Tales of the Rampant Coyote
Adventures in Indie Gaming!


(  RSS Feed! | Games! | Forums! )

Thursday, February 19, 2009
 
The Most Influential RPG I Never Played
The original Wizardry (full title: "Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord") was published in 1981 for the Apple II, written by Andrew C. Greenberg and Robert Woodhead. It was definitely one of the most influential computer RPGs of all time, and it was certainly a big influence upon me. And yet, I never played it.

Okay, "never" isn't entirely true. But I didn't have a machine that would even run it for many years. I played it a little on friends' computers when I could - particularly the gimped IBM port on my buddy's IBM Peanut - but I never made it past the third level.

But I read about. Oh, did I read about it. It was the single game I wanted most to be ported to my platform of choice during the mid-80's (by the time it was finally ported to the Commodore 64 - in 1987 according to MobyGames- I had moved on). I read about it and its sequels in magazines. I talked to friends who played it.

In 1983 I bought a book entitled "The Survival Kit for Apple Computer Games," which I still somehow have in my library. Not that I had an Apple. But back then, books on computer games were still pretty rare. And there was almost nothing for the C-64 out yet, though I knew many developers were frantically attempting to port their libraries to this new system. So I picked up the book in anticipation of seeing some Apple II classics hitting my beloved machine. I was especially interested in the Adventure games and RPGs (which they called "fantasy games" in the book).

I read and re-read the chapter on Wizardry. This was the game. The Cadillac of RPGs. Later, it would be dethroned by Ultima III: Exodus, which enjoyed a much speedier port to the C-64 and would totally blow my mind.

The cool thing about the book is that authors Ray Spangenburg and Diane Moser would not only include some hints and tips for playing the game, but would offer some prosaic paragraphs highlighting interesting or key locations in each game. In so doing, they would inject a little bit of their own imagination into what was otherwise pretty rudimentary, workmanlike in-game descriptions.

So in my mind, I envisioned Wizardry as a glorious masterpiece of programming and game design virtuosity. Sure, I understood its limitations as a self-taught programmer, and I expected nothing that was technically unfeasable or outside the obvious bounds of the design. But I did envision a narrative thread and event-handling that was far more detailed and complex than really existed. At least, I think it was more detailed and complex than really existed - having never completed the game, I can't be certain. But the Wizardry in my imagination was probably closer to what was eventually realized in SSI's "Gold Box" D&D games (with a touch of Zork) than what less hardware-disadvantaged players were enjoying.

But that imaginary Wizardry became my goal as I continued to improve my coding chops and trying to envision where computer RPGs would be in coming years. I was tilting at a pretty awesome windmill.

I ended up with one "playable" game that in a proud creator's blinded vision might vaguely resemble Wizardry. It was a party-based game. It allowed you to create characters,which meant accepting random stat rolls, picking a class, and giving the stat-block a name. You'd travel through a randomly generated maze in search of an "orb" - a very original goal I came up with all by myself. The upper-left corner would display basically one room's worth of walls and doors, and you could turn and move in pseudo-3D. I had maybe a dozen different monsters that would attack, with a little six-note musical fanfare that would play when combat began and ended. I started out by making the dungeon ten levels deep (with 10 x 10 rooms), but ran into memory issues and had to scale it back down to six. I don't believe the goal of the game - the "orb" - was ever actually possible to find, but some friends and I had some fun playing my little game together one weekend.

Later, I taught myself assembly language and wrote a routine to display a more complex bitmapped world several squares deep, similar to what you'd see in The Bard's Tale or the SSI Gold Box Games. It was a simple painter's algorithm thing that could display fountains and trees and stuff in addition to walls, floors, and doors. I failed to think far enough to realize I could render the whole scene in an off-screen buffer FIRST and then copy to the screen - so as you walked you could catch a split-second glimpse of whatever was behind the nearest walls. That project was never more than a tech demo, though. But hey - the visual display was cooler than that of Wizardry!

But it was the design possibilities that really got me thinking. As I mentioned last week, I'm all about exploration in RPGs. And I struggled not only with the technical issues involved in scripting a world big enough for my imagination, but also just coming up with a world as full and exploration-friendly as I wanted. I wanted a world with all kinds of meaning and story.

I'm still tilting at that particular windmill.

Labels: , ,



Did you enjoy this post? Feel free to share it: del.icio.us | Digg it | Furl | reddit | Yahoo MyWeb

Comments:
You and me both.

By the way, I actually played Wizardry I not too long ago. I got hold of a great Apple ][ emulator and found the Wizardry disk files online. What a blast seeing those screens again -- it really blew me away.

Maybe at the next Utah Indie Gamers Night we should have a brief session where we fire it up for the youngins. Show 'em how it was done back in the day.
 
Wizardry was fantastic! I'd occasionally sluff class to play, I'm ashamed to say. (Okay, not really so much.) =P

Yeah, I'd sluff in the school counselors' office of all places -- they didn't have enough Apples in the computer science room, so they'd let us do our homework on the extra ones in the counselor's office, so I'd be like, "Yeah, just need to work on computer science stuff..." They never had a clue that my "homework" was not-so-much work. =D

"...similar to what you'd see in The Bard's Tale or the SSI Gold Box Games. It was a simple painter's algorithm thing that could display fountains and trees and stuff in addition to walls, floors, and doors...That project was never more than a tech demo, though..."

Heh... I did the same thing on the Atari 8-bit, only my inspiration was Dungeon Master. Sounds like you got a little farther though; I only got mine to the point of drawing a single hallway with some doors. =)

@Rubes: Lol... yeah, kids these days with all their newfangled graphics 'n stuff -- no idea what they've missed. =D
 
Heh. I doubt they'd appreciate it. Well, some would. I did appreciate the "retro dungeon" I found in Wizardry 8.

The thing is, the games back then left a lot to the imagination. Sometimes that really is a good thing. The mind fills in a lot of meaning and relationships that may not really be there.

The other trick they used - a long-lost art today - was to pack a TON of flavor into the manuals. Computers were very limited in just what text they could display back then. So the manuals would suggest a whole bunch of detail for your mind to fill in as you played.

There's probably some enormous applicability in modern games with suggesting expectations as you enter the game - but I'm not really sure what that would be yet.
 
So, when you're done with Wizardry 8 are you going to do the rest of the series? Like the "Blogging Ultima/Dragon Quest/Whatever" stuff that sprang up a while back?
 
I only recently played through "Wizardry 1" (the excellent Japanese SNES port, to be precise) for my YouTube channel, and I enjoyed the simple but addictive dungeon crawling. Without the modern additions - such as better graphics and an auto-map - I probably wouldn't have been able to finish it, though...

I'm no expert on Wizardry, but I guess "Bane of the Cosmic Forge" was the first game in the series to handle story-telling in a somewhat more ambitious way. Both W6 and W7 have a lot of verbose text descriptions, and while the writing itself may be a bit pretentious and overwrought, I personally felt that it managed to convey both an intriguing backstory and a certain melancholic atmosphere in a surprisingly effective way. The narrative high-point of the series is unquestionably the (otherwise awful) Windows port of W7, which added generous amounts of solid voice acting.

On the "leaving a lot to the imagination" point, for those who haven't read it there's an interesting article over at Armchair Empire on Wizardry's story-telling (or lack thereof):
http://www.armchairempire.com/Features/story-telling-games.htm
 
Kids? Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I read this. By 1981, I was long out of school, but much too poor to buy computers.

And computers in HIGH SCHOOL??? Even in college, we had only manual typewriters. I eventually took one computer programming course, and it was Fortran on a mainframe, with punch cards and everything. Heh, heh.

Except for computer kits and other toys, I didn't get my first computer until 1986 (a PC clone with no hard drive, just 5 1/4" floppies). So I missed out on the really early games. But I've made up for it since then!
 
You had punch cards? Why, back in my day computer science was taught on caluclators. :)

I bought Wizardry 1 for my Apple ][ when it came out, and spent quite a few late nights mapping the dungeons.

Anyone besides me regularly pull chips and cards from their Apple ][ and clean the contacts with a pink pearl eraser when it started acting up?
 
"...spent quite a few late nights mapping the dungeons."

Part of the fun of those old games was grabbing some graph paper and mapping all the details -- the hidden doors, the one-way doors, pits, shops, etc. And taking careful notes about locations and quests was essential too -- no automagic quest tracking back then.

I suppose that the auto-mapping and auto-quest tracking are necessary in modern games -- few are willing to spend the time doing that sort of thing anymore.

But I think something has been lost along the way -- part of the fun of exploration (for me at least) was in drawing out the maps and taking the notes...
 
I bought a copy of Wizardry on eBay, just so I could have it on my shelf. (The three-pack, in fact, of Wizardry 1-3.)

On the subject of auto-mapping, I agree that part of the fun of these old games was discovering things for yourself, rather than having it laid out for you.

Of course, the reason most games lacked an automap wasn't a concious design decision, but one of practicality. The low memory footprint meant that any kind of "extra" feature that was too much trouble to do would get cut.

I think that's part of the reason a retro-game designer like myself likes scratching that itch so much is because the limitations of such platforms really help you hone down what's IMPORTANT. In the big systems of the modern era, the canvas is just too big, and you may end up destroying the game play through feature creep.
 
@Adamantyr: "...the limitations of such platforms really help you hone down what's IMPORTANT. In the big systems of the modern era, the canvas is just too big, and you may end up destroying the game play through feature creep."

Agreed!
 
I enjoyed graphing dungeons back then, too, but I don't think I could do that these days. It's really hard to give up conveniences, once you get used to them.

The fact is, much as I loved the old games, I can't play most of them today. We've moved on. And we have seen interface improvements, even if the stories are no better (or even worse). I used to buy a lot more games than I do now, but I don't think my standards were as high back then. I didn't expect as much.

I remember Devil Whiskey, which was an homage to the old Bard's Tale games. But it was too much like Bard's Tale, in some of the worst ways. We can do better than that these days, and we should have learned enough (not to mention that we have the technology) to avoid the old mistakes.
 
Another thought...

Old school gaming is different in one particular aspect that's very important... the focus is on the player accomplishing things, not the character.

What do I mean? Well, old school tabletop gaming, there wasn't skills to "check for traps". The player had to actually describe what he was looking for. In other words, he wasn't relying on game mechanics to determine the outcome, it came down to his own wit and cunning to solve problems.

So old games didn't provide auto-mapping or other convenient features because not only did they not have the memory for it, it was seen as a weakness. Does the DM just hand a map to the players showing where they've been? Heck no. If they didn't map and got lost, tough luck.

I'm not sure if going back to the old days is viable myself... games should be fun, and I like challenge, but I can do without the jerks, in a computer game or outside of one.
 
I really don't miss the manual mapping. Though I admit it did have its charms.

Adamantyr, that's an interesting point, one that I've pondered a few times myself. In some ways, that's my argument in favor of turn-based combat: It typically emphasizes the need for skill and tactics over just raw character stats for victory. Though I guess the action-RPGs might test a player's speed and accuracy.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger