Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Game Design Essentials: 20 RPGs

July 2, 2009 Article Start Page 1 of 22 Next
 

[In the latest in his popular Game Design Essentials series, which has previously spanned subjects from Atari games through 'mysterious games', 'open world games', 'unusual control schemes' and 'difficult games', writer John Harris examines 10 games from the Western computer RPG (CRPG) tradition and 10 from the Japanese console RPG (JRPG) tradition, to figure out what exactly makes them tick -- and why you should care.]

Introduction: (Original) Dungeons & Dragons

Designed by: Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson

Influenced by: Braunstein, a game that Dave Arneson is known to have played, predated D&D. There were also weird fiction and pulp fantasy stories and tabletop war games dating back to H.G. Wells' floor game Little Wars.

Series: No less than seven editions and many side-products. Not to mention all the CRPGs that claim to be derived from its rules. Also, those CRPGs that steal mechanics from it without attributing them.

Legacy: Nearly all RPGs.

Although it's not a CRPG, let's begin with a discussion of the original role-playing game, the edition of Dungeons & Dragons that started the role-playing game craze in 1974. It might not seem relevant to the discussion, but there are some things about the RPG genre that only really make sense when viewed in comparison with this particular game.

It may not actually have been the first role-playing game; word is that Dave Arneson participated in another game prior to its release. But D&D 1974, referred to among fans on the 'net as "OD&D," was the introduction of RPGs to practically everyone else.

First: the term "role-playing game," it seems, was not used in the original set. A search through the books and supplements of the OD&D game show a good number of uses of the word "role," as a general term for a character played by either a player or the referee, but none for "role-playing game." Neither is it used in any of the supplements.

The earliest published use seems to be either the Holmes version of the game, which slightly predates AD&D, or the last issue of TSR's early publication The Strategic Review, where it's used in describing their shiny upcoming magazine The Dragon. Until then, it seems there may have been no good name for what Dungeons & Dragons was.

This is important because "role-playing game" is one of those terms that is proscriptive in its use. It implies that players, to an extent, personify their characters. D&D arose out of a marriage between wargaming and fantasy fiction, so narrative is in its blood, but early on the most frequent type of adventure was a simple free-form dungeon crawl. If you count OD&D as a role-playing game, then you necessarily have to admit that RPGs don't have to be games of storytelling, or at least not games of "top-down," DM-driven storytelling. (RPGs have always been games of what we might call "storywriting".)

In this sense computer versions have more in common with early social roleplaying sessions than later ones. Few people play CRPGs with an eye towards acting out their characters' roles.

Second thing, the game was hard. Really hard! Characters dropped like flies! Only a small percentage of characters would ever reach level two. That might seem harsh, because it was, but it didn't chase players off because people didn't identify as strongly with characters. One tends not to get attached to characters who stand a good chance of not making it out of their first trip into the dungeon. Without storytelling, and with the game's much-simpler system -- compared, even, to AD&D 1st edition, which is not really all that dissimilar to OD&D with all the supplements applied.

This is important because many early CRPGs, and even some early JRPGs, took a similar attitude to character death. The Wizardry-influenced style of game makes death common, especially at low levels. Wizardry charges a good deal to revive a dead character, the process has a good chance of failing, and if it does it costs even more to try to revive the pile of ashes the corpse becomes. The roguelike genre continues to hold up the tradition to this day.

Third thing, the game had a strong setting and a reduced scope. OD&D is a game about exploring dungeons, and other dangerous places, and that's mostly it. High-level characters may get the opportunity to start their own little fortress or tower, but with level nine, "name level," so far away and the game so deadly, this isn't something a player can do more than hope to reach. Because dungeon exploring is ultimately a loot-harvesting game, and treasure can be obtained in ways other than fighting, characters gained one experience point per gold piece acquired. This knowledge can seem surprising to us computer gamers today, as nearly every CRPG that uses an experience system anymore doles it for fighting alone.

The XP-for-gold rule implies strongly that the DM must carefully guard his riches and not hand out gold on a whim. This need led, at times, to a kind of DM vs. players rivalry. If a DMs failed to realize this they could end up subtly nudged towards giving out extra wealth, leading to what became known as "Monty Haul" campaigns, with vast amounts of treasure distributed for little work. Second edition remedied this by switching to all combat-based experience, offering treasure XP as an option, as well as XP for completing quests.

