Free book on history of CRPGs

[IceBear]

No idea if it's any good but it's free

https://kotaku.com/massive-book-about-h ... 796892/amp

[Scuzz]

A lot of memories in that "book".

[GreenGoo]

Ready Player One is free now?

[jztemple2]

Thanks for posting about this. Looking through the text it seems like a lot of reviews, in fact on the Kotaku article comments one person identified one of the pieces as a review he wrote. Still, pretty cool to be able to look at them all in one PDF. And it's free

[hitbyambulance]

Ready Player One is free now?

[Kasey Chang]

Looks like someone just culled reviews from the various sites and "edited" them together with formatting. But it does feel like a proper book. The comparison screens of the same game across a dozen platforms is interesting in itself.

I really did use to own an Apple IIe so I remember a good portion of quite a few games. The 'spinners' in Wizardry are a real killer, as you don't have a compass.

Spoiler:

The square you step onto randomly spins you in a different facing, making mapping almost impossible. Fortunately it was only in one dungeon, IIRDC.

[Holman]

It's definitely just a collection of reviews & crowd-sourced memories rather than a proper book, but it's free, and it's a comprehensive list.

My first computer RPGs were Wizardry I and Ultima II on my Apple IIe. At the time they felt like the future, and it turns out they were.

[GreenGoo]

My first computer RPGs were Wizardry I and Ultima II on my Apple IIe. At the time they felt like the future, and it turns out they were.

I remember reading short stories in things like Dragon magazine, about the future of video games and/or crpgs and they were way cool. Turns out crpgs made around 1998 exceeded the science fiction of those stories. Today we are so far past those stories that they seem quaint. In my childhood, they were an unattainable fiction.

Humans are pretty good when they want to be.

[Sepiche]

My very first true CRPG was Wrath of Denethenor on the Commodore 64...

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2017/03/ ... -1986.html


My favorite one from that time period was Legacy of the Ancients though...
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/12/ ... -1987.html


Man, just looking through some of those brings back a flood of memories.

[Greybriar]

A lot of memories in that "book".

Yes, there certainly is.

[Holman]

It's definitely just a collection of reviews & crowd-sourced memories rather than a proper book, but it's free, and it's a comprehensive list.

My first computer RPGs were Wizardry I and Ultima II on my Apple IIe. At the time they felt like the future, and it turns out they were.

Oh, wow--I take it back. My very first RPGs were on the TRS-80 two years before we got the Apple II. They were Temple of Apshai and its sequels (including Morloc's Tower and Hellfire Warrior). I had completely forgotten about them.

[Smoove_B]

Temple of Apshai [Trilogy]

So many hours playing this on my Commodore. So. Many.

[GreenGoo]

Sword of Fargoal on the Vic 20 is the first one I remember, although I played Temple of Apshai.

[Kasey Chang]

First RPG was DND, a text-based rogue clone written in BASIC on Tandy TRS-80's.

When I got my Apple IIe, I was more interesting in sims and arcade games. I did play Wizardry for a little, but I think I got bored or frustrated. Played quite a bit of Stellar 7 too, but that's action. Just didn't get into RPG that much. Recognized all the names, but didn't play that many of them back then.

[Scuzz]

So I notice Bioshock is not included in the list. Why?

[Sepiche]

So I notice Bioshock is not included in the list. Why?

I'd consider it more of a FPS with light RPG elements.

[Scuzz]

So I notice Bioshock is not included in the list. Why?

I'd consider it more of a FPS with light RPG elements.

i haven't played System Shock 1 or 2. Is it much different from them? Based on the description of System Shock 2's play I would say they are pretty close. While you carry a gun in Bioshock I think you do make decisions regarding your play that effect the world, and the longer you play Bioshock the less you actually need to rely on the gun.

I mean Bioshock is more RPG than Borderlands and Borderlands is included. Maybe the guy who was to write about Bioshock never came thru.

[TheMix]

Not sure I'd agree with that.

Borderlands has classes and specs that let you choose which "role" you want to fulfill (if you are in a party). Depending on how you build your character, the game can play quite differently. In addition, your character develops and improves as you gain experience.

Bioshock really only lets you change weapons (and plasmids, which are basically weapons). Depending on your "weapon" loadout, your tactics may change some, but you really are still just switching between weapons. I suppose you could make some argument around the passive plasmids, but I still don't think I'd call it actual character development. At the end of the game you are essentially still the same character. Sure, you spent money/resources to get better weapons and defenses, but you didn't really develop. Now, I do happen to be a huge fan of the story and setting for Bioshock. But at the end of the day, it's really just an FPS under the hood.

[Scuzz]

I have played all three Borderlands games (co-played) and I wouldn't consider them RPG's at all. They are pure FPS to me.

[Blackhawk]

In other words, its RPG element are nowhere near as deep. It is choosing which weapons to upgrade first, really just a variation on linear improvement. SS2, on the other hand, actually had you choosing classes, and skill allocation completely changed the approach and opportunities you had in the game.

Still, the old argument of what makes an RPG tends to go in circles, especially these days. One definition of RPGs would exclude games like Skyrim entirely. Another would turn Call of Duty into and RPG, as it has unlocks and levels.

[Scuzz]

I own SS2 and am going to play it one of these days.

[Blackhawk]

I have played all three Borderlands games (co-played) and I wouldn't consider them RPG's at all. They are pure FPS to me.

What about Diablo?

[infinitelurker]

My favorite one from that time period was Legacy of the Ancients though...
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/12/ ... -1987.html

Man oh man, did I love Legacy of the Ancients back in the day on my Apple ][. That game and The Bard's Tale really injected the gaming bug in me that continues to this day.

[Scuzz]

I have played all three Borderlands games (co-played) and I wouldn't consider them RPG's at all. They are pure FPS to me.

What about Diablo?

I have never played Diablo.

[Z-Corn]

Temple of Apshai [Trilogy]

So many hours playing this on my Commodore. So. Many.

Me too but on my Atari 800. Hooked up to a 13" black-and-white TV. Loaded from cassette tape!

[Blackhawk]

I have played all three Borderlands games (co-played) and I wouldn't consider them RPG's at all. They are pure FPS to me.

What about Diablo?

I have never played Diablo.

Ah, well then - that tangent is going nowhere. It is basically Borderlands with swords. Or rather vice-versa. People regularly say Diablo is an RPG, but Borderlands is not, which is funny given that they're essentially the same game with a different coat of paint.

[GreenGoo]

I have played all three Borderlands games (co-played) and I wouldn't consider them RPG's at all. They are pure FPS to me.

I'd consider them to be action rpg's in first person perspective.

Diablo is an action rpg in 3rd person isometric perspective, which is why it was mentioned as comparable.

The differences between System Shock II and Bioshock are a matter of nuance and emphasis. SSII leans towards rpg and Bioshock leans towards shooter. To differentiate the two would take more time and effort than I'm willing to expend, but from an emotional level, SSII *feels* like an rpg with some action elements while Bioshock *feels* like a shooter with some rpg elements. Borderlands is very clearly diablo in a Mad Max world and first person perspective.

[Smoove_B]

You're missing the transitional game from the fossil records. To get from Diablo to Borderlands, you need to first move through Hellgate: London.

[Sepiche]

That game and The Bard's Tale really injected the gaming bug in me that continues to this day.

I remember being so excited to get home and play it that when I was at school I would try to redraw my inventory screen from memory so I could study it and plan.

[Alefroth]

Bioshock really only lets you change weapons (and plasmids, which are basically weapons).

You're neglecting gene tonics, which are the character development system of Bioshock.

[Kasey Chang]

Borderlands is FPS with *some* RPG elements (like guns with special abilities and random loots)

Diablo is real-time RPG (as opposed to turn-based)

[Blackhawk]

Borderlands is FPS with *some* RPG elements (like guns with special abilities and random loots)

Diablo is real-time RPG (as opposed to turn-based)

Other than where the camera is and it being guns rather than swords, I can't think of any real gameplay differences between the two (and I've put a lot of time into each.) They have essentially identical character development mechanic. Classes, a level based, tiered skill tree with multi-point skills, health pools that operate more or less the same way (even healing potions), and loot that gives bonuses and is tiered by color. The loot in both is as much a part of the leveling experience as the skill points. They are both gated worlds with open levels and a quest system to advance the storyline with side quests to fill the spaces. Both fill their 'zones' with enemies mixed with boss enemies that respawn after a short while. Hell, I'd argue that BL's NPCs and story are probably more fleshed out than Diablo's. Neither has much beyond that, either, and I'm not dancing around the comparisons by being overly general, either.

[Zarathud]

Diablo has the character changing gear and weapons. Borderlands only changes weapons. The difference is the character doll.

[Blackhawk]

Diablo has the character changing gear and weapons. Borderlands only changes weapons. The difference is the character doll.

And shields, grenade mods, and class mods, but that's true. Still, is a larger number of gear slots really what divides an RPG from a not-RPG? I'm still of the opinion that most people classify them the way they do simply because Diablo looks more like what people expect an RPG to look like, while Borderlands looks more like a shooter. There is nothing mechanically that really divides the two.

Seriously, the whole argument about what doesn't qualify as an RPG is stale. It's an arbitrary tag that can either apply to 75% of all games on the market, or to about 10% of them depending on who you ask. There are those that would froth at the mouth if you called Diablo (or Fallout 4, or Skyrim, or World of Warcraft) an RPG, and those that would call Battlefield 1 an RPG.

[Kasey Chang]

I'll debate the issue by looking at the shooter mechanics. When you attack an enemy in Diablo, you don't point at different parts of the enemy. It's just "attack". In Borderlands, you actually have to take care to aim at the proper target.

Though I *do* agree that Borderlands have about the strongest RPG elements of any shooter. But I'd argue that Borderlands is PRIMARILY a shooter, RPG second.

[Blackhawk]

I'll debate the issue by looking at the shooter mechanics. When you attack an enemy in Diablo, you don't point at different parts of the enemy. It's just "attack". In Borderlands, you actually have to take care to aim at the proper target.

Fallout.

[Blackhawk]

So what is the essential thing to make a game an RPG? A combat mechanic? Character building? Freedom of choice? Multiple outcomes based on actions? A combination thereof?

Surely not choosing a target. After all there are lots of RPGs where you can target body parts, some even on the fly. Fallout 1-4, Mass Effect 3 (I don't remember 2 did, I know 1 didn't.) Equipment slots? Some RPGs have very few - recent Bioware titles come to mind. Reflexes being a factor? Witcher 1-3, Gothic.

[Blackhawk]

Note that I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here just for the sake of enjoying the discussion. I don't think of 'RPG' as an exclusive label, but as an element that games can have more or less of. Years ago, either here or on Gone Gold, I made a "game triangle." It had action in one corner, RPG in another, and the last had... Strategy?
Story? Problem solving? I don't remember. Anyway, the point was that many games, from action-with-upgrades to the most hardcore classic RPG fall onto that table, with varying amounts of RPG in them.

They're all RPGs, or else RPGCodex is right and there have only ever been five RPGs released in the history of gaming, none of them after 2002.

RPG isn't an either-or label. It is a 'how much?' label.

/edit - remembered a little more about the triangle.

[Kasey Chang]

It's not specifically CHOOSING a target, but rather, the ability to do it in real-time, that makes FPS an FPS.

Fallout 3's VATS mode is RPG in that it gives percentages to hitting specific body parts. You can play the game in pure FPS mode (indeed, there are mods that turn off the VATS completely) but unless you have a heavy PC it's not recommended.

I'd also argue that Fallout 3 starts with character creation (GOAT test) and thus is "RPG with elements of FPS", where Borderlands is the other way around, "FPS with elements of RPG".

[Blackhawk]

Ok, again - Mass Effect 3. And I just pulled that off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

I'd also argue that Fallout 3 starts with character creation (GOAT test) and thus is "RPG with elements of FPS", where Borderlands is the other way around, "FPS with elements of RPG".

Like Diablo?