268 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

As much as Planescape is loved, it's a hard game to play if you're just jumping into these old late 90s, early 2000s RPGs. There's a lot in mechanics (gameplay-wise), dialogue, quest trees, accessibility in builds, etc. to discuss/criticize. 

 

Planescape and some of the other ones might be harder to get into, but it's not like every older game is like that or that you should disregard the game and any list that mentions it just because of that.

 

I wouldn't mark it as my best RPG of all time, but it also shouldn't be entirely inconceivable that only "hipsters" would put it at the top of their best of lists.

[In Exile]

Planescape and some of the other ones might be harder to get into, but it's not like every older game is like that or that you should disregard the game and any list that mentions it just because of that.

 

I wouldn't mark it as my best RPG of all time, but it also shouldn't be entirely inconceivable that only "hipsters" would put it at the top of their best of lists.

 

I think it's the greatest adventure game with RPG mechanics ever, but YMMV. 

 

Anyway, my point was just that it's understandable for someone to rank an older game (and even an older movie) down just for being old. 

[Il Divo]

I think it's the greatest adventure game with RPG mechanics ever, but YMMV. 

 

Anyway, my point was just that it's understandable for someone to rank an older game (and even an older movie) down just for being old. 

 

I'd agree with this. I think Planescape Torment is great mostly in spite of its RPG mechanics rather than because of them. 

[Il Divo]

Not sure why a game's being old should be an obstacle to its appearing on a "Best of" list. Lots of people can't watch silent movies, or even black and white movies, but that shouldn't stop films like Battleship Potemkin, City Lights or even Citizen Kane from appearing on greatest films lists.

 

 

For myself, I think the issue is that a "most influential" list and a "greatest/best" list are two very different beasts. There are some titles that would absolutely make a most influential list, but wouldn't be seen anywhere on my best of lists. 

 

Older games suffer from a combination of problems. Some are obvious, such as graphics quality, which serve to impact the integrity of the setting. I ran into this exact issue with the original Deus Ex versus Human Revolution. In many ways, the original is superior to its successor, but modern technology meant that Human Revolution was able to sell me more easily on its premise. It's a cyberpunk setting that does a much more better job of presenting the cyberpunk. 

[In Exile]

For myself, I think the issue is that a "most influential" list and a "greatest/best" list are two very different beasts. There are some titles that would absolutely make a most influential list, but wouldn't be seen anywhere on my best of lists. 

 

Older games suffer from a combination of problems. Some are obvious, such as graphics quality, which serve to impact the integrity of the setting. I ran into this exact issue with the original Deus Ex versus Human Revolution. In many ways, the original is superior to its successor, but modern technology meant that Human Revolution was able to sell me more easily on its premise. It's a cyberpunk setting that does a much more better job of presenting the cyberpunk. 

 

DX is a good example, because it's from that period where 3D just looks so terrible and blocky that it has not aged well at all. It's not like a 2D snes game that at least has beautiful sprites or backgrounds - it's just bad 3D. 

[KT Chong]

So... Diablo is not a RPG?

[Jorji Costava]

For myself, I think the issue is that a "most influential" list and a "greatest/best" list are two very different beasts. There are some titles that would absolutely make a most influential list, but wouldn't be seen anywhere on my best of lists. 

 

Fair enough, as long as we don't assume that older games, movies or books that aren't accessible to popular audiences are only put on "best of" lists merely because they have exerted some kind of influence on later media, or that they have lost all impact simply because they are old. For myself, something like 2001: A Space Odyssey is still an incredibly powerful film experience, even though many contemporary audiences would find it slow, boring and full of dated 60's-isms. What I'm saying is that there's no reason why contemporary lay audience reactions to older games or movies should at all affect how I rank those works in a "best of" list.

 

DX is a good example, because it's from that period where 3D just looks so terrible and blocky that it has not aged well at all. It's not like a 2D snes game that at least has beautiful sprites or backgrounds - it's just bad 3D. 

 

I think it's important to draw a distinction between graphical fidelity and art style. In terms of graphical fidelity, the original Deux Ex is a blocky mess; it looks pretty ugly by today's standards. But in terms of its art style (the design of the environments, the lighting schemes used, the music and overall atmosphere) I think it's still a triumph. I can verify that this isn't a case of nostalgia goggles, as I never played the game until early 2011, when I bought it in preparation for DX:HR.

[Il Divo]

DX is a good example, because it's from that period where 3D just looks so terrible and blocky that it has not aged well at all. It's not like a 2D snes game that at least has beautiful sprites or backgrounds - it's just bad 3D. 

 

I would agree with that. DX for me is such a wild card compared to alot of older games. Some stuff, like Planescape Torment , I think are absolutely amazing. Other stuff, like original Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, are terrible (imo). DX is similar to the Dark Knight Returns in that regard. I keep running into both great and not great elements that make it difficult to rank fairly.

 

 

Fair enough, as long as we don't assume that older games, movies or books that aren't accessible to popular audiences are only put on "best of" lists merely because they have exerted some kind of influence on later media, or that they have lost all impact simply because they are old. For myself, something like 2001: A Space Odyssey is still an incredibly powerful film experience, even though many contemporary audiences would find it slow, boring and full of dated 60's-isms. What I'm saying is that there's no reason why contemporary lay audience reactions to older games or movies should at all affect how I rank those works in a "best of" list.

 

 

I can get behind that. And to be clear, there are older games that absolutely rank on my top 10 RPG or overall games lists. But I've also had many experiences where what's considered "amazing" came off as over-rated. 

 

What works against older books/movies/games (as In Exile pointed out) is often that what they do, more recent works (in some cases) have done better. I think the Dark Knight Returns is a great example of this. It brought back dark and gritty Batman (and for that), it's applauded. But if you were to give somebody a copy of Dark Knight Returns and the Long Halloween without explaining their respective influences, which will the audience choose? I can't speak in all cases, but for myself Dark Knight Return's influence won't place it above another work which has all of its positive aspects, in addition to a host of other great ideas which older works might not have access to.

[In Exile]

Fair enough, as long as we don't assume that older games, movies or books that aren't accessible to popular audiences are only put on "best of" lists merely because they have exerted some kind of influence on later media, or that they have lost all impact simply because they are old. For myself, something like 2001: A Space Odyssey is still an incredibly powerful film experience, even though many contemporary audiences would find it slow, boring and full of dated 60's-isms. What I'm saying is that there's no reason why contemporary lay audience reactions to older games or movies should at all affect how I rank those works in a "best of" list.

 

 

I think it's important to draw a distinction between graphical fidelity and art style. In terms of graphical fidelity, the original Deux Ex is a blocky mess; it looks pretty ugly by today's standards. But in terms of its art style (the design of the environments, the lighting schemes used, the music and overall atmosphere) I think it's still a triumph. I can verify that this isn't a case of nostalgia goggles, as I never played the game until early 2011, when I bought it in preparation for DX:HR.

 

I can't even comment on the DX art-style, because I can't really even figure it out from the graphics. The character models I can tell are somewhat cyberpunk, but that's about as far as I get with the game. If we include environment design and music, we're going to have to agree to disagree.  

 

In terms of the quality of a work, there are a few things to say. One, it's really hard to separate out a "lay" audience when it comes to things like games and movies. Obviously we don't mean professionals who work on games are the only people who aren't a lay audience. But once we say that some set of commentators have a special standing to comment, what gives them that standing? Experience? Exposure? All we're basically talking about are gamers who played a bunch of games. 

 

The thing is, that list is just a list a random group of people on a website voted on. And since it's just a random list with no real unifying criteria, why isn't the attitude of a contemporary audience an important determinant? We just have a random pool of people who go on some internet website as the arbiters - why isn't another random pool of people who go on some other internet website just as good or qualified to comment? 

 

To me, what matters is the justification people offer for ranking a game. And these are things we can have a real conversation about. For example, I think a lot of the games on the list are terrible at integrating the protagonist into the world, which I think is an essential aspect of a good RPG. The best example I can give is TOEE: I wouldn't count that as anything more than a D&D combat simulator with dialogue, missing the most essential features of an RPG. Same with IWD. I could go on - e.g. talking about the Might & Magic games (and those old first person RPGs in general), etc., but the basic issue is that there's no real standard here. 

[In Exile]

What works against older books/movies/games (as In Exile pointed out) is often that what they do, more recent works (in some cases) have done better. I think the Dark Knight Returns is a great example of this. It brought back dark and gritty Batman (and for that), it's applauded. But if you were to give somebody a copy of Dark Knight Returns and the Long Halloween without explaining their respective influences, which will the audience choose? I can't speak in all cases, but for myself Dark Knight Return's influence won't place it above another work which has all of its positive aspects, in addition to a host of other great ideas which older works might not have access to.

 

To follow up, I recently read an article that talked about how Twin Peaks was an influence on modern TV - trying to build a mythology, episodic content, etc. Whether or not Twin Peaks was actually an influence and a bit of a landmark for its time, the fact that it was a landmark show doesn't mean we somehow have to rank Mad Men or Breaking Bad below it, or that it would be wrong to talk about those shows as phenomenal. 

 

I'd use LoTR as another example, but I think the mere mention of it might cause a death spiral in this thread. 

[Jorji Costava]

In terms of the quality of a work, there are a few things to say. One, it's really hard to separate out a "lay" audience when it comes to things like games and movies. Obviously we don't mean professionals who work on games are the only people who aren't a lay audience. But once we say that some set of commentators have a special standing to comment, what gives them that standing? Experience? Exposure? All we're basically talking about are gamers who played a bunch of games.

Part of what's going on is that games don't quite have the community of professional or academic critics that books and movies do (although there are places where interesting work of this sort is being done). I wouldn't draw a hard and fast line between who's opinions 'count' and who's don't, but I do think there is such a thing as being better or more poorly informed about games. Even among your own circle of friends, you probably have some whose opinions about a book/movie/game you take more seriously than others. If there's no way of having a better or worse understanding of media, how does every conversation about games not degenerate into, "I like X, you don't, agree to disagree, have a nice day?"
 

The thing is, that list is just a list a random group of people on a website voted on. And since it's just a random list with no real unifying criteria, why isn't the attitude of a contemporary audience an important determinant? We just have a random pool of people who go on some internet website as the arbiters - why isn't another random pool of people who go on some other internet website just as good or qualified to comment?

I'm not saying that the Codex's list is authoritative, or anything close to it. What I've been saying is that dismissing the list because most of the games are old is not a particularly substantive criticism; more on this below.
 
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of contemporary audience attitudes being a determinant of one's own opinion. Heck, you shouldn't use the Codex's list as a determinant: It's just interesting to see how much you agree/disagree with them. But here's what I think is exactly the wrong thing to do: "Well, I really like game X, but I noticed that most other gamers seem not to like it because it's old and the graphics are kinda dated. I guess that means I was wrong about that game! Better stop playing it. Thanks, contemporary audiences!"
 

To me, what matters is the justification people offer for ranking a game. And these are things we can have a real conversation about. For example, I think a lot of the games on the list are terrible at integrating the protagonist into the world, which I think is an essential aspect of a good RPG. The best example I can give is TOEE: I wouldn't count that as anything more than a D&D combat simulator with dialogue, missing the most essential features of an RPG. Same with IWD. I could go on - e.g. talking about the Might & Magic games (and those old first person RPGs in general), etc., but the basic issue is that there's no real standard here.

 

I completely agree that what matters is the justification; what I'm saying is that on the list of criteria on which you can rank a game (gameplay, story, theme, etc.) age and graphical fidelity don't rank all that high (and this should be especially so in the case of RPGs, which heavily feature dialogue as a central mechanic; how much have dialogue mechanics actually changed in the past 15-20 years?). This is something that seems pretty consistent across media: If you read a film critic who said that Citizen Kane is boring and overrated because it's black and white and over 60 years old, your opinion of that critic would probably go down a notch.

[addiction21]

To follow up, I recently read an article that talked about how Twin Peaks was an influence on modern TV - trying to build a mythology, episodic content, etc. Whether or not Twin Peaks was actually an influence and a bit of a landmark for its time, the fact that it was a landmark show doesn't mean we somehow have to rank Mad Men or Breaking Bad below it, or that it would be wrong to talk about those shows as phenomenal. 

 

I'd use LoTR as another example, but I think the mere mention of it might cause a death spiral in this thread. 

 

It was in a death spiral from the words "RPG Codex" but please do the LoTR examples. Knowing you they would be accurate... unless I disagree with them.

[In Exile]

Part of what's going on is that games don't quite have the community of professional or academic critics that books and movies do (although there are places where interesting work of this sort is being done). I wouldn't draw a hard and fast line between who's opinions 'count' and who's don't, but I do think there is such a thing as being better or more poorly informed about games. Even among your own circle of friends, you probably have some whose opinions about a book/movie/game you take more seriously than others. If there's no way of having a better or worse understanding of media, how does every conversation about games not degenerate into, "I like X, you don't, agree to disagree, have a nice day?"

 

I'm with you on this point. All that I wanted to do was point out that there's an important difference between video game criticism (let's call it that for the sake of brevity) and either literary or movie criticism. Right now, video game criticism is in a very strange place - some people try to more academically analyze stories the way one would a movie or book, but without adding in the technical evaluations/reviews you see in more sophisticated movie reviews (e.g. on the camera work, direction, etc.). 

 

All of this is to say that I think that when you're talking about the views of a lay audience, it's not entirely right to discount their subjective preference for a certain kind of thing (even if that thing is newness). 

 

I'm not saying that the Codex's list is authoritative, or anything close to it. What I've been saying is that dismissing the list because most of the games are old is not a particularly substantive criticism; more on this below.
 
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of contemporary audience attitudes being a determinant of one's own opinion. Heck, you shouldn't use the Codex's list as a determinant: It's just interesting to see how much you agree/disagree with them. But here's what I think is exactly the wrong thing to do: "Well, I really like game X, but I noticed that most other gamers seem not to like it because it's old and the graphics are kinda dated. I guess that means I was wrong about that game! Better stop playing it. Thanks, contemporary audiences!"

 

Right, I follow your point now. I should apologize: I made the mistake of conflating what I generally view as justified criticisms of older games with the idea that saying that a game is old is in and of itself some form of meaningful criticism. Your point, as I understand it now, is simply that a contemporary audience is not providing worthwhile criticism in pointing out that a game is old or that it is unpopular among their peers. 

 

 

I completely agree that what matters is the justification; what I'm saying is that on the list of criteria on which you can rank a game (gameplay, story, theme, etc.) age and graphical fidelity don't rank all that high (and this should be especially so in the case of RPGs, which heavily feature dialogue as a central mechanic; how much have dialogue mechanics actually changed in the past 15-20 years?). This is something that seems pretty consistent across media: If you read a film critic who said that Citizen Kane is boring and overrated because it's black and white and over 60 years old, your opinion of that critic would probably go down a notch.

 

I'm with you on your point in principle. Focusing in on dialogue, though, I'd actually say we've seen a fair bit of change. Not so much in terms of mechanics (though recently with things like the wheel/paraphrase you could argue we've seen some incremental change to cope with increased cinematic), but rather in terms of the style of writing. 

 

It's hard to talk about "RPGs" as some general category when there's so much variation, so I'll just focus for the moment on Isometric RPGs.  Dialogue written is generally written in a bland, interrogative manner. Even Obsidian is guilty of this type of writing (even in their Black Isle days, and even with something as profound as Torment, which has, IMO, a great deal of philosophizing in dialogue but not a great deal of personality). A good contrast is in something like VtM:Bloodlines, where you see the variety of dialogue options (especially the colourful persuade options) having much more idiosyncrasy and humour. Even DA2 - as much as we can talk about the limits of 3 personalities - attempts to introduce actual colour into the dialogue of the protagonist, at least with the trollface options. In contrast, in either ME1-3 or DA:O, the protagonist options are generally bland and neutral. You otherwise get to express pity or sympathy, but it's generally directed outward. Games like TOEE or IWD are the absolute extreme of this type of progression - the dialogue is so faceless and independent of the protagonist it literally treats the entire party as a hive-mind unit. 

 

Reactivity is also something that RPGs are only more recently exploring in substantial detail, and something which was not very well done in the past. 

[In Exile]

It was in a death spiral from the words "RPG Codex" but please do the LoTR examples. Knowing you they would be accurate... unless I disagree with them.

 

The example I was going to use was the prose. I think LoTR is definitely the foundational blueprint for the last half-decade (if not more) of fantasy (though something like Harry Potter as a kind of setting shift and A Song of Ice and Fire as a deconstruction might shake up and expand the conventions of the genre), but I also find the actual book itself is difficult to read and, as a result, difficult to appreciate. 

 

It's actually a lot like Shakespeare's works in this regard: the register, sentence structure, and actual language used makes it hard to appreciate the work and makes it quite hard for a great deal of the public to really get into it.

 

Beyond that, it has certain conventions for the characteristics it gives its protagonists - generally in the kind of traits that they need to have to be heroes - that I think that we as a society no longer consider as sufficing to provide sufficient depth. It's not that I want to repeat the oft-used (but inaccurate) criticism that someone like Aragorn is a moral paragon. Rather, my point is that the way the work is written and the way his character is presented makes it difficult to get the kind of rich and well-articulated character archetype we see in more modern (but still highly regarded) fantasy works.  

[In Exile]

Arcanum is probably the best example of world reactivity.

 

Could you clarify what you mean by "world" reacitivty? I think we might be on the same page; I just happen to think that game does one type of reactivity really well and another really badly and I want to make sure I know what you're talking about before opening my mouth. 

[TurianRebel212]

So... Diablo is not a RPG?

 

Of course it's an RPG... Who dafuq told you it wasn't???

[bussinrounds]

Of course it's an RPG... Who dafuq told you it wasn't???

They probably told him/her that here...cause ya know…NO STORY