Handing out experience points for collecting gold fits in with the '20s and '30s pulp fantasy works that inspired the game, which are fairly gritty tales with heroes are mostly in it for personal enrichment. Characters in pulp fantasy are, by D&D standards, fairly weak. Even the most powerful ones, like Conan, face significant danger from some angle or another, in his case from magic and gods. OD&D characters are never completely safe, at least not if the DM is competent.

So, why is this important? Because this attitude, that role playing is a game of loot acquisition first, is everywhere in early computer RPGs. Even those with strong save-the-world quests have a lot of loot gaining along the way. It also explains those "strange" games, like PLATO dnd, that allow characters experience, or even direct improvement, for the simple act of money-harvesting.

Fourth thing: OD&D did not include a mandatory combat system. The first books referred players to Chainmail, a prior game of Gygax's, for ideas for how to resolve battles. It had a section marked "Alternate Combat System" that would later become the standard combat mechanism D&D would use for years, but Chainmail was the official solution, and besides its use of armor class and hit points, its rules were quite different from what is now seen as standard D&D combat.

This is important because it shows is that combat play, ultimately, was not considered the defining aspect of the game. It was a replaceable system. When played with Chainmail, D&D looks a lot like a special form of wargame campaign. This may well be a contributing factor to the strong split between "exploration mode" and "combat mode" that many RPGs use to this day. OD&D didn't get the system that would ultimately become the combat method used in AD&D 1st edition, and later mutated into the "d20 System," until the first supplement, under the heading "ALTERNATIVE COMBAT SYSTEM."

Related to this is the fifth thing, and perhaps the most important of all: OD&D was poorly explained. It is impossible to play Original Dungeons & Dragons with just the first three rule books, and even the supplements left important things out. Gygax and Arneson wrote for a presumed audience of wargamers. It still managed to become popular because the game primarily spread by word-of-mouth. People didn't learn from reading the books; they learned from other people, and thus the rules of the game followed the principles of oral tradition, with the rules used as reference.

This is important because it let a hundred rulesets thrive. Different regions tended to play the game in different ways. When more rigorous rules were written, some people decided they liked their old system better and invented competing RPGs, codifying those rules, to compete with D&D. It is this very proliferation of rules that produced the wide variety of games and approaches among early CRPGs.

I am not trying to argue that the game was better or worse than present-day RPGs. It is not hard, really, to find people who would say otherwise; there is a burgeoning field of "retro-clone" RPGs out there whose purpose is to make games very much like those old systems. But the original game of Dungeons & Dragons was surprisingly different from what we remember today, and it turns out that many of the oddnesses of RPG gaming, some persisting right up to the present, have their roots in its evolution.

Some of the ideas for this introduction came from the following blogs:

- Delta's D&D Hotspot
- Jeff's Gameblog
- I Waste the Buddha With My Crossbow
- RetroRoleplaying
- Lamentations of the Flame Princess
- Grognardia
- Always Go Right


Article Start Page 1 of 22 Next

Related Jobs

DeNA Studios Canada
DeNA Studios Canada — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[10.22.14]

Analytical Game Designer
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson, Texas, United States
[10.22.14]

Assistant/Associate Prof of Game Studies
Avalanche Studios
Avalanche Studios — New York, New York, United States
[10.22.14]

UI Artist/Designer
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — ORLANDO, Florida, United States
[10.22.14]

Game Designer






Comments


Tom Newman
profile image
Great article! I'm glad to see Nippon Ichi and Warcraft get their due. Warcraft is often overlooked because it is both current, and it seems like it is trendy to rag on WoW. NIS games get overlooked mainly due to their lack of exposure.



I do feel that Western rpgs carried a bit more weight in the early days. Only going by my personal memories, Steve Jackson's Car Wars was HUGE amongst my peers (maybe it's because I'm from Detroit), and the other TSR boxed rpgs like Star Frontiers and Marvel Super Heros were pretty popular as well in the early 1980's, even though their influence is not as obvious as D&D.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Bruno Bulhoes
profile image
Not seeing the Shin Megami Tensei series being cited makes me sad. But good article nevertheless.

Tom Ammon
profile image
Um. Minor correction here, but Second Edition was *not* what was used for the Gold Box games; you were hip deep in a stripped down version of First edition AD&D. 2nd Ed hadn't even come out by the time of Pool of Radiance, and wasn't truly used in a game until Baldur's Gate. For further proof, realize that the main villain of PoR was a demon, a particular lower planes denizen which the holier-than-thou people that bought TSR removed from AD&D2, for quite a while.



Sorry about that, but your research doesn't hold up to reality.

