Spoony Reviews Serpent Isle
What was the big plan the Guardian had?
I don’t know why he skips the whole sequence in Monitor, in favour of Fawn. I mean, granted, he is talking about how the Avatar and the Companions get put on trial for speaking well of Lord British; I get that. But still…it’s an odd starting point.
As to the whole “Guardian smiting Batlin with lightning” thing, it’s always been my interpretation that the Guardian was able to do that precisely because the Wall of Lights was open; the engine just doesn’t support lightning being served up horizontally. I realize I’m quibbling, but I’d argue that Spoony is kind of quibbling as well, looking for plot holes where there really aren’t any.
Props for the Conan the Barbarian scene, though. Witty! “Robot versions of my friends”; awesome. His criticisms of the engine (e.g. the combat and monster respawn mechanics) and the text used in the dialogue are fair, and indeed are things that Ultima fans will readily note and concede in regard to Serpent Isle. I think we’ve all seen the Monitor guards get stuck face-to-face, and it is pretty funny.
His reviews are great. So far I’ve seen UW2, Privateer 2, and Highlander 2. He makes my sides hurt. 🙂
Lol.. I do enjoy Spoony reviews. It’s been a long while since I’ve played Ultima VII, and I must say that I had forgotten how intricate and deep the storyline went, and how INVOLVED and detailed the gameplay. (What the hell happened to most RPGs since then? No, don’t answer.. too long and too depressing)
I’ll go and say it, but the intricacy and plot depth of Ultima games – and even Serpent Isle which is arguable the deepest in this regard – is vastly overrated.
And especially compared to more moderne RPG games.
This is probably true of a lot of old RPGs.
Well then Sergorn, I’d ask of you your age, and what kind of “supplements” you are taking. At least elaborate. I am not saying that the Ultimas are unparalelled with respect to depth and intricacy, but they are amongst the elite, in that regard. Coupled with the depth of/and non-linear gameplay, and huge world.. I just don’t understand how you can make such a judgement. The only RPGs I can think which come close or are on par would be Daggerfall, Fallout (1&2), Planescape Torment, I am sure there are a few more. However, not many that bring it all together. And certainly there are no JRPGs that do it, to my knowledge; at least not any that are ALSO free-playing.
Even if one did not like Ultima, I am hard-pressed to understand how anyone could make your statement. The game mechanics for many of the Ultimas, especially 6&7s were used for a host of RPGs that were enormously successful in future generations. (E.g. Baldur’s Gate series)
I have been playing RPGs since the inception of Macintosh and the Apple II/Commodore era. As a general trend, I believe that RPG design has been dumbed-down for the masses, as gaming has become mainstream. Of course, this was inevitable. Perfect example? The Elder Scroll series.
Gents, save the dick-measuring contests for the locker room!
No problems, WTF. Just wondering by what reasoning Ultima VII is “vastly over-rated”.
Overrated might not be the correct word, but it certainly is pedestalized in a way that isn’t completely…let’s say rational.
Thepal’s comment from a few days ago says it better than I could in a short time, so I’m just going to quote him here:
And from this comment:
Nobody could reasonably deny that Ultima 7 was a great game, an influential game, a ground-breaking and history-making game which has been an inspiration for RPG developers in all the years since its release. But it’s important to keep in mind what we are saying when we say that, and what we are NOT saying at the same time. I suppose the question to you, Philologus, would be to ask for clarification as to exactly what you mean when you deploy terms like “depth” and “intricacy”, or what things the other titles you list “come close” to replicating.
Most interesting part was his “robot companions” bit which made me recall Nakar’s Serpent Isle LP (find it at http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/ ).
It was odd him missing out large parts of the game, but I guess it didn’t fit into either the time allowed or he couldn’t find enough humorous things to say about those sections.
Cannot wait to see what he thinks of Ultima 8.
I’m 30 years and I’ve basically been growing up playing CRPGs all my life, starting with the early Ultima games, the SSI Golden Box, the Bard’s Tale and many many more… (So I guess you can forget about the “silly youngster” argument you were probably about to make, sorry :P)
I won’t enter the argument about gameplay, since this is a rather more complicated issue and I was talking about writing depth.
But it’s pretty obvious to me that a -lot- of people tend to look at old games with pink tinted glasses and generally tend to see depth when there was little.
