, Journey into Darkness, Runestone, Seas of Blood, Shadowfire, and Total Eclipse. The ZX Spectrum is far from my favorite platform, but I guess I'd better learn to love it.

All told, I have 29 titles to look at for 1985, but of course some will fall to the definition axe. When I'm done, we'll have a much more robust picture of the era than we do with the 5 or 6 I've already played.

Here's something I haven't really admitted before: more than once in the past year or so, I've had to resist the urge to making my blog all about these earlier years until I catch up. The games in the early 1990s are only getting a little better while simultaneously getting a lot longer and more complicated. It took me two months to win Disciples of Steel.

A game needs to rate in the 45-50 range, at least, before I actually start to look forward to my playing sessions. That describes less than 15% of the total games I've played on this blog, and only five games have rated that high in the last 18 months of playing. Now, don't get me wrong--I still enjoy the process of cataloging and documenting these games, but if I'm not really going to enjoy playing, wouldn't it be better to blast through a series of shorter, easier titles than to keep trudging through the swamps of titles like Antares and MegaTravller?

I'm not going to do that, but you can see why it's been tempting. What I have done is fall in a predictable routine of one post on a 1991 game followed by one post on an earlier game, and I'm naturally moving through the latter ones faster. I completed Shadowkeep, The Standing Stones, Dungeons of Death, Sword of Kadash, Tyrann, and Xyphus all while Disciples of Steel was happening.

Let's get to work on continuing to close that gap, starting with Adventure: Only the Fittest Shall Survive, which is a decent metaphor for blogging about every CRPG that ever existed.

*****

Call for help: if anyone has a version of Alternate Reality: The City for Apple II, Commodore 64, or Atari 8-bit that they know for sure is successfully and fully cracked and works with AppleWin, VICE, or Atari800Win, respectively, please e-mail me. I've wasted a ton of time with the versions found on various download sites, and they're all either bugged or not cracked, meaning the copy protection eventually kills the character.

In other list news, I've moved the game usually called Amulet of Yendor (as we'll see, there's room for doubt) to 1986 after finding enough evidence that it was published in the same shovelware package as Swords of Glass. No great loss on that one.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Disciples of Steel: Final Rating

 

Disciples of Steel
United States
MegaSoft Entertainment (developer and publisher)
Released 1991 for Atari ST; 1993 for DOS
Date Started: 3 December 2015
Date Ended: 8 February 2016
Total Hours: 94
Reload Count: 52
Difficulty: Moderate-Hard (3.5/5)
Final Rating: 57
Ranking at Time of Posting: 201/208 (97%)

Think about the different RPG eras in terms of the key questions of the time. In the early days (c. 1978-1983), that key question was, "How do we best adapt tabletop RPG mechanics to the computer?" Dozens of titles stood up and said, "Like this!" The best of them--the Wizardry series, the Ultima series, some of SSI's early efforts--advanced to the front of the class. Some of those that didn't make it to the forefront were a mess--fundamentally misunderstanding what was engaging about RPGs--and many introduced mechanics that simply didn't work in the long run.

In the late 1980s, the question changed to, "How can we improve upon the success of Wizardry (or Ultima, or any other previous successful title)?" And again, dozens of developers responded with their own answers. We fondly remember the best of them: Ultima's own sequels, Might & Magic, Dungeon Master, and Pool of Radiance. Again, there were a lot that we don't remember because their answers didn't make sense. We just saw that with Xyphus.

So what was the framing question of the early 1990s? Keep in mind that we've entered an era of hard drives, CD-ROMs, improved hardware for graphics and sound, and memory measured in megabytes instead of kilobytes. I think the key question developers faced was, "What are we going to do with all this extra stuff?" Consumers were demanding games that met the potential of available technology, and developers had a number of ways to respond, including greatly expanded content, better graphics, better sound, more detailed mechanics, and more complex artificial intelligence.

Disciples of Steel feels like a game in which the developers started with Wizard's Crown in mind (although I'm not ready to give up on the idea that they'd been exposed to Knights of Legend, Sword of Aragon, or both), asked the question, threw a bunch of ideas on the board, and tried to implement all of them at once with only the slightest coordination.

The resulting package is intriguing, excellent at times, but oddly disjointed and incomplete. We have fully-voiced audio for a few seconds in the opening screens (the first time I've ever seen this in a PC RPG, although I haven't played a lot of 1980s titles yet) and never again. We have high-quality animation for the opening, a nonsensical final scene, and a few shops in between, but never where it really matters. We have a fully-designed strategy game combat mechanic that hardly ever gets used unless you already know what you're doing. There are hundreds of evocative, atmospheric text messages as you explore--and hundreds of spelling errors. There are three ways to end the game--something you hardly ever see in this era--and yet no real ending.
 
Seriously, what was this about?
  
To be a fan of Disciples of Steel--and I am an unequivocal fan--is to forgive an awful lot of things that just don't work. There's a food and water meter that never budges, conversation options with NPCs that never tell you anything, a "search" function in the dungeon that never finds anything, "parley" options that never work, skills and spells that have no use, an unnecessary theft mechanic, an unnecessary haggling mechanic, a mechanism for setting the formation of your characters that doesn't matter because enemies are always scattered randomly when combat starts. As much as I liked the tactical combat, I was never able to get the hide/backstab mechanic to work, nor do I understand why there's a "search" option and the ability to pick up dropped treasure in the middle of a battle. I forgot until the end of the game that you can actually change which part of the enemy's body you target; it turns out that you have an equal chance of hitting each body part, so the head (the default) makes the most sense anyway.

And yet, despite failing in so many things that it tried to do, Disciples of Steel performs excellently in the core areas that make a good RPG: tactical combat, magic, equipment, character development, and quests. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single game previously in my chronology that gets as many things right as Disciples. Perhaps the Gold Box games come closest, but they lack the satisfaction of Disciples character development system, and they have a far worse economy.

Complete non-sequitur. I just like this image. The text makes it sound like "The Balor" is the name for this section of the hallway.
    
In content, Disciples also excels. I love that the game world is so open at the outset, allowing you to blunder into difficult areas before you're ready, allowing you to solve quests before they've been given (although this introduces its own problems if you don't know to keep the quest item). I thought the expedition-and-return quest system was excellent, as well as the way each kingdom had its own questline that integrated well with the backstory. I wish there had been more meaningful choices and more ways to role-play factions or choose sides in disputes, but you can't have everything. The game does offer you the option to just overthrow every kingdom--or ignore the kingdoms entirely and head right for the final dungeon--if you want to make an extreme choice.

The GIMLET is thus going to be a mixed bag. I expect that it will score high in the end, but let's see.

1. Game World. Disciples follows the lead of the best games of the 1980s by setting up the game world in a detailed manual and then following through with in-game events and characters that make sense given the backstory. It does a good job giving a different "character" to each kingdom on Lanathor and setting the events of the game in motion. I'm also giving credit here to all of the flavorful on-screen text descriptions that make the otherwise-bland dungeon corridors seem interesting.

But as with most things, it doesn't do it perfectly. In particular, "Variz" comes out of nowhere, and his relationship to Rathadon is unclear until the end. (The "forces of Rathadon" are given as the game's antagonists, but the king of Rathadon doesn't seem to be aware of Variz's existence.) Score: 5.

2. Character Creation and Development. Simply excellent. You start with the usual race/sex/class templates, but through the skill systems, you can essentially define who you want your characters to be. For instance, you can load up your warriors with armor and put a lot of points into that skill or keep them lithe and put your efforts into "dodge." Mages can specialize in bows and hang back on the battlefield, or you can give them points in edged weapons and armor and make them battlemages. Any class can develop skills in any school of magic, and the different magic systems mean that each character has a stronger sense of role. The ability to dump experience directly into skills (and attributes, though I never did that) means that development is constant and palpable.

I'm also a big fan of the way experience is earned, by successful action rather than just kills. It's a joy to watch the effects as your skills increase: more attacks per round, more spells per round, more damage, increased frequency of critical hits and stunning, and characters who dodge and block attacks instead of getting eviscerated by them. Until the advent of games where classes really make a role-playing difference and we start to see perks and special abilities, I can't imagine a better system. I was disappointed when the game ended because I hadn't gotten all my characters to their target skills. Score: 7.

3. NPC Interaction. Alas, a weak spot. The various lords serve as NPCs, as do some of the shopkeepers, who will occasionally have a useless bit of dialogue. While some of these NPCs were unique and memorable, a couple of dialogue options would have gone a long way towards cementing Disciples in the "great" category. Score: 3.

I kind of liked this guy.
   
4. Encounters and Foes. In addition to NPC dialogue, a major deficiency of Disciples in encounters. While I appreciate the pre-combat dialogue that precedes many of the key battles, there really is never anything to do on these screens but fight or run ("threaten" sometimes works, but "be amicable," never). Except at the macro-level (do the quests or conquer the kingdoms by force), there are no meaningful role-playing options.
   
Monsters are about as varied as a Gold Box title but with fewer defenses ("Power Word: Stun" shouldn't work against everyone) and no descriptions at all in the manual. Score: 4.

5. Magic and Combat. SSI had the best tactical combat systems, and Disciples of Steel is the first non-SSI game that seems to recognize that. Throughout the entire game--nearly 100 hours of gameplay--I never got sick of the combat system until the final dungeon, where the sheer number started to overwhelm me. And right then, I got "Wrath of God."

The combats in this game are either easy--in which case your characters satisfyingly mow through the enemies and finish in seconds--or quite hard--in which case you have the satisfaction of plotting detailed tactics. The magic system is excellently balanced; there are extremely powerful spells, but you need time (or expensive mushrooms) to recharge after casting them. I think part of the satisfaction of combat comes from the skill development system; even when slaying the lowliest, most pathetic orc, you know that you just earned a couple of dozen points to channel into your favored skill.

A few days ago, I might have tried to argue that Disciples of Steel is the best game to occupy this category so far in my chronology. But upon reflection, I still have to give a slight edge to the Gold Box series. First, Disciples lacks the interesting buffing spells that are important to the combat tactics in other games. Second, while there are a small number of items to use, we don't have the more robust wand/potion/scroll/grenade options that SSI gave us in the Gold Box. Still, it comes awfully close. Score: 7.
 
You don't scare me, Air Elemental.
   
6. Equipment. As I pointed out in my post on the topic, I really like games that give you lots of items to equip and use, and Disciples offers more than most, with separate items for the head, body, arms, and legs, as well as melee weapons, shields, missile weapons, ammunition, rings, potions, and occasional special magic items like Phasecloaks and Boots of Speed. The "quality" and "condition" dynamics added an additional complexity.

Disciples is one of the earliest games to introduce us to a dilemma that we still see today: plenty of shops sell good gear, but it's so much more satisfying to loot it from the battlefield. And while the locations of artifact items are fixed, it's not impossible to find a Potion of Strength or some other major boon among the detritus from a random battle.

I wish there had been more weapons with special effects (e.g., nothing does fire damage or increases the odds of a critical hit), and better item descriptions, but in general this was a very satisfying part of the game. Score: 6.

Some of my warrior's late-game gear.
   
7. Economy. If there's one area in which Disciples blows past the Gold Box titles, here it is. The economy in the game is actually meaningful. You get money from solving quests, looting opponents, selling gear, and setting taxation rates in conquered cities. You can even put unused mage points into "Lead to Gold." On the "spend" side of the equation, we have a variety of equipment and transportation, item repair, healing, the all-important mushrooms, and...oh, yes...the ability to raise, equip, and field vast armies.

As I reported in my last postings, I didn't fully engage the economy and thus couldn't take advantage of the "army" options, but I'm glad it's there and it would be fun to go that way on a replay. Score: 7.

8. Quests. A truly fun set of individual quests of varying length and difficulty, all culminating toward a main quest with several options for ending it. I supposed technically you could ignore all the questlines and just go kill Variz in his dungeon, but to me this kind of flexibility only enhances the game. There are even a few side-dungeons with valuable items to explore on your own time. Score: 6.

9. Graphics, Sound, and Interface. The animated graphics on the encounter and shop screens are attractive. I thought the iconographic views were less interesting but by no means bad. Sound effects are sparse but well-composed and fun. I mostly had no problem with the interface, but I did have some complaints, including the inability to use the keyboard fully on some menus and the necessity of having to acknowledge every critical hit in combat. I give an extra point for the voiced introduction. The dungeon's automap works great--perhaps the first one we've seen that didn't make me feel like I also had to map things manually. Score: 6

Simple animations accompany most encounter and shop screens.
  
10. Gameplay. Back to "excellent" territory again. Vast, open, nonlinear, and challenging, I thought the game struck the perfect chord here. Yes, at the beginning, when I didn't know if it was ever going to get better, I found the combat a little too hard. But at the end, I don't really mind having gone through the experience. (Creating a patch to start characters with 1,000 experience points was a good idea.) It falls short of a perfect score by being a bit too long, but it scores high on the "replayability" scale; I'd enjoy trying it again with different class/skill combinations and making better use of the army options. Overall, it ties with other games for the highest score I've ever given: 8.

This gives us a subtotal of 59. That would be the seventh-highest score I've ever awarded, and the highest in almost two years. But what do I do with all of those bugs? What do I do with the horribly unsatisfying ending? What do I do with the manual, whose writer ought to have been quartered for failing to explain so much about such a complicated game? What do I do with the time limit, which was long enough for me but apparently was sprung upon many hapless players without warning?

On the other side, what do I do about the strategy game add-on? I managed to make it through the entire GIMLET without event talking about it. Disciples is a perfectly satisfying RPG without it, but we can't ignore that there's an optional strategy game lurking in the background, with the same sorts of considerations of equipment, training, and unit composition as excellent RPG-strategy hybrids like Sword of Aragon. (A lack of in-battle magic use makes Disciples not quite as good, but still.) That such large and complex mechanic is offered and made optional is almost baffling.
    
I barely explored this game-within-a-game.
    
(Aside: the basic problem with the strategic combat in Disciples is that there are no small battles. To overthrow any of the kingdoms, or even their ancillary cities, you have to raise, equip, and train a couple dozen units at no small expense. There is therefore no way to "ramp up" to this part of the game.)
    
In the end, the positives don't quite equal the negatives, and I've got to hack off a couple of points. Two should do it. A final score of 57 keeps it in my Top 10 but puts it between Might & Magic II (which I agree I liked more) and Champions of Krynn (which I agree I liked slightly less).
     
If the quality of the manual was part of my GIMLET, Disciples would get a 0. The army combat system and options aren't mentioned at all. It has a section called "World Inhabitants" that most games would use to list each monster, but Disciples only has a paragraph saying, "They're all dangerous. Be careful."
   
However much I subtracted, Disciples of Steel definitely does not deserve a place among the "worst RPGs of all time," and Computer Gaming World's designation in that category, without having published a preceding review, was shameful. It was a decision made by someone who played the game for a few minutes rather than a few hours. They didn't even get the facts of the game right; they list it as a 1993 title and give its publisher as FormGen, which was simply the Canadian distributor.

[Edit from 02/14/2016: I was wrong in the paragraph above. As covered in the comments, CGW did review Disciples of Steel, in the July 1994 issue. Reviewer Petra Schlunk wasn't able to finish the game in time for the review. She complained about the inadequate manual--a perfectly valid complaint--and the game's detailed logistics, which she compared to "micromanaging." Like me, she had trouble with combat at the beginning. She noted the similarities to the Gold Box titles but seems to have completely overlooked the Wizard's Crown base. The overall review is negative: "Statistics are the best thing about this game, but only those looking for a 'stat-o-matic' role-playing game will be satisfied with the assiduous attention to uninspiring detail in Disciples of Steel."]
    
I haven't been able to find a single contemporary review of Disciples, which makes me wonder how widely MegaSoft distributed or advertised it. [Edit: see the comments for a couple, including a positive one.] Judging by the company's appearance in some computing magazines in the mid-1980s, and its location in a retail area of tiny Webster, Texas, it appears that the company was a brick-and-mortar computer store that entered the publication business for this one title (although it's possible that there were other non-game titles).
    
The two principals on the game--coordinator Kevin Henderson and programmer Martin Kruse--have no other credits. Graphic artist Patrick Wilson appears later on Daggerfall and some 2000s action games, and game tester Sean Clark has a bunch of later titles as an executive. But these are common names and MobyGames has a way of conflating people with the same name, so I'm not entirely sure that it's the same Wilson and Clark on all the later titles. [Edit: By e-mail, Kevin Henderson told me that these must be different people; the Wilson and Clark from Disciples never worked on other games.] In any event, they're only credited on the DOS version. None of the graphic and sound artists on the original ST version have other credits.
    
If any game deserves a sequel that could build upon the lessons learned from its predecessor, it's Disciples of Steel, and the title screen, calling it "the first tale" of the Chronicles of CyHagan, suggests that one was planned. I'd love to find out what the developers had in mind for it. Kevin Henderson commented briefly on a "let's play" at RPGCodex a few years ago; his profile indicates that he was 22 when Disciples was published. I did some searching for both him and Martin Kruse, but I wasn't able to identify them among many other people of the same names, so I can only hope that they eventually find my posts the same way they found the RPGCodex thread [Ed. And, of course, they did!].
    
Thus ends our two-month journey into this flawed-but-amazing overlooked game--the very sort of game that I started this project hoping to find. But now I'm ready for a slightly shorter title; if Vengeance of Excalibur is the same scope as its predecessor it should qualify.

****

Further reading: Check out my coverage of the game that inspired Disciples' character development system and combat mechanics: Wizard's Crown (1985).