Tom Ammon
profile image
Also, non-weapon proficiences are 1st edition, expanded greatly in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide; etc, etc.

Simon Carless
profile image
Thanks, Tom A. - we figure with such a massive article, despite our best efforts, there may be some minor factual snafus, we'll be updating the piece in the near future to reflect your notes.

Roberto Alfonso
profile image
Excellent article. It would be interesting to have a side by side comparison between western and Japanese games, to easily notice how one game in either side could influence the other branch.



"I make no secret the fact that I consider this one of the most pernicious aspects of CRPG gaming, that permanent disadvantages acquired during the course of play cannot be used by a designer because the player will simply load back to the time before the disadvantage occurred. "



I doubt many players indeed keep their own characters dead, and the fact that you can save and restore easily in Wizard-like games makes that pretty improbable. Games like Etrian Odyssey let you retire a character in exchange of another with a bigger level cap, which could be counted as "permanent death". Even in games where characters aged and died (Rise of the Phoenix, a strategy game for SNES, for example) I would usually reset and try again until none died at year's end.



A pity MUDs are not mentioned (not even as World of Warcraft predecessor).

Darren Tomlyn
profile image
I found this article quite informative, thank you. I've been working on a paper about CRPG's for a while now - (I admit it took me a while to fully understand exactly what it was I was looking at - (it's made it much easier to describe and write about)) - but since my paper is about what RPG's are NOW, and what they should be able to become in the future, most of what you've written doesn't really have much significance for the paper I'm writing - except that is for one paragraph:



"The leeching-off of RPG elements into the greater field of video games has helped to encourage a strange definition of terms: because so many games could be considered role-playing games now, the CRPG genre is now being defined by those elements that other genres are least likely to steal."



I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement. The reason for this, is that what defines an CRPG NOW, is actually something rather specific, even if the industry as a whole hasn't fully realised it:



I as a consumer and a player, along with many others I know, and some of the websites which are involved as much with the players as-well as the industry, have reached a consensus about what an CRPG actually is, today. The only real problem I've found, is that a lot of people have trouble truly understanding what that consensus is, what it represents, and it's ramifications for computer games in general. In fact, such has been some of the discussions and arguments I've been part of, that essentially the whole of the introduction I'm currently writing for my paper, is taken up precisely with just this one issue, because I think it's that important for people to understand. After all, you can't have a paper discussing CRPG's without people fully understanding what an CRPG actually is, right now.



The fact is, is that most of what made CRPG's what they were, isn't really all that important in the overall field of computer games. What's happened is that we've since focused on what IS important, and started to distil it down to the fundamentals. Or at least tried to. Like I said, I've had quite a few arguments and disagreements along the way. However, at the end of all that, I feel I now fully understand what it is we're dealing with, which is where my paper comes in.



I'm still currently writing, (and re-writing!) the introduction, precisely for this reason, but am unsure of what I should do with is when I've finished, (since I feel the introduction should stand on it's own quite well, even if it is just the first part of a much longer paper). I'd like to submit it to Gamasutra (when done), but am unsure as to how?

Bevan Bennett
profile image
An excellent and well articulated article. I am a little disappointed that the addendum doesn't make note of "Darklands", which was a truly notable game not merely for it's open world, reputation tracking, complexity of skill systems, story and believably historical setting, but for it's ridiculously wonderful character creation system that echoed that of Traveller in both in that it was fun in it's own right (Many people would roll up Traveller characters for fun, but never actually play the game with them) and that you could push things too far and end up crippling or killing your character *before you even started the actual game*.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darklands_(video_game)

Robert Boyd
profile image
Excellent article, but I would have removed Mother & the miscellaneous 16-bit Square pages in favor of the Phantasy Star series & Shin Megami Tensei series, both of which did a number of revolutionary things in terms of both story & gameplay and were highly influential on other games. To name a few things:



Phantasy Star series - one of the first RPGs with parties made of defined story characters, one of the first games with a female protagonist, sci-fi/fantasy hybrid back when most games were high fantasy, generation system with branching story paths based on marriage, death of the female lead way before FF7 did it, comic book style cutscene predating CD cutscenes.



Shin Megami Tensei series - recruit monsters on your team long before Pokemon did it, modern/occult/cyberpunk/post-apoc settings, stories & characters based on world mythologies, multiple storyline paths, mix of life sim elements in later games (Persona 3/4).