The truth is many of those old RPGs had little actual depth. Dialogues were often sparse and writing was hardly anything to write home about. Now of course, you need to replace them in their respective context… for their time many of those were very interesting and very good but by modern standard many would just feel laughable in term of simple writing. (And I don’t see anything shocking about saying this – yes modern standars in term of writing in videogames is much higher than it was 15 or 20 years ago).
I would argue that a lot of that depth is actually imagined… quite simply because games back in the 80 and early 90 left a LOT to the player’s imagination – so we were all free to fill in the gaps and imagine more depth than there actually was. Which was fine of course and logical considering the rather abstract nature of videogames’ graphic back then.
But that does not make them “deep”. Rather we let our imagination ran wild and make the games as deep as we wanted them to be.
Ultima was a wonderful series in that it brought real philosophical concepts, and brought more depth than RPG games had before then. Which was great. But if you look beyond the obvious nostalgic factor and try to look at things a tad more objectively… it really never was *that* good in term of sheer writing. It was great for its time… but if anything it would feel amateurish by today’s standard.
Ultima IV is a great exemple: it was revolutionnary in many aspects. But it was more a concept with a gameplay built around than a game with an actualy story and plot depth, and if anything the writing was just downright silly. But that’s okay because back then it was wonderful and immersive to have interactive talks with NPCs!
You know it’s kinda of like when we first had voice acting in videogames. Most of it was crap, but we loved it because our computer was talking to us! And yet any game released with voice equivalent to what we had in the ’90 now would be laughed at. And with good reason. (Indeed when I sometime see people critizing the voice acting of such or such character in such videogame and saying it’s “crap”… I can’t help to wonder how they’d feel with the kind of voices we had back then :P)
But that is mostly true about writing as well. Now arguably some story concepts and ideas from games in the 80/early-90 COULD potentially offer more depth with a better execution and writing (which is why I’m such an advocate to a Ultima IV reboot, because an Ultima IV done with today’s standard could be just as revolutionnary as the original was back then), but as they are it’s not a stretch to say that a lot of modern RPGs have more depth in the way they are written (whether in term of plot, background, dialogues…) than what we got twenty years ago.
And even not taking Ultima into account, would you be telling be that a Wizardry, a Pool of Radiance, or a Might&Magic have more depth than a Dragon Age, a Mass Effect or Neverwinter Nights 2 ? I mean… Really ?
I’ve been playing CRPGs all my life (and JRPGs for half of it), it remains to this day my favorite gaming genre… but in the end I would not trade a modern RPG for what we’d had 20 years ago.
(Note that a lot of what I’m saying about imagined depth is also true with JRPGs… perhaps even truer indeed considering the genre has barely evolved at all since its inception)
But then I tend to disagree about the whole “dumbed down” for the masses argument, which most often than not comes out as silly to me. Now granted we’d have a hard time finding a modern RPG with the same amount of depth than a Planescape Torment or a Arcanum… but I do feel necessary to point out that these games were very much the exceptions in the RPG genre instead than the rule. When I see “old school gamers” pointing out how great RPGs games were before, and usually citing games such as Torment or Fallout 2 and all the dialogues choices they offered as if this was the essence of CRPGs games… I can’t help to feel that these are people who just don’t know their history (or worst rewrite it!) and forget how really a lot of RPGs even amongst classic were hardly more than glorified dungeon crawlers focusing mostly and killing monsters and gaining experience points with a story to follow that could or could not be good.
I can’t help to notice you mentionned Elder Scroll… and I can’t even begin to express how much I disagree with this assessment. If Oblivion is what dumbing down means, I certainly hope they continue to dumb things down even more, because as far as I’m concerned it’s basically turned a mediocre franchise into a great (albeit flawed) game, at last. (Sorry but it always baffles me to see people bring Daggerfall as a great game… I’ve always held a strong despise for it and have for a long time haild as the manual of what NOT to do when creating a CRPG – the fact that someone could find such mediocrity superior to Oblivion is beyond by understanding :P).
Now the one point I would feel modern RPGs have regressed compared to some of the better title of the late ’90/early 2000′ though, is in term of sheer content.
