Tales of the Rampant Coyote
Adventures in Indie Gaming!


(  RSS Feed! | Games! | Forums! )

Tuesday, December 29, 2009
 
Seven Things About Old School CRPGs That Really Annoy Me - Except When They Don't
So here we go with another article wherein the Rampant Coyote bellyaches about stuff other players consider sacred!

I've spent a bit of time this year engaging in some glorious retro-gaming of older computer (and console) RPGs. We'll call it, uh, research. For Frayed Knights. Yeah, research, that's the ticket. Some of these games I've played before, but others are new to me (except for hearing and reading about them for years, now).

I don't know how hard it would be for someone who never grew up with and experienced these kinds of older-vintage games to appreciate them. As for me - I remember when these games were of sufficiently modern technology (very few RPGs actually pushed the ol' tech envelope) that they didn't seem in any way lacking. But even for me, going back takes a bit of getting used to. The first hour or two is always a little bit painful. And then, after growing comfortable with the rules and interface (almost always a challenge, especially with RPGs), my imagination starts filling in where the graphics and sound might be missing - as it always did. I then find myself transported to a fictional world, and actually having fun and enjoying myself.

I love these games. Still. There's a lot to like. And I've talked about what made 'em awesome in other articles.

But there are a few things about these old-school games that I never really appreciated back in the day, and absence has not made my heart grow fonder. I don't miss 'em. Usually. Except when I do.

1. Mandatory Food (or other daily maintenance costs)
Ah, food - the great money sink. While it might be somewhat challenging at lower level when money is scarce, it's merely an annoyance at higher levels. And it grows to be a big annoyance over time. Let's just assume that --- like having to excrete wastes as well --- eating is just something that happens "behind the scenes," okay? Unless it's something special - like having a feast with the king or eating an enchanted apple - I don't want to worry about it. I don't want to pay a tax on staying alive.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I will anyway - non-mandatory food (where, for example, an apple gives you a slight health boost) is fine.

Exceptions: If it's a "survival fantasy" kind of game - like Ultima Underworld or Arx Fatalis, where food is not something taken for granted by anyone - then the above doesn't apply. I actually enjoy the verisimilitude. It's no longer an annoyance, but a key part of the narrative. (Hah! I caught a fish!)

Strangely, the cost of staying at an inn (which is functionally equivalent) usually doesn't bug me - especially if there is a "free" alternative somewhere in the game that I can return to if I'm feeling particularly skinflint-y.

2. Time Limits to Failure
One can easily gripe (and I have, too, at times) about how unbelievable it is that the entire world - including the evil overlord's plans - are put on hold to match the player's schedule. But efforts to address this issue are, generally, way more annoying than the problem. The stress of worrying about the passage of time in my explorations, and second-guess when I might have taken too long, isn't much fun. And having characters age and grow weaker in their career? No, thanks - it always felt like an arbitrary rule to make another arbitrary rule more frustrating. Fortunately, games featuring this particular problem have always been rare.

Exceptions: Although I didn't actually enjoy it, Fallout handled the time limit for the main quest quite well, by putting it very much front-and-center throughout the game. So at least you never had to second-guess the problem. That made it considerably less annoying, and it seemed - well, okay. And different. So it gets a pass.

One place where I really liked the time limit problem was in Depths of Peril - but the entire quest system was pretty organic and you knew (at least after the first play-through) that the gameworld events and quests were going to evolve. It behaved predictably, and thus became enjoyable.

3. Mazes
I have already ranted about these. And no, I was never talking about old fake 3D tile-based games, which were inherently maze-like (though most games at least tried to minimize the maze-like feel where technology allowed - except in maze-like areas...).

Exceptions: While mazes are generally 20% cool to 80% suck, I believe that ratio is manageable - as I stated in the linked article. And I've played some games where the mazes weren't too bad. They just don't come to mind right now. Instead I feel this ancient hatred towards Final Fantasy X's temple / maze puzzles, particularly in the late game, though I barely remember them now...

4. Paying a Big Chunk of Cash To Level Up
This one annoyed me in pen-and-paper AD&D, and we always ignored that rule. It's just another one of those money-sink, paying-tax-on-staying alive things. I guess it's because I always felt like I was paying extra to obtain something I'd already earned. I didn't like seeing that rule carried over to my CRPGs (where I couldn't ignore it), either.

Exceptions: Paying money to gain new individual skills never really bugged me. And paying money to increase skills above and beyond the gains entitled to me by leveling up was never an issue. It's just the leveling-up maintenance fees that annoy me.