John Mawhorter
profile image
Now if someone could write one up for each of the other genres that'd be nice (though perhaps more difficult). Beat-Em-Ups, First Person Shooters, SHMUPs, Platformers, etc. These are the kinds of guides that are useful to game designers who either don't have the time to play everything or need some idea of what to play.

John Harris
profile image
I did not know that about 1st Edition AD&D's use in the early Gold Box games. I didn't even consider checking; it was an assumption on my part. I think the assumption came from how the box artwork on the games, which looks 2nd-ish. Now that I know, I can only say that I consider them to be even -more- awesome.



Shin Megami Tensei: Honestly? It's a series I don't yet feel qualified to write about. There's so MUCH there, much of it in languages other than Japanese, and I try not to write on something unless I've had at least some personal experience playing it.



I've said in the past that these lists are not consider to be the 20 "most" anything, they're here to provide background for modern game designers, and to illustrate particularly useful design examples. I stand by that, although I'll admit a couple of the games this time kind of got away from that. If you want more info on these games, the best source on them (and indeed, many other games) that I've found is Hardcore Gaming 101. Go there. Read. I sincerely doubt you'll be disappointed.



But yes, it is true, it predates Pokemon, which I pieced together after I turned in the article. I'll see about correcting that soon.



Phantasy Star: Oh, I dearly wanted to write about the classic Phantasy Star games this time. Maybe later.



Mother: The thing about Mother is that it's simultaneously utterly by-the-numbers Dragon Quest in a modern setting, and at the same times something unique and wonderful, especially starting with Mother 2/Earthbound.



Darklands: It's another case of not having gotten around to playing it yet, which is a form of research that cannot always be completed in a timely manner, and not just because of matters of play time. I'm sure I'll be writing about it eventually in some form. (And I've just started looking into Traveller on my own....)



To Darren Tomlyn: It sounds like it could be an interesting paper! Whether Gamasutra picks it up or not, I'd like to read it when it's done, if it's okay with you.



To Roberto Alfonso: Actually, it's a funny thing. Wizardry (and Bard's Tale too, I seem to remember) are special in that they DON'T allow you to return to old saves. If a character is lost forever ("buried"), it's impossible to restore using in-game means. And if you turn off your computer to avoid a battle, when you return to the game you'll find your party is still in the dungeon, and you'll have to "restart an out party".



On players not being willing to suffer with permanent character death, this is one of those things where, ultimately, it is up to the designer. I myself respect a game with permanent death if the game is designed taking it into account (and that *doesn't* mean the game has to be any easier), but I understand that there are players who don't think about it that way. But that is the thing: designing a game around the idea of permanent death and endless reloading produces entirely different kinds of games, and since the latter is 99% of RPGs it means a great swath of RPG design space is being left farrow. To extend the metaphor, it is time, I believe, that the plow is taken up once more.



MUDs: I agree it's an absence, but with only 10 games to cover in each category there were unavoidable exclusions.



Tom Newman: It sounds like I would have liked your gaming circle.

Simon Christensen
profile image
It's probably not fair to say that Tales has no legacy. At the very least, they're the basis for the Star Ocean series - after finishing Tales of Phantasia (the first Tales game) just about the entire design team left and formed Tri-Ace to create the first Star Ocean. The two are very similar as a result. There's probably a fair argument for Tales having influenced the Grandia series too.

ray G
profile image
Wow, none of the Phantasy Stars are up there? really??

Truly and always one of the MOST innovative made JRPG

titles in Japan.

Dave Endresak
profile image
This is a decent summary; I sent it to my professor.



However, you didn't cover either Ys or Phantasy Star. These two franchises were far more influential to Japanese RPGs than Final Fantasy was when all of them first began 20+ years ago. That's why they continue to be rereleased, followed, and mimiced to this day. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Final Fantasy was not that popular compared to Ys or Phantasy Star. Frankly, I'd prefer that it had stayed that way because I think that both Ys and Phantasy Star (especially Ys I&II and the original Phantasy Star I&II) are far superior RPGs, including offering strong heroines as both PCs and NPCs, as well as (for Phantasy Star) offering a hybrid fantasy/sci-fi setting, a theme I used for my own campaign worlds (I combined AD&D and TSR's Gamma World rule set, and got the idea from Terry Brooks' "Sword of Shannara").



One other point that's probably worth repeating (and that I've said several times elsewhere) is that WoW is not that huge when you consider the actual global market. 11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II, for example, and it isn't that much more successful than Guild Wars' 6 million accounts (especially since GW doesn't charge a monthly subscription). Blizzard has succeeded in making people think that their game is the standard, but in fact it is just one fish in a very large pond, and there are other offerings that have far larger user bases.

Joshua McDonald
profile image
"Wizardry (and Bard's Tale too, I seem to remember) are special in that they DON'T allow you to return to old saves."



Bard's Tale II lets you return to old saves. That's the only one I've played extensively or recently, though, so I can't comment on any others.





"11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II"





All of these need to be considered in the appropriate context, though. 11 million is "Current paying subscribers" for WoW. How many of Maple Story's players still play, ever played for a significant period of time, or ever paid any money? Their 70 million would have to be compared to the total number of accounts ever created on WoW (including trial accounts) which may compete with or even surpass it.



Likewise, from all of my research, Lineage II's 17 million is the total number of accounts ever created (I don't think it ever exceeded 3-4 million concurrent users). My main source was mmocharts.com, which appears to be defunct, so I'd like a current source on this. I think that the lineage series overall has made more money that WoW, but I don't think it ever matched its subscriber numbers except during WoW's first year, which means that WoW will shortly overtake it in total profit if it hasn't already..



Likewise, Guild Wars 6 million is total number of box sales (including their 2 expansions). WoW's total sales of original game and expansions are WAY more than that.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Arthur Payne
profile image
That article was fantastic, though given your obvious love of Wizardry and games like it, I'm surprised you didn't mention the Megaten series of JRPGs even in your Addendum. If by chance you have missed them, I highly reccomend the games to you. I believe they inspired Pokemon far more than Dragon Quest, and quite a few other games as well.



In any regard, this was a good read, as were your previous articles which I reviewed prior to reading this article. Thank you for publishing them!

Dave Endresak
profile image
@Joshua:



There are two points that I was making that seemed to be missing in your reply. The first point is that these companies state their own numbers rather than being tracked by any sort of independent organization; therefore, we must go with what they report regardless of who the company is. Blizzard's statements are no more valid than NCSoft or any other company. We certainly cannot take the reports of one of many miscellaneous sites as having higher validity as a reference than the actual companies who offer the numbers in the first place. The second point is that gaming is a global medium, not national or local. WoW is big in the English market largely due to Blizzard's hype and promotion, but that's about all that can be said for it. Ten years ago, Everquest was the biggest in the English market, but the same observations still applied (many people did not play even amongst hardcore RPG gamers, etc). Many people do not play WoW, particularly in other countries where other tastes in styles and mechanics are preferred. In a reply in another article, one person here (I think it was Tommy) stated something to the effect that, "anyone who wants to play an MMORPG has chosen WoW." Obviously, this is an inaccurate statement and rather misleading about the nature of the overall global market for MMORPGs. The same thing happens with other types of games and genres, so it's not too surprising, but we should be more critical (and inclusive) when we report about the industry as a whole.



As I said, WoW is merely one fish in a very big sea, and it is not the largest fish as far as users if the entire global market is considered. People tend to think of their own standards as being universal, but that's usually not the case when the bigger picture is considered. In fact, much of research is inherently ethnocentric due to language barriers and basic business competition (companies not allowing independent tracking, for example).

Jhypsy Shah
profile image
I would say nice article but.. that's a book, hehe. I've played alot of these games years ago on a commodore 64/128. I've played thousands of others, some more recently on a MAME with 7k+ games. I must have missed mention of MUDs..that's a shame, I was always fond of them.

Joshua McDonald
profile image
@Dave:

Where did I say that the numbers coming from the companies weren't accurate? I said that the numbers from the companies refer to different things. The number of people who have ever created a free Maple Story account compared directly to the number of CURRENTLY PAYING WoW subscribers does not tell you which game is bigger, more popular, more profitable, etc.



Until a company other than WoW gives a number that can be reasonably compared, I'm going to assume that WoW is, in fact, the biggest fish in the ocean, if for no other reason because no other company will actually tell us useful numbers. They inflate them by keeping the terms vague (which means that they probably refer to every account ever created, since that's a valid interpretation of their words).





That being said, I do think that you have a valid point that people in U.S. focus too much on WoW and fail to realize the size and popularity of other MMO's. I just think that you need to consider exactly what the numbers that you read refer to instead of linearly comparing the largest number you hear from each company.

Amber Viescas
profile image
Not bad. It's clear you know a lot about Western RPGs, but I think you should have restricted your already sprawling article to them; it would have allowed for more substance there, and there is quite a bit missing from the JRPG section.



I'm repeating things here, but Megaten and Phantasy Star are the most obvious omissions (Nowadays there are LOTS of Megaten games over here too). There's also Crystalis (serving as a connection between Zelda and other action RPGs such as Seiken Densetsu and the Soul Blazer series), Star Ocean (as part of the Tales legacy) and Castlevania (which dovetails with Tales series, especially the recent ones). In addition to Shining Force, Fire Emblem also inspired the Super Robot Wars series. And I'm not a JRPG expert; I'm sure I'm missing a lot more.



Given your desire to emphasize the "RP" portion of "RPG", I'm also surprised you didn't even give a nod to RPG "morality systems," the duality of which mostly derives from the early DnD "Law/Chaos" system, either directly (Ogre Battle, Megaten, and Baldur's Gate), or indirectly (KotoR)

Daniel Biesiada
profile image
Nice article although not complete and not accurate in many places.



What I miss is aggregation of decade long leaders and leaders thought for what they defined as RPG game.

That could be nice to build conclusion to where are we going.



Especially in times where lider of the Millenian period - Bioware - now is as gigantic and strong as SSI was a decade earlier, simiar thing is with a monolith long-living Bethesda which evolved even from the past times many companies and product lines didn't survive. From the other hand RPG still bring new players with innovative ideas not afraid that rpg is one of the hardest video game to produce.



This way of thinking can be helpful to make "RPG 101 - how not to fail for the future".



Anyway, Albion was a PC game made by ex-Thelion programmers who made game of the era for Amiga called "Ambermoon". I presume you thought on about that title when thinking Amiga. Nevertheless both Albion and Ambermoon are games which sentimental rpg-gamer can come back playing even now (if possible).



Another really cool example of Wizardrish/M&M mixed gameplay is Ishar serie. Many players also remember that one very well

Kumar Daryanani
profile image
Very good article, although as has been said, the lack of Phantasy Star, Persona/Megaten, Front Mission, and others is noted.



@Dave: I think you have things back-to-front, as regards WoW and Guild Wars. Guild Wars, with 6 million accounts, but no subscription, is nowhere near as successful, financially, as WoW with 11 million accounts all paying a subscription fee / pay to play plan. I do agree that WoW is just one fish in the pond, but to run with the analogy, it's actually a Kraken with a thousand tentacles, right now.

Troy Lonergan
profile image
I'm very surprised I couldn't see a mention of Breath of Fire series. The 3rd is a wonderful little game, with some great characters and a cracking story.

Nice to see at least one nod to Azure Dreams though, that was fantastic.

Joe Walker
profile image
Mr. Harris,



Excellent article among your many. Like many posters, I would have loved to see some mention of my pet game. In this case, the fantastic, yet incomplete Alternate Reality series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_(video_game_series)



Surely you would have seen this in the C64/128 release lineup?

Adam Sims
profile image
There is no doubt that many mistakes made in modern day CRPGs are repeats of mistakes already made in the pen and paper roleplay arena and other alternative forms of gaming.



The issue I see in my dealings with games producers is the lack of respect and value producers see in forms of gaming such as pen and paper roleplay, and often disregard it.



Its a shame, but in many causes appears to be the reality and achilles heell of some development studios today.

Joshua Kahelin
profile image
Darklands is a significant omission. Especially as a influence to the Baldur's Gate series. The Bioware doctors themselves have mentioned it as a direct influence. Specifically the "real-time with pause" style combat.

Paopao Saul
profile image
Very nice article. I guess you had to pick the 20 from the ones you were familiar with. With that said, the Realms of Arkania series is a notable omission, as its one of the deepest old school RPG series out there. Also, ff tactics had a lot more in common with the front mission series. It would also be nice if the list wasn't constrained to US/UK,JP developed RPGs, as well as more board games. To reiterate though, very nice read!

Mike Carrico
profile image
This was a great article! Just a side note though, on Page 22 Additional Games, you mention Dungeon Master was made for Amiga, PC, and SNES. You forgot to mention in that list that Dungeon Master was also made for the Atari ST. Other than that, the article was very complete.

Edward Williams
profile image
I completely agree with you, Mr. Harris, on Skies of Arcadia, and I'm glad it got a mention! The only real problem with it was the horrendous load time between world and battle. Aside from that, it was easily my favorite JRPG.



Fantastic article! It introduced me to a world of RPGs (from both sides) that I had not even heard of. Time to start exploring :-)



E.A.W.

Marc Cram
profile image
One the Gold Box games .. it was really Lewis Castle of Westwood Associates that was a key designer of the all of the games.


none
 
Comment: