I remember those days well. I still have a number of strategy guides sitting on a bookshelf. But then too I remember when games actually came with substantial instruction guides in the boxes, and maps....
And keyboard overlays, don't forget those! (although you might not have experienced them if you weren't a flight sim enthusiast like I was...)
Well I dislike modern RPGs, mostly, but I can say it's not because of nostalgia because many of these games I'm playing for the first time. I'm 21 IRL and I didn't really grow up on PC RPGs. I didn't finish BG until I played BG:EE back in 2013 and I just finished NWN OC for the first time last year in 2014. I got about half-way through Pool of Radiance before my laptop died and I lost all my progress. I'm currently playing through NWN2's OC for the first time. I have Morrowind ready to go and have played a few hours of it an enjoyed more than Oblivion and Skyrim though I have not finished Morrowind.
My reasoning for my dislike of modern RPGs is the console-ifying of them and the removal of statistic systems. I'm a huge nerd when it comes to min/maxing stats. Like, not the sort of min/maxing to create the most optimal and strongest character or party but like when I made my Morrowind character I spent hours adjusting stats, choosing what skills I wanted to focus on, and other such things to create the perfect Necromancer Cleric-thing.
Skyrim it's just Stamina, Magicka, and Health. That's not bad but I feel it lacks the depth of the prior stat systems. In Dragon Age: Origins I could build a dex-based warrior and focus on using a bow. In Inquisiton you HAVE to go strength and you HAVE to use either sword and shield or 2 handed weapon. That's not fun for me.
I like playing Pool of Radiance and rolling character stats and choosing cool race/class combinations. I like having a large variety of classes and subclasses and multiclasses to choose from like in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, or the Neverwinter series.
I adore the Mass Effect series, specifically the first one, and I love Dragon Age: Origins. DA:II and Inquisition just don't do it for me.
Modern RPGs aren't bad to me. I don't mind quest markers even. But class depth seems to be going away. I find the best part of an RPG is fantasy fullfillment. When you remove class choice you remove that. In DA:O I could play a Bard. Then in DA:II, nope. No Bard. Same for DA:I.
I'm actually sort of a pariah in my friend group. My best friends really enjoy Inquisition and are huge fans of JRPGs where I'm less than excited about most JRGPs with the exception of SRPGs like Fire Emblem, Tactics Ogre, or Final Fantasy Tactics.
I try to introduce them to older RPGs but they just don't feel it. Maybe I'm just weird >_> XD
@Vallmyr , I wish I could give you all three of "insightful", "agree" and "like' for that post.
Although my RPG persona is as a cleric or paladin who must destroy you because I think necromancy is inherently evil, (see "Came Back Wrong", referenced below), I think you and I might be kindred spirits after all of the RPG sparks have flown.
I agree with @Squire 's post on page 2 whole-heartedly.
To respond to the OP: Because it would be the equivalent of turning Baldur's Gate into Skyrim. An open-world First-Person/Action/RPG.
I would rather have the Baldur's Gate games in their original style, rather that having a Baldur's Gate III which is a First-Person Action-RPG.
To put it into more perspective: Fallout 1+2 were Turn-based RPGs. Bethesda got the licence and made an FPS/Action-RPG. Baldur's Gate are pausable pseudo-round-based RPGs. The equivalent is turning a sequel into something like Skyrim.
I wouldn't mind at all if what Bethesda did was a spin-off. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was a Diablo-like game for PS2/Xbox. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance I + II were Diablo-clone spinoffs as well.
But calling those Baldur's Gate III + IV would get the same hate from fans of the original games.
You can't take game series, remove everything that relates to gameplay, keeping the setting and lore the same only, call it a sequel and don't have people complain.
It would be the equivalent of taking the Mortal Kombat series, turning them into something like God of War and call it Mortal Kombat X. It has nothing to do with the previous games. It's a spinoff in the same setting.
Ironically, Obsidian, with the people that created the first two games, made a spin-off (New Vegas) that was more accurate to the spirit of the original games, than the now "official" games.
This is pretty much what the problem is. Bethesda not respecting the style or spirit of the original games and calling them official, numbered sequels. Using the Oblivion engine and formula, just set into the Fallout universe.
Fans don't care who has the "rights" to it. They care about getting a game like the ones they loved, not an official "sequel" that plays like a spin-off.
And personally, I am sick and tired of the now thankfully dying trend "Everything needs to be an FPS ". Like Shadowrun, old-school RPGs from PnP that once was turned into an FPS.
If making a game known means turning it into an FPS Action-RPG with hand-holding that caters to people that cannot bother to read, lack patience and just want to be pointed to the exact location of the next quest, I'd rather not have sequel, personally. It's dictionary "dumbing it down".
I have to chime in and say that I see things pretty much the way @Vallmyr put it with the caveat that instead of Necromancer, I am all about the wizard.
I really think it would be a total blast if @Vallmyr and @BelgarathMTH and I could go on a quest, I am thinking "Lost caverns of Tsojcanth" or something. Maybe "White Plume Mountain"? Grab a warrior or two and maybe a thief? It would be epic.
I will say that I do not have a problem with open world, sandbox games. In fact, let me go and explore and if I NEVER finish the game, I'll still do 2-300 hours of just stomping around and doing quests (on a good game, i.e. one that will allow that). I like having a well written story and a well defined 'End game', but I am all in it for the ride. I liked Skyrim and (to a lesser degree) Oblivion, and I like FO3 (though not New Vegas for some reason). People are right in that the distinction of character development is being seriously 'Dumbed down', but I like the exploration of those games mentioned.
@elminster , Back in my day, (I sound like that old guy in the meme), we went to brick-and-mortar book stores and bought paperback guides, which were fairly expensive. I spent at least $15 for a Might and Magic 6 guide in 1998. I think some of the puzzles and secrets of the games were intentionally designed so that you'd need to buy the guide book if you wanted to finish the game. (There were hidden buttons on walls, nearly impossible to find floor levers, maddening combination-cracking puzzles with *no* clues on how to solve them, secret doors, hidden dungeon entrances, keys stashed in other dungeons than the ones they open, etc.)
Yep I remember that too. Especially with Myst and Riven.
I continue to maintain (thought some may disagree) that strategy guides used to be a vital part of DOS-era games in their very development. Now is it POSSIBLE to beat SSI games, Bard's Tale and Might and Magic without guides?? Of course it is, but you'd have to be a skilled and dedicated dungeon crawler to do so. Not only that, the guides themselves weren't just solutions, but expanded upon the lore and setting of the game. I have PDF copies of nearly every one that hasn't been lost to time, and they are often better reads than the manual (and manuals used to be quite good too).
At a certain point (the 16-bit SNES JRPG glory days) strategy guides moved from being like D&D Supplement manuals and became mostly colorful guides that took up a good portion of a issue of Nintendo Power. By the time the Playstation and N64 came around, guides were printed up, but no one felt like they needed them anymore for games like Final Fantasy VII or Ocarina of Time, and yes, Baldur's Gate. We already had a 10-15 years of experience playing these type of games, and the interfaces (more than anything else) had become palatable enough so that things were intuitive. There is a big difference between Brady Games guides and stuff that was advertised with early CRPG efforts.
Now is it POSSIBLE to beat SSI games, Bard's Tale and Might and Magic without guides?? Of course it is, but you'd have to be a skilled and dedicated dungeon crawler to do so.
I probably shouldn't think about how many hours I spent through high school and university mapping dungeons by hand....
Alright, i have installed D:OSEE but theres a problem: When i try to launch the game, comes a little message that says that the game is ''an invalid Win32 application''. Does somebody knows what to do? I downloaded the game with GOG Galaxy and i use Windows XP.
Now is it POSSIBLE to beat SSI games, Bard's Tale and Might and Magic without guides?? Of course it is, but you'd have to be a skilled and dedicated dungeon crawler to do so.
I don't think you needed to be "Skilled" as such, but you absolutely would need to be committed to working out all of the puzzles and at least the majority of the strategies. I think that they (meaning the publishers of both games and strategy guides) more or less relied upon gamers being lazy and not wanting to 'kick every corpse' and turn over every leaf just to find all of the stuff. Yes, it was "Possible", but after a certain point it was easier to just buy the guide.
Alright, i have installed D:OSEE but theres a problem: When i try to launch the game, comes a little message that says that the game is ''an invalid Win32 application''. Does somebody knows what to do? I downloaded the game with GOG Galaxy and i use Windows XP.
Comments
I dislike modern RPGs, mostly, but I can say it's not because of nostalgia because many of these games I'm playing for the first time. I'm 21 IRL and I didn't really grow up on PC RPGs. I didn't finish BG until I played BG:EE back in 2013 and I just finished NWN OC for the first time last year in 2014. I got about half-way through Pool of Radiance before my laptop died and I lost all my progress. I'm currently playing through NWN2's OC for the first time. I have Morrowind ready to go and have played a few hours of it an enjoyed more than Oblivion and Skyrim though I have not finished Morrowind.
My reasoning for my dislike of modern RPGs is the console-ifying of them and the removal of statistic systems. I'm a huge nerd when it comes to min/maxing stats. Like, not the sort of min/maxing to create the most optimal and strongest character or party but like when I made my Morrowind character I spent hours adjusting stats, choosing what skills I wanted to focus on, and other such things to create the perfect Necromancer Cleric-thing.
Skyrim it's just Stamina, Magicka, and Health. That's not bad but I feel it lacks the depth of the prior stat systems. In Dragon Age: Origins I could build a dex-based warrior and focus on using a bow. In Inquisiton you HAVE to go strength and you HAVE to use either sword and shield or 2 handed weapon. That's not fun for me.
I like playing Pool of Radiance and rolling character stats and choosing cool race/class combinations. I like having a large variety of classes and subclasses and multiclasses to choose from like in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, or the Neverwinter series.
I adore the Mass Effect series, specifically the first one, and I love Dragon Age: Origins. DA:II and Inquisition just don't do it for me.
Modern RPGs aren't bad to me. I don't mind quest markers even. But class depth seems to be going away. I find the best part of an RPG is fantasy fullfillment. When you remove class choice you remove that. In DA:O I could play a Bard. Then in DA:II, nope. No Bard. Same for DA:I.
I'm actually sort of a pariah in my friend group. My best friends really enjoy Inquisition and are huge fans of JRPGs where I'm less than excited about most JRGPs with the exception of SRPGs like Fire Emblem, Tactics Ogre, or Final Fantasy Tactics.
I try to introduce them to older RPGs but they just don't feel it. Maybe I'm just weird >_>
XD
Although my RPG persona is as a cleric or paladin who must destroy you because I think necromancy is inherently evil, (see "Came Back Wrong", referenced below), I think you and I might be kindred spirits after all of the RPG sparks have flown.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CameBackWrong
To respond to the OP:
Because it would be the equivalent of turning Baldur's Gate into Skyrim.
An open-world First-Person/Action/RPG.
I would rather have the Baldur's Gate games in their original style, rather that having a Baldur's Gate III which is a First-Person Action-RPG.
To put it into more perspective:
Fallout 1+2 were Turn-based RPGs. Bethesda got the licence and made an FPS/Action-RPG.
Baldur's Gate are pausable pseudo-round-based RPGs. The equivalent is turning a sequel into something like Skyrim.
I wouldn't mind at all if what Bethesda did was a spin-off. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was a Diablo-like game for PS2/Xbox.
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance I + II were Diablo-clone spinoffs as well.
But calling those Baldur's Gate III + IV would get the same hate from fans of the original games.
You can't take game series, remove everything that relates to gameplay, keeping the setting and lore the same only, call it a sequel and don't have people complain.
It would be the equivalent of taking the Mortal Kombat series, turning them into something like God of War and call it Mortal Kombat X.
It has nothing to do with the previous games. It's a spinoff in the same setting.
Ironically, Obsidian, with the people that created the first two games, made a spin-off (New Vegas) that was more accurate to the spirit of the original games, than the now "official" games.
This is pretty much what the problem is. Bethesda not respecting the style or spirit of the original games and calling them official, numbered sequels.
Using the Oblivion engine and formula, just set into the Fallout universe.
Fans don't care who has the "rights" to it. They care about getting a game like the ones they loved, not an official "sequel" that plays like a spin-off.
And personally, I am sick and tired of the now thankfully dying trend "Everything needs to be an FPS ".
Like Shadowrun, old-school RPGs from PnP that once was turned into an FPS.
If making a game known means turning it into an FPS Action-RPG with hand-holding that caters to people that cannot bother to read, lack patience and just want to be pointed to the exact location of the next quest, I'd rather not have sequel, personally.
It's dictionary "dumbing it down".
I really think it would be a total blast if @Vallmyr and @BelgarathMTH and I could go on a quest, I am thinking "Lost caverns of Tsojcanth" or something. Maybe "White Plume Mountain"? Grab a warrior or two and maybe a thief? It would be epic.
I will say that I do not have a problem with open world, sandbox games. In fact, let me go and explore and if I NEVER finish the game, I'll still do 2-300 hours of just stomping around and doing quests (on a good game, i.e. one that will allow that). I like having a well written story and a well defined 'End game', but I am all in it for the ride. I liked Skyrim and (to a lesser degree) Oblivion, and I like FO3 (though not New Vegas for some reason). People are right in that the distinction of character development is being seriously 'Dumbed down', but I like the exploration of those games mentioned.
At a certain point (the 16-bit SNES JRPG glory days) strategy guides moved from being like D&D Supplement manuals and became mostly colorful guides that took up a good portion of a issue of Nintendo Power. By the time the Playstation and N64 came around, guides were printed up, but no one felt like they needed them anymore for games like Final Fantasy VII or Ocarina of Time, and yes, Baldur's Gate. We already had a 10-15 years of experience playing these type of games, and the interfaces (more than anything else) had become palatable enough so that things were intuitive. There is a big difference between Brady Games guides and stuff that was advertised with early CRPG efforts.