Indeed there are less NPCs to talk to, less areas to explore, less quest to do. I don’t think it’s part of some evil dumbing down scheme however… it’s more an unfortunate consequence of having gone 3D and (more importantly) full speech – which makes things so long and costly to develop that developpers simply can’t afford anymore to offer say, the same amount of content that a Baldur’s Gate II had. Which probably brings the question as to whether or not we need every CRPGs to be big AAA blockbuster games, but that is a different debate altogether.
But if one consider the late’90/early 2000 era as the pinacle of RPG genre (and in some ways it was) I don’t feel things are that different on the whole.
On a side note I just don’t see how Ultima has influenced the game mechanics of Baldur’s Gate in any means… if anything BG and Bioware games in general feel like the polar opposite of what Ultima was aiming to do and I can tell you – because there was a LOT of talk of it when it as released – that a lot of Ultima fans back in 1998 felt that Baldur’s Gate was rather poor and a bad omen for CRPGs. And while that is an overexageration it certainly paved to way for a vastly different kind of RPG design philosophy that what Ultima offered and the Ultima school of thought have pretty much vanished except for a few exceptions like Pyrhanna Bytes and TES to some extent.
Which as a Ultima fan, makes me sad.
Oh and since I hadn’t seen the other comments, I’m not saying “over-rated” in the sense that it was “bad” – no it was great for its time.
But seeing self-appointed hardcore gamer rambling on as to how the RPGs of yore had more writing depth – yeah sorry but that’s just nostaltic talk here.
I think “pedestalized” is indeed a good way to put it.
Serpent Isle was the most “texty” game I had ever played, until I met Planescape Torment. Those two remain the best examples of the “RPG as interactive novel” to this day.
Both Ultima 7’s could be said to be overrated, in that their combat should be regarded as completely unacceptable – it honestly feels like something that was hacked into an adventure game engine at the last minute. But definately not overrated in terms of story depth and quality of writing. I wonder who those writers were and where they disappeared to after 1993.
“But it’s pretty obvious to me that a -lot- of people tend to look at old games with pink tinted glasses and generally tend to see depth when there was little.”
Thank you for the thoughtful response, Sergorn. Truly, I do appreciate it. However, notice that I was not talking about depth in “older” CRPGs as a whole. You brought that into it. I have no qualms with you lumping the kind that is Times of Lore, or Phantasie, or Gemstone Warrior, or.. into that, although I would counter by saying that CRPG development at that time was an alien process compared to today. I hope to discuss Ultima here, and to be specific, Ultima VII.
“I would argue that a lot of that depth is actually imagined… quite simply because games back in the 80 and early 90 left a LOT to the player’s imagination – so we were all free to fill in the gaps and imagine more depth than there actually was. Which was fine of course and logical considering the rather abstract nature of videogames’ graphic back then.”
Completely agree here. I wonder if you were one to also play the old pen&paper RPGs (with D&D being the epitome of that)? I grew up with it, and as you say, had a great imagination to fill in any (or should I say many) gaps in story. However, I feel that the Ultimas, especially the latter incarnations filled in detail not only in back-plot, but also by allowing one to interact with the world in a way that was revolutionary at the time, and still holds up to many modern RPGs, in that regard. And dare I say it, even surpasses many “successful” modern RPGs. Perfect example is the Neverwinter Nights series. Gods, both are so pretty to look at, and both are disserved with static environments that rivaled the vapid still-screens that one finds in the Final Fantasies. (I do like FF btw.. very different beasts, the tradition JRPG vs WCRPG)
I understand what you mean with respect to “amateurish” writing; it’s not as if RPG dialogues were being penned by the same quality of writer that were doing Star Trek:TNG episodes, for example. However, Ultima VII was definitely “deep” with respect to how much story existed; and how much interaction and manipulation of the story the player was allowed. Furthermore, I agree with your commentary about having a complex “moral system” that was ingrained into the story (and by definition gameplay), being an aspect that drew me in as a moth to the flame.
Along the same lines, being able to talk to virtually any NPC (as you mentioned) was fantastic. Having so many of the NPCs customized, rather than “robotized” (i.e. with mundane lines that served no purpose, a la Morrowind&Oblivion) was mesmerizing.
“And even not taking Ultima into account, would you be telling be that a Wizardry, a Pool of Radiance, or a Might&Magic have more depth than a Dragon Age, a Mass Effect or Neverwinter Nights 2 ? I mean… Really ?”
In terms of gameplay? No, of course not, but that’s hardly a fair comparison. Those games were fun, but no. But a couple of those definitely beat the likes of NVN1 in story 😉 NVN2 was marginally better, IMO, and incredibly, I think Mask of the Betrayer had an awesome story. (I know you said NVN2, but c’mon, NVN1 had a story that seemed written by a drunk 10 year old who had just finished playing a Magic the Gathering duel, and then decided to do LSD) But I digress… sorry!
“ (Note that a lot of what I’m saying about imagined depth is also true with JRPGs… perhaps even truer indeed considering the genre has barely evolved at all since its inception)”
JRPGs are evolving, and in the past there have been some gems that seemed ahead of their time. The Shining Force series (e.g. SF3 parts 1-3), for example had interesting stories that one could affect (i.e. not completely linear a?b). Dark Wizard was a shockingly good strategy JRPG with multiple endings and good gameplay depth for such. But as a whole, I agree that the best JRPGs ride on riveting narratives and presentation. And perhaps FFXIII has taken it to a new level, from what I hear; that is why I won’t play it. I don’t want a 50+ hour interactive CGI movie. I want an RPG.
“But then I tend to disagree about the whole “dumbed down” for the masses argument, which most often than not comes out as silly to me. Now granted we’d have a hard time finding a modern RPG with the same amount of depth than a Planescape Torment or a Arcanum… but I do feel necessary to point out that these games were very much the exceptions in the RPG genre instead than the rule.”
Well first, I consider Torment and Arcanum to be the next generation after Ultima VII. But ok. I see where you are going, and if you speak of story, I agree. But as far as gameplay, an incomplete list includes: 1) customization of character appearance/disposition 2) being able to interact with a large number of NPCs in a meaningful manner (including just going postal) 3) being able to manipulate objects in the environment (picking up, destroying, throwing etc…) 4) having heavy stat-driven development with a diverse array of skills and attributes that can be molded to fit the players style, and which also contributes to the non-linear nature of gameplay… ??? Do you really want to argue that the current generation of RPGs is much better? If at all? Do you not think there are examples of “elderly” RPGs that put many current RPGs to shame in that vein? I mentioned before, Daggerfall to Morrowind. Morrowind had better graphics, but a dumbed-down spell and battle system and arguably a worse story, despite a greater budget. But perhaps since you are such a big fan of Oblvion, and “despise” Daggerfall, we will have to amicably disagree, eh? 😉
“I can’t help to feel that these are people who just don’t know their history (or worst rewrite it!) and forget how really a lot of RPGs even amongst classic were hardly more than glorified dungeon crawlers focusing mostly and killing monsters and gaining experience points with a story to follow that could or could not be good.”
I would not argue against that, assuming you are taking this comparison back to the CRPGs of the 80’s. But then again, if you want to include games from the late 90s in this (which I think fall into the “classic”category given that its 2011)? Fallouts? Arcanum? Torment? Ultima? Deus Ex? (I could go on). Your retort in the above paragraph doesn’t hold water, under such circumstances, IMO.
“Now the one point I would feel modern RPGs have regressed compared to some of the better title of the late ’90/early 2000? though, is in term of sheer content.
Indeed there are less NPCs to talk to, less areas to explore, less quest to do.”
Completely agree. Unlike you, I think it is part of the dumbing-down. If you are objective, you would agree that many modern RPGs have been made easier, and less complicated so as to appeal to more potential gamers? Perhaps people don’t want so many options, as much as they just want to play part in an interesting story?
“On a side note I just don’t see how Ultima has influenced the game mechanics of Baldur’s Gate in any means…”
Uhhh.. I don’t even know what to say here; it’s definitely not just me that thinks this. It’s so obvious to me just by playing the two. But here, please check these links out (which I hope is allowed):
http://armchairarcade.com/neo/node/2679?page=2
http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/bg2fiveyearanniversary.php
(Please pardon any spelling/grammatical errors. It has been a long day)
Infinitron, you say Torment and U7:SI were wordy. Well, I agree (although I enjoyed both as you did). Let me throw Xenogears into that category, and tell you that it beats both combined, I think.
As for U7’s battle system? I wonder if you played BG1&2, because they are not so different. (I had no qualms with the battle system, despite the tedium)
“But seeing self-appointed hardcore gamer rambling on as to how the RPGs of yore had more writing depth – yeah sorry but that’s just nostaltic talk here.”
Please, don’t put words into my mouth, and don’t try to set the parameters of this argument (e.g. “20 years ago”). I noticed that in your main post, you attempted to steer this discussion towards comparisons with really old games, and mainly concerning story. Nice try.
As for me being an old “self-appointed” hard core gamer? You bet. Sorry to step on your toes, but even if you don’t like it, please refrain from thinly veiled ad hominem, and just (try) to argue the facts. Thank you.
Nostalgia > rational thinking
I wonder if you played BG1&2, because they are not so different.
???
???
Both BG1&2 are similar to Ultima VII in that there can be tedious pathfinding (outside of and) during combat. They also share similar mechanics of buffing up, approaching the enemy, then pausing the game to issue commands, and finally watching the ensuing mish-mash of bodies while trying to make out what is going on (and praying that you can pause on time to heal and cast relavent spells). The Spoony review mentioned that he rarely had to do much more than start the attack, and then just sit back and watch the monsters get mowed down. I remember BG being the same, and specifically for the difficult battles. For example, the final battle in BG2:Throne of Bhaal resembled two armies playing “Red Rover” on screen; in the middle of it, I sometimes had difficulty making out my characters. (Had a lot of summons on screen along with my party)
None of this is to say I didn’t enjoy BG. Indeed, I hold Bioware in the same regard as Origin, and appropriately put the BG series up there with Ultima.
Baldur’s Gate combat is far, FAR more tactical than U7’s. Aside from both being real time they have nothing in common.
For starters, you can control all of your party members. Then there’s the pausing. Spellcasting and buffing that you can actually use. Holding your ground and using terrain.
Need I go on?
FYI, it’s generally wrong to draw parallels between Bioware’s RPGs and the Ultima games.
The former descend genealogically from the hardcore AD&D dungeon crawling “Gold Box” games.
Further reading: http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,31/
(particularly the ‘Forefathers’ section)
First, I don’t need a “history lesson” on BGs predecessors, especially since I own some, and have played through almost every one of them. I wouldn’t be so defensive, if I could make sense of how in the heck that precludes me from being able to talk about the relationship between BG and Ultima VII? Really? The crux of your statement centers on genealogy, but in fact, there isn’t much in common between the gameplay of those Gold Box games, and the BGs. (Serious question: Have you actually played these games, or are you just looking up articles?)
Tactical? I don’t remember the “using your terrain” part in BG, but it has been a while. Maybe you are referring to the use of objects such as trees as a tactical tool? I also don’t get the “holding your ground” statement. This wasn’t anything close to an SRPG. BG offered more control over characters, and allowed pausing to issue commands, but once combat got heavy, it was as I described above. Click, issue, and watch the carnage. BGs successors (i.e. the NVNs) weren’t improved in that respect.
As I stated before, one is able to buff up in both; go back and look at the U7 spell list if you don’t believe me. And lest you forget, one is able to dictate the combat “personality” of the other Ultima VII party members. It wasn’t as useful as having the option to control charaters directly, but it did offer a modicum of direction.
The end result, which I alluded to above, was not too different, in either case.
“Protect” is hardly a buffing spell, and applications of buff-type spells in Ultima 7 were questionably effective anyway. Certainly, such spells served minimal tactical purpose, and likely went unused by most players. In other words: technically, yes, Ultima 7 had buffing spells; practically, these had no net impact on combat, and so went un(der)-used by most players.
It’s also worth noting (since the point was raised) that Ultima 7‘s skill system was laughably simplistic even in its day, and had almost no discernible impact on gameplay. Ultima 9 had a better skill system, in which gaining in particular skills translated into being able to employ different moves in combat. One notes that the 3D terrain also made tactics somewhat more relevant in Ascension; sniping, for example, was possible and sometimes even quite useful.
Protect wasn’t the only one. Furthermore, regardless of whether you used the spells, and your opinion of their effectiveness, the implication by infinitron was that they didn’t exist. They did. This was done to point the parallels between combat in U7 and BG, which clearly exist. U7 seems to have had an influence, even if some of it was indirect.
As for the comparison between U7 and U9? Ok, fair play to you. But how did “skill system” get into this? Unless you are lumping spell-casting into it? (When I think of “skills” in an RPG, I think lockpicking, bartering, character attributes like Str Dex etc…) I don’t think U7 had a weak skill system “even in its day”. Please elaborate by providing some examples, if I may oblige? I am NOT saying U7 had a complicated skill system, but it was hardly Times of Lore, and one could easily name an RPG around that era that had a weaker skill system, for every example of a stronger skill system.
Or are you just looking to point out a deficiency (if you want to call it that) in U7s gameplay? Anyone (that has actually played a decent number of RPGs) can do so.
BG offered more control over characters, and allowed pausing to issue commands, but once combat got heavy, it was as I described above. Click, issue, and watch the carnage.
I’m sorry, but this is just an incorrect description of the combat in the Infinity Engine games. You must not remember.
Admittedly, you COULD turn on the game’s weak AI scripts and let your companions do their own thing, resulting in chaos, but that was a good way to get mauled by a pack of wolves five minutes after leaving Candlekeep.
To excel at Baldur’s Gate, you had to control your characters fully, maintain formation, tanks at the front, archers and mages at the back, etc.
This wasn’t anything close to an SRPG.
It’s funny that you say that, since there’s a persistent legend that the IE was originally meant to power a real-time strategy game.
If you ask me, this criticism of U7 is actually “praising with faint damn”. There’s no reason to get offended – it’s incredible that the game is so good despite being so fundamentally broken.
Interestingly, Planescape Torment is very much the same in that respect – incredibly despite lackluster combat (the Infinity Engine combat seems very much tacked on in PST – something in the style of The Witcher would have worked better IMO, AD&D purism aside).
Infinitron, I will go ahead and load BG onto my machine, and play it for a bit, just for posterity. I played the IE games, from the inception with BG, through Icewind Dale 2. Believe me when I say, I loved those games, and remember the flow of combat. (Although I lost some love for the Icewind Dales.. somehow morphed into a pseudo-JRPG, especially ID2) Yes, you absolutely had more control, and could exert a greater strategic influence, and even slow down combat in BG2. But the parallels, for me anyway, are glaring with respect to the look, and control of both.
Remember, it’s not as if setting character scripts was the only way of controlling characters in U7. Once could flee, pause, reset the character combat dispositions (which were varied enough), and wade back in. Not the best way of doing things, primarily because it turned the Avatar into a caretaker that made sure the rest of the party didn’t die, but it worked for me.
I don’t understand this sentiment of combat being “broken” in U7, so much as crude. C’mon, cut it a break; it was a forerunner for isometric RPGs with real-time combat that didn’t Final-Fantisize to another screen for encounters. At the time, it was brilliant. Even today, I could easily palate it had I never played U7, and were to wade into it.
And while your description of what would happen if venturing out of Candlekeep at the beginning, is true, the fact is that once a party got powerful enough, encounters became a breeze for the most part. Indeed one could (or at least I could) put my party on autopilot. The exception, without saying, is ToB. That was a difficult game that needed micromanaging combat on most encounters.
Philologus:
And yet the combat in Ultima 6 was largely superior; it had the same assignable combat roles, but was more explicitly turn-based and as such allowed for more managed combat. Skills, such as they were, played little role in combat (the same as in Ultima 7), and more or less all of the same “buffing” spells existed…and were about as minimally effective.
somehow morphed into a pseudo-JRPG, especially ID2
That’s an interesting statement. How is IWD2 pseudo-JRPG? Because of the 3rd Edition D&D feats and stuff?
I think most people would say the IWD series was less JRPGish than BG, and Torment for that matter.
Yes, the 3rd edition rules played into it, although the ability to improve many skills (like “intimidate”, which affected dialogue options) were cool. But I remember the game being extremely linear, especially after having come off of the more open-ended BG series. (Keep in mind, when I say “linear” I am not only referring to having only one ending) Also, I remember fighting a “mid-boss” several times before he finally was defeated. In other words, I’d kick his butt, only for him to somehow miraculously be alive after the battle, and make an escape. This mechanic is used in many JRPGs, but for me, is not a staple of WRPGs.
Another aspect of the ID series was having the choice of many spells, but only using a few of them. That was such a waste. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the battle in ID2 more frenetic (and simpler) than BG2?
Planetscape Torment had way better dialogue than Star Trek! Star Trek is the holy grail of dialogues!
I think they are the same in looks mainly. Both are 2d top down rpgs. The stats involved in combat played a more significant roll in BG. BG was much more sophisticated in combat, you would pause all the time, I don’t remember ever getting far enough in it to get to a mow down point. Ultima 7 especially was easy to level quickly. And in BG you could speed things up, and make the game go quicker. By the time I played u7 I was on a comp with windows 98, it ran like lightning! People would run around in super fast motion. One full day cycle lasted about 5-10 min.
I think just about every race you can pick in BG has been in an ultima game.
It’s been a while but didn’t you get a portrait to look at when crucial npcs talked to you in BG like u6-u7?
U7 combat was basically the same as u6, but a lot faster. Admittedly, I never could get far in the original u6 without crashing. But the stats are basically the same, and do the same thing. U7 just has a lot more weapon choices. Speed is efficiency, and more weapons means u7 combat was more gooder.
Often I think the evolution of new games compared to the evolution of old games forms an X. Some things get better at the expense of other things getting worse. Graphics get better, music gets worse. Things that fall in the middle are gameplay, namely the choices you’re allowed to make and how consistently they and their repercussions are applied across the game.
Most modern games tend to fall into categories of being wholly scripted or partially sandbox, Ultima falling neatly between. Maybe that’s why there’s so much controversy about it these days. Everyone wants to fit it into a modern-day niche.
The “imagination” part describes all games, filling in the necessary blanks, and the fact that older games used the device more frequently is no criticism. Imagination is what separates novels from film and is why the book is always better. That’s an important reason why some older games are better than newer ones, and citing the lack of technology at the time as a reason for why they didn’t do something better is a reflection of the shitty state of most modern games which overly rely on graphics to create the illusion of a good time.
Some things about old games are better. That doesn’t mean that every aspect of their dissected mechanics and art are better, but to think that the state of the art is decidedly more advanced is just naive.
A good analogy (and I suck at analogies) is the fidelity and complexity of production of a modern pop-artist song. Think “Pink” or “Lady Gaga”. Now compare all the work that went into any of their songs, using the best equipment and the finest in their respective fields, to a simple classical piece by any of your favorite composers. Who is superior? Is Bach an outdated, good-for-his-time composer? Is Lady Gaga and company a cutting edge delivery system for great music?
Sometimes the new things, for all their impressive technological glory, just aren’t as good in many ways as the old things. Also get off my fucking lawn. 🙂
Great thoughts, Sanctimonia. Nothing to add, but I do have a question about:
“Also get off my fucking lawn”
Is this a line from a movie? Or were there some unruly children occupying your lawn space while writing?
Haha. I’m not sure where that and its variations came from originally. I’ve heard it in Slashdot comments a million times, usually when the article pits the “old way” against the “new way” of doing things. I think it sums up the feelings of a grumpy old man who has no patience for the new order and exercises his rights to protect what he holds valuable.
Actually, now that I think about it, something like that may have been said in Gran Torino. I just looked it up on IMDB and sure enough, the quote is, “Get off my lawn!”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/quotes
I wonder if the overly clicky combat of U8 was a direct response to the overly uninvolving combat of U7?
I suppose it’s a possibility.
I mean, Ultima 8 was meant to be a move toward the action-RPG framework, so a more “involved” combat style that you couldn’t just spectate through was a pretty natural inclusion. But it’s not impossible that Garriott wanted to improve on combat for that reason as well.
It would have been interesting to see what Ultima VIII or IX would have looked like if developed for the PSX. I wonder why Origin didn’t get in to console development more directly… The personal computer hasn’t traditionally been the platform of choice for action games due to inconsistent interfaces.
I’m all for Ultima being a bit more “hands on”, as long as all the good stuff we’re used to isn’t sacrificed.
Sanctimonia:
The separation between “PC developers” and “console developers” was far stronger back in the 90’s. I get the impression that PC devs did not take consoles seriously at all back then.
Origin just didn’t survive long enough to see the “multiplatform age”.