5. Running Into Level Caps Well Before Running Out of Game
I totally understand level caps. I don't have a problem with them - they are a necessary evil. In some of the older games, though, it was really easy to have a maxed-out character with more-or-less the best equipment available pretty early in the game. While there were undoubtedly good reasons for this, it makes the player feel penalized for taking the time out to explore and sub-quest and battle through every nook and cranny. Though it's not a competitive game, I still don't want the Harrison Bergeroned to the level of a guy who beelined it with a walkthrough in the final encounter.

Exceptions: This assumes "reasonable" play. If somebody chooses to spend most of the game grinding in random encounter areas to max out their level practically before concluding the tutorial, that's their own call.

6. Tiny Character Name Limits
Limiting a character name to four, six, or eight characters was pretty uncalled for even in the 8-bit days (particularly on the PC). Why did a character name have to be the same as a saved-game name, anyway? Sheesh.

Exceptions: There are no exceptions, says Ninglaetori the Mysterious.

7. Encumbrance
Okay, this never really bugged me a lot, but it was a minor irritation at times that I don't really miss. I mean, yeah, I know how much a suit of plate mail weighs (having worn some in real life), and I fully recognize that a normal human really isn't going anywhere with six suits of plate mail stuffed down his pack. Assuming it was even physically possible to stuff seven suits of plate mail into a pack, which boggles my imagination.

But in dice-and-paper games, the rules were really just there to prevent abuses or outright silliness (Gary Gygax himself admitted that he only used the encumbrance rules as a threat, not something they actually kept track of). It was also used as a challenge - such as trying to figure out how you are actually going to cart that dragon's horde out of its lair before dying of old age or having it all stolen before you were done. And where would you store it all?

But in the pen-and-paper games, you had a ton of options that didn't exist in CRPGs - such as obtaining a cart and / or mule, hirelings, burying or hiding some of the treasure, or even being able to drop said treasure without it instantly vanishing. Plus, the pen-and-paper games (particularly D&D) generally provided plentiful magical items aimed squarely at circumventing those restrictions (like Bags of Holding and Portable Holes) that didn't make their way into CRPGs. So you got some concrete limitations on something that felt like it was only an abstraction.

Plus, micro-managing weight-loads between party members was never that much fun.

So while it has never been a big deal, I'll generally chalk encumbrance in the negative (or at least neutral) column of features.

Exceptions: Again, survival-fantasy RPGs get a pass, here. Foraging, discarding, and generally making do is kind of the whole point. Similar games where you play a solo character, the "micromanagement" aspect can be part of the fun. If the game really does allow some reasonable level of non-abstract encumbrance mitigation and inventory management offered in a dice-and-paper RPG, then yeah - it can be interesting. But in general - hey, let's just assume I hire some porters, okay?

Summary

I think in all these cases, the exceptions are what is noteworthy. None of these elements are necessarily bad, or need to be annoying or grouse-worthy. Except the tiny name thing. Mmm-probably. But in many cases, these elements were dropped in for some reason ("to make it more realistic!", or "because that's how D&D does it" are the most likely reasons) other than really improving the game.

But it's not hard to envision a game where these same game elements are both important and fun. It's been done. They may still have a place in modern games. So game designers should be careful that they don't throw babies out with bathwater.

But when retro-gaming, I just have to learn to put up with 'em.

(UPDATE: Added "Summary" heading, elaborated a little bit on the Time-limit and encumbrance exceptions. I can't believe I missed my favorite indie RPG as a big ol' exception to the time-limit rant....)

Labels: ,



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

Comments:
I totally agree about name limits. It's one of the many reasons I didn't play Avernum 4. Suddenly we had a 12-character limit on names.

On an 8-bit PC or console, I can accept this due to memory and screen width limitations. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE on a modern PC, in any context, whatsoever.

I like your list because, for the most part, I've actually thought about and eliminated every grievance you make in my own vintage CRPG efforts.
 
I guess this is where I always fall on the "simulator" side of things. I enjoy the things you gripe about, well, except the name thing.

1. You need to eat. What you eat and how healthy you are determines what your options are. I like more options, so I like food & drink to be important. And no...when, where, and how you excrete your waste is important in real life...

2. Time limits to failure...no problem. As long as they fit the story and don't feel arbitrary. The world goes on, and things are time sensitive. Not just in the military, Time on Target can be very important...even in an RPG.

3. Mazes. Love them. Separate the wheat from the...well...you get the idea. Nope...not fun to get lost...which is the point isn't it?

4. Paying a big chunk to level up? Well...okay...I agree. You don't "level" up in real life. Things aren't like that. But you do have to pay for school...and training in most cases...so...same idea, just lame way of doing it.

5. Don't like levels. Don't like level caps. They don't really exist in real life. They are arbitrary definitions of experience so...don't like caps.

6. Tiny character names? Hate them. Hate the game deciding what I call my character or how many letters I get. But, it would be nice to be punished for being an idiot and calling yourself Hung Lo...

7. Love encumbrance. Also worn real plate. And fully military combat gear and a parachute and extra crap and jump from air planes. Encumbrance is the most important stat no one cares about. Why? It isn't fun. But hey...makes you think about things before you do them too... Both in the SCA and in the Army I learned to have a healthy respect for weight and how it affects you, tactically, operationally and strategically.

cl
 
LOL Chris - I am anxiously awaiting the RPG with the "poop" command... :)

I can definitely see an RPG (and would probably enjoy it) that was that hardcore on the detail. But it really depends on the focus. If just hauling your butt onto the field of battle without contracting disease or spraining your back is part of the challenge, fine. Hey, I used to enjoy playing Twilight: 2000 where keeping track of every bullet and kilo of fuel was critical. But for most RPGs, I really prefer to have those details abstracted out.
 
For fairness sake you'd also now have to make a topic with the title "Seven Things About New School CRPGs That Really Annoy Me"!
 
1. Because of the additional micro-management that food buying/eating/moving-around would add. That's also why staying at an inn for a price doesn't bother that much, because it's not micro-management.

2. Agree! Time limits are annoying. I want to enjoy and take my time for a game, not being hurried because the game designer has some masochistic tendencies.

3. Sometimes mazes can be fun but mentioning Final Fantasy brings back some uncomfortable memories about mazes, true!

4. Never really played any RPGs where I have to pay money to level up (except for one MMORPG) but I guess it shouldn't be necessary.

5. Agree! And what bothers me more is when a game has a max. character level as low as 20-something. How about 80 or 90 instead?!

6. Obviously. And this has been mainly a technical or a design limit (too few screen real-estate etc.)

7. Encumbrance annoys the hell out of me. Why? See above, point 1!
 
@sascha/hdrs - Okay, sounds like a challenge I'd enjoy taking.

It's a bit harder, because newer gen games tend to have all those roughest edges polished off. Unfortunately, the same process also makes them - sometimes - kinda... bland. So you end up not being so annoyed, but not falling in love, either.
 
From a RL perspective, Food is a driver, it stops the player from camping and grinding excessively.

My biggest pet peeve was Gold/Money. I don't think I've played a CRPG that ever took it seriously. At the start its scarce and by midgame your toting around a bazillion dollars, and the designers way around this is to charge a bazillion dollars for that next crappy sword. Nobody seems to know how to create a balanced economy (things like food, taxing to level up etc are ways around this but obviously bad design sometimes..)

I've put in a cuckoo of a maze, it gives out megabucks left and right, and at the end is a troll toll bridge who takes all your cash..
 
Great post! Yeah, some of these things sound like they should be fun, because they'd make the game more realistic. But almost inevitably, they just make the game more annoying, instead.

Food and encumbrance, especially. I keep thinking that I SHOULD like those features. Why wouldn't I? But it's never fun, and it's usually annoying.

BTW, you keep talking about survival RPGs - how about naming some? I saw the Robinson's Requiem Collection on gog.com, and the whole idea intrigues me. But those are very old games and probably wouldn't interest me long. Still, the idea sounds great.

I'd like to see a SF survival RPG - perhaps after a crash on an alien planet, where the whole point would be surviving (either until rescued or as a permanent, though unplanned, colony). Maybe an RPG with strategy elements? Lots of exploration? And maybe experimentation, research, discovery? Combat against wild animals, but only for defense and food? (Not combat for leveling up.)

Have there been any games like that?
 
@WCG It's a term I came up with a few years ago. Ultima Underworld or Arx Fatalis are the first ones that come to mind. It's a somewhat closed environment (but with some renewable resources... like fish). Where you sleep, what you eat, what you can carry are all pretty important decisions throughout the game. It's more of a low-fantasy thing, for obvious reasons, in spite of possibly epic plotlines.

I haven't played Robinson's Requiem either. Someday, maybe, if I get through this 3-year backlog of RPGs... But I think an SF-based survival RPG (with lots of inventing stuff from salvaged parts!) could be a lot of fun. You could argue that the Fallout games kinda sorta fit this mold, but they are open worlds, wide-open economies where civilization has returned (in some sense). So I don't put them in quite the same category.
 
@Stu - the thing with realistic economies is that, like many things, they sound like a lot more fun than they really are. But that doesn't stop me, as a simulationist-leaning coder, from wanting to attack the problem.

One core issue is the same reason communism fails - central market planning never works right. :) IMO, you'd have to have an organic, decentralized market-moving AI in the game that is providing constant simulated trade behind the scenes. Someone needs to be buying swords, food, potions, and whatever the player is selling, and needs to be responding to changes in the game world. And behave realistically. So you sell a whole bunch of plate mail to merchants. A few weeks later, you notice - strangely - that the local bandits are almost all wearing plate mail. They are buying it cheap in the marketplace. And armorsmiths are spending most of their time re-fitting old armor rather than making new stuff because a bunch of used stuff is flooding the market. Etc.

That's a complex simulation. It *could* be very cool, agreed. We actually have an idea for a game that would do something like that, but I don't know if / when it will be done.
 
Heh, that would be interesting. As players, we tend to assume that if we sold something to a merchant we can always buy it back later if we change our minds. The idea that the merchant already sold it to Bob the Bandit never crosses our minds -- much less the possibility that Bob will be kicking our ass with it at some point down the road. Powerful but unneeded items would pose a dilemma: sell for the cash and risk it falling back into the wrong hands, or keep while deriving no benefit.

As for ultra-realism in CRPGs, I offer up the original Realms of Arkania. I once lost a character traveling cross-country -- his boots wore out, I didn't have spares, he caught a disease, I didn't have the right medicine, and it killed him before I could make it back to civilization. It was certainly one of the most memorable character deaths I ever experienced; I'm still trying to decide whether it was actually fun.
 
"Instead I feel this ancient hatred towards Final Fantasy X's temple / maze puzzles, particularly in the late game"

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. There are exactly four things I remember about Final fantasy X:

1) The awesome opening sequence(s), especially when "Otherworld" is playing.

2) Since every single other character has a "home culture" of some kind, whether it's Tidus' Zanarkand or Wakka's blitzball buddies, I was waiting to run across a mage school for Lulu. But no, Lulu is the only Black Mage in the entire world. That wouldn't necessarily be strange, except that everyone else takes it for granted.

There's one person in the entire world that uses dolls as weapons, yet the weapon shops feel the need to keep dolls in stock. There's just one person in the world who can use electrical magic, yet everyone knows that machina are weak against electric spells. In FFX, Black Magic is rarer than summoning AND NO ONE THINKS IT'S WEIRD.

3) The awesome temple puzzles. Aside from playing with the sphere grid and planning characters' second and third career tracks, the temples were my favorite part of the game.

4) The finale, thanks in no small part to "Otherworld" being Ject's theme. Actually, I already mentioned Otherworld once, so:

Rikku. Every main character in FFX is like several other characters you've already seen, but Rikku is actually much more likable than Yuffie and definitely the most memorable character in the game.

Every single other thing about the game was forgettable. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I was disappointed in how little it bothered to distinguish itself from the rest of the series compared to, say, FF7 or FF12.

(Well, okay Lulu's costume is certainly the most memorable one in the series until you play FF12 and meet The Pirate Pinkpants (as I call him), but I'm not talking about the cosmetic parts.)

So that's my little rant.
 
"Limiting a character name to four, six, or eight characters was pretty uncalled for even in the 8-bit days (particularly on the PC)."

Until you remember that DOS only acknowledged 640 KILObytes of memory, more than half of which is taken up by DOS, until you played around with memory extenders. Not to mention that C-style strings (actually char arrays, because string objects weren't standard until 1998) were the standard and once upon a time 100 MEGAbyte hard drives were a huge luxury.

I'm just saying.
 
@The Mad Tinkerer - LOL! Yeah, can't afford to devote 1/10,000th of the memory to names... :)

I think that reason might actually fly on the really old games that had to run inside 24k or less... the old Apple, VIC-20, and Atari 400 / 800 games.

But I suspect screen real estate probably had a lot more to do with it than actual RAM or storage limitations. Things were rough back in the 320 x 200 days...

As to Final Fantasy X's puzzles - well, I guess to each their own. I didn't mind the early ones, but by the end I was getting very, very annoyed at them. I was dreading those puzzles. They weren't fun, and they weren't hard... just time-consuming.
 
On the hypothetical market-moving AI:

In X-COM I sold a ton of alien weapons, but never any ammo for them. And these weapons required Elerium 114 as ammo, a substance not naturally occurring on earth. For some reason people kept buying them, I guess we were always able to find someone that thought they could figure it out. And who buys so many alien corpses?

I think in XCOM: Apocalypse they introduced market forces to where the price would go down if you sold lots of items.

The problem I have with a it is just that it adds a bit of complexity, and complexity does not always equal fun or challenge.

Of course in either of these games money is something that matters and so that partialy solves the problem of too much money. Neither of them are RPGs, so the comparison is slightly off.
 
Mandatory food is annoyance. Instead, we need mandatory sex in RPG. I'd like to see RPG where the main character's intelligent stat decreases because he cannot think (as he is too horny) if he does not engage in sex activity for a period of time.
 
Uh, I think I'll let you write that one...
 
That was meant as a joke. I put in "< joke >" "< /joke >" as self-made tags, but it was lost during posting.
 
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger