234 réponses à ce sujet

[goofyomnivore]

Favorite
Dragon Age: Origins

Hated
Oblivion

[DarthCaine]

Favorite
SW KOTOR

Hated
Diablo

[streamlock]

Favorite? Don't have a single one really. And nostalgia is a powerful thing.

Hated? Probably Drakkhen for the SNES. I'm not entirely positive it was a WRPG, but by the God's it was horrible.

This is one of those games that scars you for life. I will occasionally have flashbacks, go into a seizure like activity, and start spitting out "hack hack Drakkhen!" uncontrollably. (If you get this reference, then you know my pain). Really, it was that bad.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
In Exile, how did you feel about TW?

To be honest, I think it's this generations Deus Ex. TW2 moreso than TW1, but to me they are the same kind of game, in terms of the blending that's going on. I liked both games. They just slipped my mind.

But man, I really dislike the lack of visual customization (face-wise). It just sucks playing a game with a face you find unappealling.

bussinrounds wrote...
You ppl should just read some books
instead, if an 'EPIC' story is ALL you want out of an RPG.   The
somewhat tactical combat, atmosphere, difficulty, and monster encounters
alone make IWD FAR better than NWN's sh***y OC.  (which has no full
party control anyway)  

Old RPGs don't have good gameplay. Especially D&D RPGs, which are just a boring and complicated version of rock/paper/scissors. If I wanted great gameplay, I'd play another genre of game.

RPGs were always about coming up with a way to simuate a fantasy world. All that fancy math is what a computer does automatically now.

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...
Old RPGs don't have good gameplay.

You know, I really disagree with this.  Sure, D&D might not be a great system (let's be honest, I loathe 2E...so much I've reserved the word loathe specifically for it) but other old RPGs have great systems and gameplay.  Realms of Arkania, Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Ultima are just a few examples of old RPGs that have really interesting systems.  The fact is just that relatively few people in the modern games market have played any of them (either due to age or to the fact that the games market is many times larger now than it was then.)

Modern systems, to me, have made some improvements (like non-magic users actually having useful active abilities in modern systems where they generally didn't in older ones) but they've lost a lot of what I really liked about the older systems.  For example, the loss of turn-based systems has made positioning less important (when you can move at any time, worrying about enemy AoE, being in range of enemy attacks at the end of a turn, positioning characters so that you won't hit them with your own spells, etc. goes away for the most part, except in odd cases like DA2's instant cast, instant death AoE spells.)  Real-time also takes away a lot of the decision making, as you can, for example, interrupt an enemy mage casting and then immediately move to engage the enemy threatening your mage, whereas in a turn-based game, you'd likely have to choose one or the other, resulting in either the mage getting their spell off or the enemy having a turn to harass your mage (and a lot more seemed to happen in a turn in turn-based games than happens in the time it takes to shield bash and move to a new target in a game like DA...maybe that just has to do with games getting easier, I don't really know.)

Anyway, I think you're unfairly dismissing old systems/gameplay based solely on 2E D&D, which is really unfair to many of the fine systems that coexisted with or predated 2E.

[FedericoV]

Favourite: BG series.

Most Hated: NWN2: Storm of Zehir.

[Jonp382]

Vaeliorin wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Old RPGs don't have good gameplay.

You know, I really disagree with this.  Sure, D&D might not be a great system (let's be honest, I loathe 2E...so much I've reserved the word loathe specifically for it) but other old RPGs have great systems and gameplay.  Realms of Arkania, Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Ultima are just a few examples of old RPGs that have really interesting systems.

Which Ultima do think has an interesting system? I've played through 4 twice and am a few hours into 5, and don't think the combat in those so far are anything more than mindless paperwork. Quite tedious, really.

[ErichHartmann]

My eternal number one RPG: Baldur's Gate II

Most disappointing: Ultima IX: Ascension. The buggiest RPG I have ever played. Horrible optimization and boring gameplay didn't help either.

[eroeru]

Favourites: Dragon Age: Origins, Morrowind (great graphics and details even in original, but marvellous and thrilling with Overhaul), The Witcher, Baldur's Gate series, Planescape (though haven't finished the last two names).
These titles I began playing (and still continue to), starting only a few years back.

But as for a child-hood exclusive, a game with very nice atmosphere imho (though this is blasphemy and not entirely RPG) - Diablo 2.
(but it can indeed fit under WRPG - as the genre doesn't mean much anymore... but I loved it to death back in the day)
Also, Heroes of Might and Magic 2, if that can be counted as role-play. I remember liking Nox a lot too.


Disliked: Dragon Age 2 for obvious reasons. Also Oblivion (though I played this before Morrowind - it was utterly boring and soulless imo).

[Seagloom]

Based on overall fun factor and the number of hours I poured into it, Neverwinter Nights steals the crown for my favorite western developed RPG. NWN2 comes very close. It only loses out because it took me years to get a PC capable of running it smoothly, and I never got into the online component the way I did NWN. Most of my friends at the time refused to abandon NWN for one reason or another.

Were I to base my answer wholly on the single experience, then it's a toss up between Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines and Baldur's Gate 2.

My least favorite was Mass Effect. Note the phrasing: least favorite. I have not played a hated RPG. I am sufficiently self aware to realize when a game will cause me to retch in disgust and not buy it. If I had to pick a hated western RPG, it would probably be one of the Witcher games.

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
You know, I really disagree with this.  Sure, D&D might not be a great system (let's be honest, I loathe 2E...so much I've reserved the word loathe specifically for it) but other old RPGs have great systems and gameplay.  Realms of Arkania, Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Ultima are just a few examples of old RPGs that have really interesting systems. 

I haven't played these games (unless you mean the original Might and Magic, which I did), so I can't comment. But aren't these the first person, create-your-own party RPGs? It really depends on what you consider "gameplay" at that point, IMO.

The fact is just that relatively few people in the modern games market have played any of them (either due to age or to the fact that the games market is many times larger now than it was then.)

I've played some old DOS games. I'm not sure I've played the ones you're talking about. But at least for me, those old games combine everything I think is poor about an RPG.

For example, the loss of turn-based systems has made positioning less important (when you can move at any time, worrying about enemy AoE, being in range of enemy attacks at the end of a turn, positioning characters so that you won't hit them with your own spells, etc. goes away for the most part, except in odd cases like DA2's instant cast, instant death AoE spells.)

I'm not sure that's the case. Even DA:O on nightmare was not the kind of game where you could freely take a fireball to the face (unless you had a good healing response in place as part of a strategy).

Real-time also takes away a lot of the decision making, as you can, for example, interrupt an enemy mage casting and then immediately move to engage the enemy threatening your mage, whereas in a turn-based game, you'd likely have to choose one or the other, resulting in either the mage getting their spell off or the enemy having a turn to harass your mage (and a lot more seemed to happen in a turn in turn-based games than happens in the time it takes to shield bash and move to a new target in a game like DA...maybe that just has to do with games getting easier, I don't really know.)

Remember, I don't particularly like real-time. I just don't think the games talked about are any good (not the ones you mentioned, which like I said I don't think I've played) but games like IWD.

Anyway, I think you're unfairly dismissing old systems/gameplay based solely on 2E D&D, which is really unfair to many of the fine systems that coexisted with or predated 2E.

I didn't mean to say all RPGs that ever existed have poor gameplay. Just the subset I've played, say from 2000 onward give or take.

[bussinrounds]

Jonp382 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Old RPGs don't have good gameplay.

You know, I really disagree with this.  Sure, D&D might not be a great system (let's be honest, I loathe 2E...so much I've reserved the word loathe specifically for it) but other old RPGs have great systems and gameplay.  Realms of Arkania, Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Ultima are just a few examples of old RPGs that have really interesting systems.

Which Ultima do think has an interesting system? I've played through 4 twice and am a few hours into 5, and don't think the combat in those so far are anything more than mindless paperwork. Quite tedious, really.

  Thank you, Vaeliorin.  Somebody here understands. Although, i disagree about the 2nd edition, which i like myself. But anyway...

   As for good combat systems goes...,  Temple of Elemental Evil (with the Circle of 8 modpack) 7.0.0 is the newest one out, but i heard 7.0.1 will have some good gameplay additions, so you might wanna wait for that.   

    Jagged Alliance 2 and the 1.13 mod (i would play without the mod at first though to get a feel for it, because it does add complexity)

   Knights of the Chalice www.heroicfantasygames.com/   An indie 
(CRPG) for Windows loosely based upon the Open Game Licence 3.5 (OGL), the set of rules at the
root of the popular pen-and-paper role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons Edition 3.5. 

  Wizardry 6-8 are good games and can be played with 1 party the whole way through.

 The D&D Gold Box Games, Buck Rogers: Countdown to Doomsday and Dark Sun: Shattered Lands.

 You also have X-Com Enemy Unknown (aka UFO Defense) and Terror From the Deep which aren't RPGs but tactical squad games with very good combat.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 07 janvier 2012 - 07:50 .

[AlanC9]

Vaeliorin wrote...
Modern systems, to me, have made some improvements (like non-magic users actually having useful active abilities in modern systems where they generally didn't in older ones) but they've lost a lot of what I really liked about the older systems.  For example, the loss of turn-based systems has made positioning less important (when you can move at any time, worrying about enemy AoE, being in range of enemy attacks at the end of a turn, positioning characters so that you won't hit them with your own spells, etc. goes away for the most part, except in odd cases like DA2's instant cast, instant death AoE spells.)  

Note that pre-3.0 versions of D&D were not turn-based in this sense, so it's not strictly correct to think of this as a one-way movement from turn-based to RTWP. The IE engine  (the E in IE means "engine" -- duh) did D&D far better than the Gold Box engine did.

Is that why you loathed 2E?

And which Wizardry and M&M versions are you talking about? The early version of those games didn't even have tactical positioning, just frontline and not-frontline.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2012 - 07:57 .

[DreamwareStudio]

In Exile wrote...

Old RPGs don't have good gameplay.

I call bull****.

Game-play is a matter of personal taste really.  I still enjoy that of the Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale, so there!

[bussinrounds]

google_calasade wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Old RPGs don't have good gameplay.

I call bull****.

Game-play is a matter of personal taste really.  I still enjoy that of the Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale, so there!

   I noticed In Exile posted in the Dynasty Warriors thread.  Is that you idea of good gameplay ?
     Repeatedly pressing the same buttons over and over and over again.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 07 janvier 2012 - 07:32 .

[DreamwareStudio]

RageGT wrote...

OP must be drunk in cachaça to say anything like that about The Witcher 2. Bad story? Bad Graphics? Bad Characters? ... hmm... you're not this guy playing are you? Because this guy must really really hate The Witcher 2!

The Witcher 2 - This guy sucks dogs ball! Is this Yahtzee playing? HD

That guy playing the game...what a maroon.  There is an option to lock onto an opponent.   Some people should really check out the manual.

[csfteeeer]

RageGT wrote...

OP must be drunk in cachaça to say anything like that about The Witcher 2. Bad story? Bad Graphics? Bad Characters? ... hmm... you're not this guy playing are you? Because this guy must really really hate The Witcher 2!

The Witcher 2 - This guy sucks dogs ball! Is this Yahtzee playing? HD

lol, DSP.

[In Exile]

bussinrounds wrote...
I noticed In Exile posted in the Dynasty Warriors thread.  Is that you idea of good gameplay ?

To say that I played 3 games in the infinite series, yes and that I stopped playing them when they recycled content. I don't see how this is relevant to anything

Oh, wait, I remember, you just want to take shots at me because I insulted your sacred cow. Well, then please go on.

[In Exile]

google_calasade wrote...
I call bull****.

Game-play is a matter of personal taste really.  I still enjoy that of the Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale, so there!

What do you mean you call bull****? You just said gameplay is subjective. Are you saying I'm lying about my subjective tastes? Huh?

[DreamwareStudio]

In Exile wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
I call bull****.

Game-play is a matter of personal taste really.  I still enjoy that of the Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale, so there!

What do you mean you call bull****? You just said gameplay is subjective. Are you saying I'm lying about my subjective tastes? Huh?

Relax.  I was merely ribbing you.

[In Exile]

google_calasade wrote...
Relax.  I was merely ribbing you.

S'okay. My bad. Jokes don't translate well on the internet.

[Get Magna Carter]

Favourite - contest between various Bioware & Bethsheda - 1st place Dragon Age Origins

Least liked - probably one of the European ones like Two Worlds or Risen
...and I would rather forget any attempt to imitate a JRPG...

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 08 janvier 2012 - 12:01 .

[Vaeliorin]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
You know, I really disagree with this.  Sure, D&D might not be a great system (let's be honest, I loathe 2E...so much I've reserved the word loathe specifically for it) but other old RPGs have great systems and gameplay.  Realms of Arkania, Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Ultima are just a few examples of old RPGs that have really interesting systems.  [/quote]
I haven't played these games (unless you mean the original Might and Magic, which I did), so I can't comment. But aren't these the first person, create-your-own party RPGs? It really depends on what you consider "gameplay" at that point, IMO. [/quote]
I'm strictly referring to combat gameplay.  Not role-playing options, not story.  Just combat systems.  Everything else can be built on top of a good combat system, but without a good combat system, you basically have a game that I'm likely to play once or twice and never touch again (not because I'm uninterested in the other things, but a poor combat system ruins my enjoyment of those other things.)

Wizardry and Might & Magic are first person (RoA is first-person when not in combat), and RoA, Wizardry, and M&M are create your own party (though Wizardry 8 has recruitable characters.)  When you have a system with a broad range of classes, I'd honestly rather create my own party, or you end up with a BG/BG2 situation where you either don't end up with access to the classes/class combinations you want, or there stuck on characters you can't stand.
[quote]
[quote]The fact is just that relatively few people in the modern games market have played any of them (either due to age or to the fact that the games market is many times larger now than it was then.)[/quote]I've played some old DOS games. I'm not sure I've played the ones you're talking about. But at least for me, those old games combine everything I think is poor about an RPG. [/quote]
I'm not holding those up as examples of the epitome of RPGs, but I do think they have superior combat systems when compared to modern games.
[quote]
[quote]For example, the loss of turn-based systems has made positioning less important (when you can move at any time, worrying about enemy AoE, being in range of enemy attacks at the end of a turn, positioning characters so that you won't hit them with your own spells, etc. goes away for the most part, except in odd cases like DA2's instant cast, instant death AoE spells.) [/quote]I'm not sure that's the case. Even DA:O on nightmare was not the kind of game where you could freely take a fireball to the face (unless you had a good healing response in place as part of a strategy). [/quote]
We must have been playing different versions of DA, because while it was always wisest to take out the mages first, that was largely because of them having crowd control abilities, not because of the straight damage they could do (granted, I usually played with at least 2 healers, but that's just my playstyle.)
[quote]
[quote]Real-time also takes away a lot of the decision making, as you can, for example, interrupt an enemy mage casting and then immediately move to engage the enemy threatening your mage, whereas in a turn-based game, you'd likely have to choose one or the other, resulting in either the mage getting their spell off or the enemy having a turn to harass your mage (and a lot more seemed to happen in a turn in turn-based games than happens in the time it takes to shield bash and move to a new target in a game like DA...maybe that just has to do with games getting easier, I don't really know.) [/quote]Remember, I don't particularly like real-time. I just don't think the games talked about are any good (not the ones you mentioned, which like I said I don't think I've played) but games like IWD. [/quote]
Now that I think back, I recall you mentioning a fondness for the gameplay in DA:Journeys.  Anyway, I still disagree that games such as IWD are bad games.  Bad RPGs I might agree with, but I still think IWD is the 2nd best game ever made with the Infinity Engine (PS:T being the best.)

[quote][quote]Anyway, I think you're unfairly dismissing old systems/gameplay based solely on 2E D&D, which is really unfair to many of the fine systems that coexisted with or predated 2E.
[/quote]
I didn't mean to say all RPGs that ever existed have poor gameplay. Just the subset I've played, say from 2000 onward give or take. [/quote]
Ah.  I think our disconnect is largely on what we mean when we say gameplay.  You seem to use something akin to Sylvius's definition, where most everything is gameplay (conversation, etc.), whereas when I speak of gameplay, I'm (generally) only referring to the combat system.

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
Modern systems,
to me, have made some improvements (like non-magic users actually having
useful active abilities in modern systems where they generally didn't
in older ones) but they've lost a lot of what I really liked about the
older systems.  For example, the loss of turn-based systems has made
positioning less important (when you can move at any time, worrying
about enemy AoE, being in range of enemy attacks at the end of a turn,
positioning characters so that you won't hit them with your own spells,
etc. goes away for the most part, except in odd cases like DA2's instant
cast, instant death AoE spells.)  [/quote]
Note that pre-3.0
versions of D&D were not turn-based in this sense, so it's not
strictly correct to think of this as a one-way movement from turn-based
to RTWP. The IE engine  (the E in IE means "engine" -- duh) did D&D far better than the Gold Box engine did.

Is that why you loathed 2E?[/quote]
No...the biggest reason I loathe 2E is because I like playing melee characters, and non-casters in 2E become
essentially useless by mid levels.  This also happens with 3.X, but at
least with 3.X I can have the fun of planning out interesting builds,
whereas 2E basically only lets you choose weapons on a non-caster.

[quote]And
which Wizardry and M&M versions are you talking about? The early
version of those games didn't even have tactical positioning, just
frontline and not-frontline.[/quote]
I wasn't claiming all of those
games had tactical positioning, just that they were turn-based (though
the Might and Magic games, at least the later ones, could be played in
real-time, as can Wizardry 8.)

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
I'm strictly referring to combat gameplay.  Not role-playing options, not story.  Just combat systems.  Everything else can be built on top of a good combat system, but without a good combat system, you basically have a game that I'm likely to play once or twice and never touch again (not because I'm uninterested in the other things, but a poor combat system ruins my enjoyment of those other things.)

Right, I get it now. I actually agree with you. TES games don't work for me for precsely this reason. I simply do not enjoy first person melee fantasy.

Wizardry and Might & Magic are first person (RoA is first-person when not in combat), and RoA, Wizardry, and M&M are create your own party (though Wizardry 8 has recruitable characters.)  When you have a system with a broad range of classes, I'd honestly rather create my own party, or you end up with a BG/BG2 situation where you either don't end up with access to the classes/class combinations you want, or there stuck on characters you can't stand.

From a combat perspective, I see what you're saying. And I almost agree. The thing is, there's just no value in a created party for me. It takes away so many other features I enjoy from an RPG that it makes the game unplayable (and, no, romance is not one of those).

I'm not holding those up as examples of the epitome of RPGs, but I do think they have superior combat systems when compared to modern games.

I'd have to play them to see.

We must have been playing different versions of DA, because while it was always wisest to take out the mages first, that was largely because of them having crowd control abilities, not because of the straight damage they could do (granted, I usually played with at least 2 healers, but that's just my playstyle.)

I thought you meant FF for some reason. Yeah, I ge what you mean now.

Now that I think back, I recall you mentioning a fondness for the gameplay in DA:Journeys.  Anyway, I still disagree that games such as IWD are bad games.  Bad RPGs I might agree with, but I still think IWD is the 2nd best game ever made with the Infinity Engine (PS:T being the best.)

Heroes of MM type gameplay is my favourite. By far. Without equal.

Ah.  I think our disconnect is largely on what we mean when we say gameplay.  You seem to use something akin to Sylvius's definition, where most everything is gameplay (conversation, etc.), whereas when I speak of gameplay, I'm (generally) only referring to the combat system.

That's how I used to use it. Sylvius convinced me otherwise.

[Elhanan]

Fave: NWN1 - more than a decade of playtime, and still has an active fan base.

Worst, or Most Disappointing: Hillsfar - ride a pretty prancing pony to a city based on arcade game styles. I lasted ca.15 minutes before removing this tripe from my system, and cheered when the last AL mod for NWN1 restored the city to infamy.

P.S. Skyrim may be played in 3rd person, FWIW.

Modifié par Elhanan, 08 janvier 2012 - 10:46 .